I think you have missed the point. These men are not transgender. They are grifters who suddenly are transgender when they’re in court and about to go to prison. Simple.

Agree, it upset me that Ava said Isla shouldn't be in a women's prison. Of course she should. But equally, of course she shouldn't be in gen pop, just like any other inmate who poses a risk to other inmates

Something I thought about recently is, what about the lesbian rapists? Aren't they also on the same prisons as other female prisoners

@@nightthrasher24 nobody wants to talk about them. "real" women aren't violent (I'm being sarcastic). You're right, and there is no valid reason to try trans women committed of violent crimes against women any different from cis women committed of violent crimes against women

Here we go the non-exjstent threat from rapacious lesbians. I have spent most of my life being sexually harassed by men but not once by a woman not even by those who actuly fancied me. Also, were women not cis women. I am not a subset of my own sex

Can imagine it without ava though, she needs out

Nah Ava is great, nowhere near as good without her.

Aye talk about real hate marches

Do they understand that Israel isn't a real country and is in fact a fascist ethno-project?

"Including a trans woman who literally helped at a rape crisis centre for women" Mridul Wadhwa doesn't "help" at a rape crisis centre. He is a man who became CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre by pretending to be a woman. He has no GRC and is legally male, as well as being actually male. He has publicly stated that any rape victims that have a problem with this need to "reframe their trauma". He is a predatory man. "Its genuinely hateful dangerous speech" No it isn't. Rowling is calling these predatory men out for what they are and how they are using this ludicrous ideology to gain access to their victims.

Stalinist.

​@@lowang8831since when has criticising someone's opinions and words been Stalinist? Should we have another McCarthy style purge of the media in order to protect "free speech"?

Trans is a fad that will be looked upon poorly in the future.

Completely agree. She's intentionally malicious and being cruel on purpose

As an English I had similar thoughts... It seems looking up to Scotland that some politicians have fought somewhat for transpeople's rights. There's an attempt to be more progressive than our lots constantly quoting Matt Walsh and so the far right pushback is harder there?

Trans rights and abortion are not real issues. They are there to make people mad and distract them from laws and policies that are designed to destroy institutions like the single family home the family farm and ownership of assets by our children.

hahaha thanks for that .. jesus

Just any journalist at all that has updated their knowledge beyond 1998 would be good.

Northern Irish political commentary of this calibre is non-existent

They haven’t a clue, it’s actually embarrassing. Typical Brits.

And good for him, he's been better at pointing out the SNPs scandals than most. Long may he continue fighting against the trans madness

"On Isla Bryson and the question of imprisoning trans women, housing them in men’s prisons is cruel" Do you seriously think putting a violent rapist in a men's prison is cruel?

Isla is. A. F***ing. Man. My gosh his partner even said that he was just at it in order to get an easier stay in prison. Stop all your intellectual-ising and use your common sense.

Why can't he be on a separate cell in a makes prison? Why is it always women who are subordinate to men??

OP, I completely agree with you and commend you for your well articulated comment! It feels just one step away from "we think trans women pose a risk to cis women in female toilets so we'll make them use the men's instead, where the trans women are at risk instead". It's not okay to put cis women in harm's way (of course, only when we're talking about trans issues) but it is okay to put a trans woman somewhere they have a very high chance of being abused?

@@Pedro17841 yes I do. Just because someone has committed crimes it doesn't mean we should leave them open to being abused. Isla *is* a woman, and we wouldn't be talking about putting a cis female rapist in a men's prison

