[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 32 points

So they’re admitting that “trans” is about victimising women and girls. To be an ally is to support men who abuse women.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 19 points

Something seems VERY wrong to me about the assumption that the prison bureau / justice ministry should be "trans allies"—or, for that matter, "allies" to any other identity group.

On the other hand, this shit has the look of a desperate goal-line defense from the side that knows all is about to be lost, so at this point they're just throwing the whole kitchen sink at everything and everyone.

Marking "same-sex attracted" as tWaahh!!nsfowbic just might be logistical suicide, though. Aren't there gay men in the MoJ? I imagine they'll be none too happy to see that they're now literally expected to turn in their homosexuality at the door.

i'm also elated to see men identifying as women described as "men identifying as women" in the last paragraph of the article. As much of a conservative paper as The Telegraph is, none of their journalists would've ventured that phrasing a year or so ago.

good point isn't justice meant to be blind?

the whole idea of that statement of blindness is blind to your colour, blind to your sex, blind to your statues in life, what matters is the facts of the crime nothing else.

[–] Hera 8 points Edited

unfounded fears and convince people that supporting trans inclusion threatens their safety

It doesn't matter how the listed assaults "happened over a period of years" it matters THAT THEY HAPPENED despite critics saying "hey, this is a bad idea because this will happen."

But I will say. My safety has 100% been compromised because of trans rights. After being sexually harassed, threatened with assault, and almost forced into a space alone with a man in a dress who wanted sex with me, for me it's not the trans boogeyman man. It's reality. But lesbians aren't people in their eyes, so of course we (a real minority) don't matter.

The list of “coded language” includes the phrase “gender critical”, which is used to refer to campaigners who believe biological sex is binary and immutable.

However, the document claims it is a “self-selected label to denote holding anti-trans views, it’s a term used to make anti-trans discrimination sound palatable or a respectable opinion” and warns staff to look out for social media accounts that hold this view.

Also listed is “protect women’s spaces/protecting women and girls”, which it says “relies on equating trans women with being predatory men, to play on unfounded fears and convince people that supporting trans inclusion threatens their safety”.

The list of words also flags “adult human female”, a phrase that it claims “manipulates people into supporting bigotry while creating hostility towards trans people and their allies”.

The document goes on to say “same-sex attracted” is a “coded term refusing to recognise trans women as women and trans men as men” and aims “to cause division among the LGBT+ community, by claiming attraction is solely based on genitalia”.

It also takes objection to the campaigners stating “sex is real/immutable” because sex “isn’t rigidly binary as there are many variations”, including intersex.

The list even says the word “transwoman”, which it claims is an attempt to “other trans people” by removing the space between adjective and noun in the term “trans woman”, thus “placing them in a separate category as a whole separate noun”.

I am not sure if I should be looking at this with rage that after all the progress we have made they turn round and pull this BS. or if I should look at this and laugh seeing it as a sign of the desperation of a dying movement losing its control.

[–] SecondSkin 6 points Edited

I hope the “diversity lead” responsible gets fired and that an official correction to the email is sent around.

Have they been reading "1984" in the MoJ employees book club?

Load more (2 comments)