The nothing to do with transgender thread

So transwomen are perfectly safe from sexual violence if you put them in men’s prisons then?
Who gives a fook - they are in prison, and prison is a harsh place! personally I think that if you don't want to abide by the laws of the country, you get put in prison as a last resort usually because you are a bit of a twat. If you can't do the time - don't do the crime. If a trans wants to be treated equally as the sex they are pretending to be - let them be treated equally - if you want to act like a man, take the same shit that men need to go through - prison included in that.
 

Mattb

LE
Who gives a fook - they are in prison, and prison is a harsh place! personally I think that if you don't want to abide by the laws of the country, you get put in prison as a last resort usually because you are a bit of a twat. If you can't do the time - don't do the crime. If a trans wants to be treated equally as the sex they are pretending to be - let them be treated equally - if you want to act like a man, take the same shit that men need to go through - prison included in that.
So what’s the problem with putting rapey male-types in women’s prisons then?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
So what’s the problem with putting rapey male-types in women’s prisons then?
Deliberately greater than ninety and less than one eighty.
 
Men aren't safe from sexual violence in men's prisons

Would they be safe from sexual violence in women's prisons if they self identified as a women

i.e. are bull dykes allowed strapons in prison?
 
Dear Auntie ARRSE,

For some time now my partner and I have been talking about having a tranny threesome. The other day we were involved in a multiple car accident on the M25. We both got pretty horny staring at the unconscious motorcyclist who was hanging through our windscreen, and decided to invite him back to our place for a hot raunchy time. Unfortunately by the time we'd gotten him into our boot and then back home he'd bled out, but all was not lost as I used my Adapt, Improvise, Overcome skills and dragged him down to the cellar for the Hidden Children to scoff on which saved on the Tesco bill. Can't win them all I suppose, live in hope though.

xxx Rose and Fred:heart:

fred-rose-west.jpg
 
Dear Auntie ARRSE,

For some time now my partner and I have been talking about having a tranny threesome. The other day we were involved in a multiple car accident on the M25. We both got pretty horny staring at the unconscious motorcyclist who was hanging through our windscreen, and decided to invite him back to our place for a hot raunchy time. Unfortunately by the time we'd gotten him into our boot and then back home he'd bled out, but all was not lost as I used my Adapt, Improvise, Overcome skills and dragged him down to the cellar for the Hidden Children to scoff on which saved on the Tesco bill. Can't win them all I suppose, live in hope though.

xxx Rose and Fred:heart:

View attachment 554958
1615044486393.png
Should have taken him to the doctor....
 

Mattb

LE
Would they be safe from sexual violence in women's prisons if they self identified as a women

i.e. are bull dykes allowed strapons in prison?
According to a documentary I saw, there are no bull-dykes in prison but they do have the full range of marital aids available.

I’m not 100% it was a documentary though come to think of it.
 
So what’s the problem with putting rapey male-types in women’s prisons then?
They already go to women's prisons. If they are twats when they get there - solitary for the entire sentence + 10 years added on to their current sentence + removal of their sexual organs. Same goes for the other way - a she/he or whatever they call themselves - I've no qualms on locking either types of trans types up. I'd give them a max sentence if I was a judge + plus it keeps them off the streets for a while longer so they can't commit any more crimes or annoy the rest of us with their constant whining.
 
Last edited:

Mattb

LE
They already go to women's prisons. If they are twats when they get there - solitary for the entire sentence + 10 years added on to their current sentence + removal of their sexual organs. Same goes for the other way - a she/he or whatever they call themselves - I've no qualms on locking either types of trans types up. I'd give them a max sentence if I was a judge + plus it keeps them off the streets for a while longer so they can't commit any more crimes or annoy the rest of us with their constant whining.
Which is probably why the chance of anyone trusting you with a position anywhere near as important as a judge is precisely ****-all.
 
Which is probably why the chance of anyone trusting you with a position anywhere near as important as a trolley mong at ASDA is precisely ****-all.
Edited for accuracy.
 
I have a few years experience of HMP, albeit some 15+ years old.
First. I assume you never had the experience of working in HMP Holloway? In my limited experience, there were quite a few (majority) of the "ladies" there who were mad, bad and dangerous.
Indirectly, being based at Abell Hse at the time.

