It’s an example (and there aren’t that many) of an extreme case, where there is no clear way forward, being used to frame the whole issue.
It’s not much different to scraping around looking for a lunatic feminist who advocates castrating men to pour scorn on all the reasonable feminists who are just fighting for equality.
All I ask is that we don’t use very rare cases like this one* to frame our reaction to trans-sexual in general.
*if this person is genuinely transexual
Convicted of double rape? There’s an easier solution than sending the person to prison………
I don’t think singing hymns and praying will do much good.
Swinging from a rope is considered harsh on the criminalthese days.
Castration woud usually be a good option…
Strangely enough there was no scraping around needed for this one it’s widely reported on many sites and has been for a few days that I know of.
If you are talking about castration it appears to be a voluntary request here.
I was thinking of a cigarette and a wall.
There’s several clear ways forward.
Widely reported doesn’t mean it isn’t an extreme example.
I was pointing out that there was no need to scrape around as you put it 
I’m probably in the minority of the minority on this, but I don’t see that big a problem.
How would a 6 foot 6 man mountain convicted of raping several men be treated? It’s not that much different from this case in terms of danger as to the population of the prison they would presumably be assigned to with regards to their gender identification.
Furthermore, rape is often more to do with the power dynamics and the violence/control aspects rather than the sexual aspects of it all, so no difference as to the potential harm, if we were to presume that this person is likely to pose a threat to potential inmates.
I’d also call into question your questioning the authenticity of their gender identity, considering that both articles I’ve read stated that they are already undergoing hormonal treatment and are seeking gender reassignment surgery.
I see no issue with the approach that the Scottish government is taking, as reported by the articles.
Widely reported usually means that it is an extreme example. Probably just a case of availability bias.
To be honest, I would want to know when they started transitioning. Was it before the rape? Was it after? Was it after arrest? I realise the trickiness in terms of which prison and whether they pose additional risk due to their criminal behaviour (to be fair women’s prisons look fucking rough as well, just a number of notches below a men’s prison), but I do wonder whether this will be an example used in future by CIS men ‘transitioning’ in order to avoid men’s prison. Probably a bit cynical to think like that.
Makes it no less valid. Taking tablets and dressing as a woman is a small price to pay for a potentially reduced sentence and easier time. Actually HAVING the surgery is a different matter all together. But could still be to avoid men’s prison.
A man who forces himself on women is just about the last person I’d ever expect to decide to actually be a woman.
This was briefly mentioned in “The Rest Is Politics” podcast this week. It was more in relation to how SLAPP lawsuits are used in relation to covering up corruption.
I mean it is a pretty extreme test for anyone who thinks that they can game the system.
20 years as a rapist in a man’s prison? I know next to nothing about prison life but I suspect that wouldn’t be fun.
That said it certainly wouldn’t be fun if I were running prisons. Rock breaking and medical experimentation would be the least of their concerns.
Yeah, wrong choice of word on my part. 
The point is that the examples that make the news and end up being discussed are often extreme and very rare. And then they end up framing the whole debate. The end result of that is that it ends up a lot harder for the vast majority of transexuals who just want to get on with their lives and be happy.
I find this site is really problematic for this. It’s hard to have any kind of conversation like this without someone (it’s usually one of the same handful of people) jumping in and going ‘but what about this?’ And the implication is always something like transgender rights have gone too far because this person wants to identify as a housebrick. Or feminist has gone to far because this fringe crackpot thinks all men should be electronically tagged. Or in this case, this clear and present danger to women is demanding to go to a female prison because they now claim to identify as a women (of course they shouldn’t, by the way. It would be absurd).
We have a morbid fascination with transgender people attacking women. But here is the thing. One in four women in the UK have been sexually assaulted. I’m going to say that again, just in case the fucking staggering enormity of the problem isn’t apparent. A quarter of women have, at some point in their life, had to deal with sexual assault. That is an endemic problem within society of men assaulting women. But there is never any conversation about restricting or curtailing men’s rights. Ever. Even after the murder of Sarah Everard - a shocking moment, in which quite rightly the spotlight fell on the danger from men that women face just going about their lives - a common male response was (adopt whining self pitying voice) ‘it’s not all men’.
And yet, here we are, talking limiting the rights of transexual women because of a hypothetical chance that a woman might at some point be attacked by one (or someone pretending to be one), while largely ignoring and tolerating the tsunami of sexual assaults perpetrated on a daily basis by normal, bog standard men. Which is why, and I appreciate this is difficult for some people to hear, the root of this is bigotry and prejudice.
Prejudice will always try and justify itself. It will always try and hide behind a legitimate concern. Of course I’m not prejudiced - I’m just concerned about the safety of women.
@Dane I think think made the point that we wouldn’t be happy to have a transgender person in a changing room next to our partner or daughter. What the point fails to understand is that our daughters and partners are not safe full stop. Anywhere in society. There is a 25% chance your daughter or partner is going to be sexually assaulted at some point, and it’s vanishingly unlikely to be a transexual person doing it. Focussing on a transexual person in a changing room is simply absurd in this context.
I’ll make a prediction now. At some point, in the near future, a women will be assaulted in the toilets or in a changing room, by someone wearing female clothes to gain access to that space. When that happens, it will make headline news and spark a further debate about transgender rights, people will kick off that it shouldn’t be allowed, and the transgender community will take an absolute kicking. There will be calls for a (name of victim)’s law. The Daily Mail will demand that ‘enough is enough’. The Sun will launch one of its tedious campaigns for justice. And on that day, when that inevitably happens, the fact that another 1700 (yes, that’s an accurate number) women were raped or sexually assaulted will be ignored.
When every single day somewhere between 1000 and 2000 women are sexually assaulted, to very little fanfare or reaction, it absolutely farcical for society to spend this much energy getting its knickers in a twist about how safe women are from transgender people.
So are you actually questioning the authenticity of his/her gender?
And is it because someone scraped around (opened the BBC news website) and found this article?
I think they claimed they told the second victim that they were having gender dysphoria issues.
Could it be precedent? I’m not sure. I don’t think the transitioning process is that short, nor that they will necessarily end up in a women’s prison either, seeing as the article also does state that there will be a “multi-disciplinary review” to see if where they should be put.