He'll eat worms before listening to women
...so a man has a go at getting through to Brian Paddick
No.
You are an unelected legislator we cannot remove participating in the passage of a law we will all have to live under.
It is not an organised attack. It is frustrated, frightened and angry disagreement.
This is what you said.
"Even if a person born male has lived as a woman for 20 years"
No person born male has lived 'as a woman' for even a millisecond, let alone 20 years.
Notwithstanding the law on sex change, this is a profound disagreement with - as we see - significant consequence.
"Even if they have undergone sex reassignment surgery"
Many of us would acknowledge that SRS makes a significant difference to social attitudes and also to assessment of risk. That said, you know as well as I do that surgery or another intrusive bodily modification cannot be the basis of law or policy or practice.
It would breach ECHR and HRA. So surgery, in this context, is irrelevant - and you know that.
"Even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate"
The one thing *everyone* is agreed on is that GRA is a bad law, no longer fit for its intended purpose. We only disagree on how to change it.
"Even if they are assessed as posing no risk"
You are asking for public trust in a case by case administrative process of assessment.
That trust has been lost in the wave of serious incidents, the dismissal of concerns and the capture of institutions.
You can't have it.
"Putting them in a men's prison would be ... enormously dangerous"
Prison is a dangerous, violent place. Not only for trans people. Not only for inmates.
Your Parliamentary colleagues are responsible for the violent state of our prisons.
In coalition with the governing party, the Liberal Democrats ushered in austerity measures including the deepest cuts to our prison staffing and revenue budgets in modern times, which led directly to the rise in violence.
I am angered that you argue women prisoners - some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in society - should now face additional risks to compensate for your failed political judgment and policy. You do not associate this argument with support for the Prison Officer Association's calls for proper resourcing, an Association whose members also face massively increased violence, as you well know. You make no reference to prison reforms, of the sort championed by PRT. No, for you, it's just 'put the nicer trans in the cells with women'.
What about the gay ones?
What about the young ones?
What about the ones with mental ill health?
What about the drug dependant?
What about the sex offenders?
What about the guards?
Shall we put them in with women because it's violent, too?
No.
"Specially segregated facilities would be demeaning"
Prison is demeaning. Prison is a specially segregated facility. These are criminals.
By all means, let's have a discussion about who should and should not be incarcerated.
What prison should be for.
But let's not pretend we have prisons in order to validate gender identities.
Please. Let's just not.
And, lastly, please don't dismiss women's concerns so high handedly.
Who was it said that society can be judged by how we treat prisoners?
So few people care about the plight of women prisoners, most of whom have been failed by the criminal justice system.
You come across as not only wrong headed (as per this thread) but, senior police officer, loyal to the failing system, and uncaring of the women.
So, yeah, some people are being a bit brusque in their disagreement.
Tough, lawmaker.
From a thread by Lachlan Stuart.
Hoping he’s ok with me publishing here!
Superb points, superbly made in response to Brian 'Pillock'
Like all men who know what's best for women, Brian is the real victim here!