Women aren't categorised as "A-D" risk as men are, they are in either in Restricted or Closed conditions, or Open when in the resettlement phase similar to men or for minor offences not involving an offence against the person. A very small number require additional measures (Michelle Dennehey, Rose West as 2 examples who were kept in male Cat A conditions until they system sorted out what to do with them). Holloway was one of 2 female prisons with a higher number of Restricted (the categorisation in female prisons tends to be about the regime rather than the physical difference and it is common to have women in both R and C conditions in the same establishment in the same way that A Prisons have B prisoners in the male estate as all of the Cat A's reside in the Close Supervision and Surveillance Unit separate from the B gen pop).

If Holloway had been a men's prison 80% of the population would have been over the wall in minutes, especially from the Health Unit at the back of the nick where the wall was only about 10 feet high with no secure inner line.

The interesting differences in male/female pops was that women had a greater propensity to self harm than men, were generally less violent towards staff and each other, and the incidents of self harm grew exponentially when the numbers on a wing grew beyond 30. The psychology of women in prisons is markedly different to men.
My experience regarding men who identify as women within the prison system again is limited; there weren't many of them in my time. I never met any that were sentenced for "sex" crimes.
I worked for a private provider a few years after leaving NOMS and went back into the world of prisons and there were a couple in our nicks on remand. One took to parading round in a glittery boob tube and hot pants (remands can wear their own clothes as they are not yet convicted where "prisoners" have to earn the privilige) but had no interest in the men in the prison (so not gay). This was a particularly violent individual who was in for attempted murder having stabbed someone multiple times and was linked to a number of violent attacks on women. On day 1 admitted to the 1st Night Unit as a man, within a week declaring himself to be a woman and demanding a transfer to a women's prison. HMPPS tied themselves up in politically correct knots trying to work out what to do until he strung himself up having got life at the end of the trial.

I will accept your assertion regarding "them" trying to f*"k the system though. Thing is, virtually every prisoner I had the privilege to meet in my 20 years had the same mind set.
Your post is an invalid generalisation; probably based on personal prejudice and assumption rather than empirical deduction.
Sorry, I didn't realise that having an opinion that differs from yours based on real life experience required a standard of academic study, evidence and peer review sufficient to be published as a doctoral thesis at a university of sufficient standing to satisfy your call to authority to be considered in any way valid. I'll remember that next time I'm posting in the NAAFI on ARRSE.
 
No, it's not, otherwise it would be biologically possible for one man to impregnate another to gestation.

What then follows is a moral argument as to whether it is beneficial at a societal level. My view is that it is not beneficial at a societal level for a number of reasons.

 
My experience regarding men who identify as women within the prison system again is limited; there weren't many of them in my time. I never met any that were sentenced for "sex" crimes.

I will accept your assertion regarding "them" trying to f*"k the system though. Thing is, virtually every prisoner I had the privilege to meet in my 20 years had the same mind set.
Your post is an invalid generalisation; probably based on personal prejudice and assumption rather than empirical deduction.

Seems that they are a bit noncy.


A government survey has counted 125 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, but the Ministry of Justice says these figures are not yet a reliable reflection of the true numbers. The MoJ says 60 of them have been convicted of one or more sexual offences but it didn't identify their gender. There are likely to be more trans inmates, on shorter sentences and who are less likely to be sex offenders, who don't show up in this data.

Of the 60 serving time for sexual offences:

  • 27 were convicted of rape (plus a further five of attempted rape)
  • 13 were convicted of possessing, distributing or making indecent images of children
  • 13 were convicted of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault
  • Nine were convicted of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
  • Seven were convicted of sexual activity with a child
  • Seven were convicted of indecent assault or gross indecency
 
Where? ******* Chernobyl?

And who's saying this because you'll find plenty of reference to this in the pro-trans web, but curiously little serious scientific support for anyone with a third chromasome or a whacky variety beyond XX and XY that has actually lived a meaningful life measured beyond hours and minutes that supports the emergence of a Xim/Xer as anything other than self-professed make believe.
Once more - the scientifically illiterate come to the fore. Not so long ago, I thought like you. I remembered my AO level human biology (actually I didn’t, even back then the knowledge was different to what you are stating) and I thought that sex/gender was binary.

