Lisa Nandy: Let Male Rapists into Female Prisons

[bskeptic]

When left-wing ideology turns you mad...  (includes video)


https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-labour-partys-trans-problem/amp/


So... question... male rapists in female prisons... good idea? Or is it possible, just possible, something could go wrong?

[bskeptic]

Also note her saying something like, "wide dialogue on this issue is important, but no meaningful dialogue is possible with the other side".

Those that dissent to be removed from the party.

The face of authoritarian tolerance.

[lapwing]

The thread title is not a direct quote is it? Maybe you should get a job with the Daily Heil or the lying Scum (Scouse for The Sun).

[bskeptic]

The thread title is not a direct quote is it? Maybe you should get a job with the Daily Heil or the lying Scum (Scouse for The Sun).

(1) I never claimed it was a direct quote
(2) It doesn't need to be a direct quote to accurately reflect what she said
(3) I gave a video supporting the claim

So maybe get a job with the "lying scum" yourself...

[lapwing]

The title strongly suggests that Nandy wants male rapists in female prisons - which she did not say.

I found the weird way the woman asking the questions kept looking at the surreptitious camera - well weird. There were a lot of people in that room yet the questioner seemed to think she was the only one who had the right to ask questions: going on and on and on ...

[bskeptic]

The title strongly suggests that Nandy wants male rapists in female prisons - which she did not say.

The word I used was "let". That can commonly mean "permitted". They will be permitted to do so.

One dictionary definition: "not prevent or forbid; allow."

("Let meaning" typed into google gave me that result.)

You may have read it as meaning "want" in some stronger sense; but that's not the meaning required, or strongly implied, by the English language.

And anyway, you can just watch the video, and go, "OK bskeptic probably meant "let" in the sense of "permitted" because the video supports that meaning".

I found the weird way the woman asking the questions kept looking at the surreptitious camera - well weird.

Oh sure, but that has zero importance. That doesn't change what Lisa Nandy said. She was willing to "let" male rapists into female prisons.

There were a lot of people in that room yet the questioner seemed to think she was the only one who had the right to ask questions: going on and on and on ...

Why would you focus on this? Even if we say that the woman was rude and taking up too much time for her own pet issue... And?

I think it's a bit weird that you focus on the woman asking the question, rather than on the substance of the answer given!

[Tom Paine]

Also note her saying something like, "wide dialogue on this issue is important, but no meaningful dialogue is possible with the other side".

Those that dissent to be removed from the party.

The face of authoritarian tolerance.

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. As far as I'm concerned people can identify with something other than their birth sex/gender if they feel so compelled and should be protected from harassment by people who don't like it. However, people should also be free, short of harassment to express their opinions on this issue. Whether trans people should be legally identified by their chosen or birth gender is a tricky one. I'd tend to think it makes more sense to identify them legally with their birth gender, but I'm not sure

[lapwing]

Nandy's answer was that "trans women are women and trans men are men" not "male rapists should be in women's prisons". The video title is "child rapists" not "male rapsts"

The point about the questioner's weirdness was in a separate paragraph: it was a separate point.

[bskeptic]

Nandy's answer was that "trans women are women and trans men are men" not "male rapists should be in women's prisons".

This is absurd nitpicking. Anyone with common sense would know exactly what the thread title meant-- Let *biological* male rapists into female prisons.

We know that trans advocates will say that "trans women are women", but they are still biological males and it's obviously controversial that they are really equivalent to women or should be treated as women in certain contexts.

[bskeptic]

The point about the questioner's weirdness was in a separate paragraph: it was a separate point.

Well look, probably a feminist. Maybe even lesbian feminist. I agree that they may come off as "weird". However, it's still possible that they occasionally make a fair point...

[barryjones]

The obvious answer is that the law has to restrict a person's ability to act upon their own stupidity.  I don't care if a man has felt like a girl all of his life.  You are gonna screw America hard if you get too individualist about it and pretend he has the "right" to "express" himself as a woman.  Just like the stupid US Supreme Court, in making gay marriage legal.  A realistic look at the long-term problems that created would have called for labeling gay marriage illegal. 

The left simply neither know nor care that the only way to make a country run under law is to disallow activities that create a slippery slope.  Look at the stupidity created by the US Supreme Court's gay rights ruling.  In fact, nearly any "change" is going to create new and greater problems.  That's why complex societies collapse.  Whenever you solve a problem, the solution ends up creating about 4 new problems.  Follow that trail down the road apiece and you end up with states seceding from the union and all sorts of malarky.

[lapwing]

The point about the questioner's weirdness was in a separate paragraph: it was a separate point.

Well look, probably a feminist. Maybe even lesbian feminist. I agree that they may come off as "weird". However, it's still possible that they occasionally make a fair point...

I don't know anything about her being a lesbian or a feminist or both. But she clearly has an axe to grind and is oblivious to the fact that others might have questions to ask Nandy as well That's called selfishness.

[Khaos]

Trying to use this policy charitably, the phrase is "let child rapists into female prisons" probably stems from a wrong assumption that all child rapists are exclusive pedophiles, or child rapists just attracted to kids. With this mental framework, pedophiles are often beaten up in men's prisons and the alternative is solitary confinement, so the cost-benefit analysis makes it seem like it is beneficial to this.
As rape has one of the lowest reoffending rates, this however could be morally permissible if and only if a risk matrix is used based on the person's previous known sexual history, past offenses, and a lengthy psychiatric evaluation. However, I sincerely doubt that the left wing will take into account how to implement their policies sustainably because they tend to have an anchoring bias of focusing on social justice without adhering to the opportunity cost of the action that that can sometimes make it worse.