But in the past few years my scientific knowledge has increased and I have had to admit my ignorance.

This is a good surmise from a post on Facebook by “Insufferably Intolerant Science Nerd”

“On biological sex: Open Ocean Exploration @RebeccaRHelm

Rebecca is a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville USA.

'Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...

...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.

What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?

Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.'

Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.

Biology is a shitshow.

Be kind to people.”
 
This is a good article on the subject of ’Binary/non-binary sex’ with some good citations.

 
Once more - the scientifically illiterate come to the fore. Not so long ago, I thought like you. I remembered my AO level human biology (actually I didn’t, even back then the knowledge was different to what you are stating) and I thought that sex/gender was binary.

But in the past few years my scientific knowledge has increased and I have had to admit my ignorance.
Was it like this?

1615199389993.png


Once you "thought like me", now... now... you received your revalation. Did you suddenly become one of the "elect"? Are you welcome in Prince Harry and Meghan's inner circle? Are you just... well.... better than the rest of us because of your enlightenment?

Oh, and by the way, (gen) I have a BSc (physics) and an MSc both from the same global top 10 university so "scientifically illiterate" is fundamentally mis-applied.

The thing about science is it's often quoted as the absolute answer to any determinate question. The thing about science is it is a theory backed up by an interpretation of the evidence. Scientists very rarely agree about anything to the point that when one produces evidence that the theory of the other is a pile of crap they start taking chunks out of each other. Go and have a look at Isaac Newton and his petty rivalries with both Hook and Leibniz.

Do yourself a favour, stop telling someone with a solid scientific education about the nature of science and using it to back up the fervour of your own opinion as if it were an absolute. You are the very dictionary definition of irony. Cnut.
 
No, it's not, otherwise it would be biologically possible for one man to impregnate another to gestation.

What then follows is a moral argument as to whether it is beneficial at a societal level. My view is that it is not beneficial at a societal level for a number of reasons.

Well it was ok for Loretta, her baby could just gestate in a box
 
Was it like this?

View attachment 555418

Once you "thought like me", now... now... you received your revalation. Did you suddenly become one of the "elect"? Are you welcome in Prince Harry and Meghan's inner circle? Are you just... well.... better than the rest of us because of your enlightenment?

Oh, and by the way, (gen) I have a BSc (physics) and an MSc both from the same global top 10 university so "scientifically illiterate" is fundamentally mis-applied.

The thing about science is it's often quoted as the absolute answer to any determinate question. The thing about [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]science is it is a [B]theory[/B] backed up by an [B]interpretation[/B] of the evidence. [/COLOR]Scientists very rarely agree about anything to the point that when one produces evidence that the theory of the other is a pile of crap they start taking chunks out of each other. Go and have a look at Isaac Newton and his petty rivalries with both Hook and Leibniz.

Do yourself a favour, stop telling someone with a solid scientific education about the nature of science and using it to back up the fervour of your own opinion as if it were an absolute. You are the very dictionary definition of irony. Cnut.
To the bit in red - no it isn't, that is meaningless babble.
This following is more or less the accepted definition. I don't have a masters BTW I stopped at PG.Dip.eng.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.


It's not a theory it's a toolset.
 
To the bit in red - no it isn't, that is meaningless babble.
This following is more or less the accepted definition. I don't have a masters BTW I stopped at PG.Dip.eng.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.


It's not a theory it's a toolset.
Ooooh I didn't realise Einstein wrote the "Toolset of Relativity". Thanks for enlightening me on that.

It's not like "science" comes up with theories that are disproved later on. Like Phlogiston, as materials were observed to loose mass following combustion it was presumed that there was an ephimeral substance which was released when a material burned. Oxygen not having been discovered at this point oxidation wasn't even a concept. For a significant part scientific proofs tend to be transient, especially when you are dealing with quantum physics.

Or the Expanding Earth Theory, or the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, or the existence of Lumiferous Ether, Caloric Theory, the Stress Theory of Ulcers, Tabula Rasa, or the Blank State Theory...

Noooooooo science doesn't have "theories" that try to explain the data at all...... it's not like when you pursue something you don't have a theory as a starting point, a "null hypothesis" to coin the Greek term for.... theory. The clue of classical scientific method is contained in the fukcing name for fuks sake.

I really am arguing with stupid....
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top