I actually did a research essay on which prison trans prisoners should be in during my law degree, and found an extremely in-depth article that someone else published mainly about Australian prisons, but they mentioned the UK and also mentioned America. Essentially, trans women should be in women's prison, and if they are assessed as being a risk to other women, they should be placed with the cis women who have also been deemed a risk to women, because there are also cis women who sexually assault cis women, and trans women in prison, as well as security guards assaulting all women, in women's prisons. This would involve nothing more than placing them in the area of the prison that already exists, with *other women* who also have been jailed for violent crimes *against women*. This idea thst only men, or people perceived to be men by many people, assault women, is not true. There are cisgender women who sexually assault both women, and men. A teacher at my school - a cisgender woman, was arrested and deported (not a citizen) for soliciting a cisgender male student who was 15. Trans women who are put into men's prison, have been reported to experience being raped upwards of 2000 times during their prison sentences, because if trans women are put in men's prison, they need to be physically escorted, separately, from the male prisoners, because they are at not just at risk of harm, but they *will be sexually harmed* that's not hypothetical. In america, Los Angeles has a large enough prison population, that they have a wing of the lod Angeles county jail which is colloquially known as the 'gay wing' where cisgender queer men, and trans women (who are forced into men's prisons) are segregated *for their safety*. However, having a large enough prison population that this us even possible, is an appalling crime. Trans women also experience sexual violence in prison from both female and male security guards. I am happy to find the name of the article for you to read through, and i can get a copy of my essay to find all the sources I used for this. There were a few examples of trans women in women's prisons in Australia committing acts of violence against other inmates in women's prisons - but again, that isn't an argument to put that person in a men's prison, where they are regularly denied access to hormones, and the clothes of their gender. If that is someone's argument, then surely cisgender women who have been assessed to be risks to other women, need to be in men's prisons too? Because if not, then you are inherently denying that trans women are women. Trans women are women, and as such need to be treated the same as cisgender women who are assessed to be at risk of harming other inmates. Because the risk is the same. Trans men is a difficult argument, because putting a trans man in men's prison, is something even judges have occasionally agreed (in different jurisdictions) upon that a trans man who is cis passing especially cannot be put in a women's prison (not just for the sake of the trans man, but I would say the vast majority of women in women's prisons, don't want a guy who passes as cis sharing their cell with them and not having privacy *from a man*. Trans men, can also harm cisgender women, and some do. But the presumption from many people is that they don't, because people don't view them as women, and that's why they are able to do this. Trans men who pass as cis, pass as cis, and women don't want men, who look like men, in their bathrooms or prisons that are not for men. However, putting a trans man in men's prison, given that the vast majority of people (as mentioned) do not consider trans men as men, by doing so that person would be exposed to the same level of risk as trans women who are raped thousands of times in men's prisons. In Australia, there was a case (mentioned in the journal article) of a trans man being sentenced to very strict house arrest for arson, because of his trans status. I anecdotally have been told by a cisgender male friend who spent a lot of time in prison, that there was a trans man in jail where he was, who spent the whole time isolated. I don't know if this friend mixed up the terms, I would need to ask him to confirm. The reality is, that any person of any demographic of people can be sex offenders. This is not a trait unique to any group. Trans people are not the ones passing laws in america (florida) that make it legal for people to have 'genital inspections' of children whose sex is questioned in sport. So that means if a girl is a tomboy or looks 'not feminine enough' and wants to play soccer with girls, because she is a girl, that child can be subjected to 'sex verification' to be able to play sport. Any justification of putting a trans woman in a men's prison, even if she is a risk to other women, inherently relies on the belief that trans people are somehow more likely to be sex offenders than cis people, a statistic that is absolutely untrue, and there is no study a person can find that will reflect that trans people are actually committing the vast amount of sex offences. Because they're not. The people who *are* doing it though, they would love people to believe that it's someone else to watch out for. I understand the fear people have about this, but the reality is, that all trans people are, like cis women, overwhelmingly victims of violence, especially sexual violence, from cisgender men. Not exclusively, because sexual offences are not about sexual gratification, they are about power. Let me know if you would like the sources I have used here and I am more than willing to send them through. My lecturer suggested I publish the article because it's barely been written on, but I never got around to it sadly. Still, happy to pass on the journal article I found, its very in-depth, I think was 50-60 pages long. *where I have used the phrase man/woman or men/women here I am referring to all men and women, when I am referring to cis or trans men or women, I have specified that. ** I was not able to find any data on any non binary individuals in prisons, and that does not mean they don't exist, but it would mean that people (understandably) do not self identify as such enough for there to be any data to rely on that I used for the essay. The reason I haven't mentioned non binary trans people, is because no data existed, and that itself is problematic that I was completely unable to find anything at all at the time.

@@memxfgtwjd Hey, really liked your comment. I would love a link to that journal article!

​@memxfgtwjd The victims of sexual assault are 91 4:55 ! Women. 70! Of trans women in prison are there for rape and sexual assault. Why do you think women should be endangered? Misogyny 2.0

@@memxfgtwjd fantastic comment! Would also love to read the sources you talked about

@@wannenburgg why do you think trans women should be endangered by being placed in men's prisons? Transphobic

Excellent comment

He also disagreed with British intelligence on the source of the poisen. He put his political beliefs above actual factors provided by our own intelligence services.

Mean you can't say we where following the rules and reject intelligence services findings

The protocol is irrelevant or rather moot, when he should of used a bit logic to consider multiple credible factors surrounding the murders

What a load of tosh. What do you expect the Russians to say?? “Yer, actually it was us, soz guys”. Use your loaf.

Its a terrible bill in its own right, regardless of the misogyny part. The critique is very justified. Its a terrible bill.

This legislation is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically, if you say anything mean to someone or in general, we might arrest you. But in the text of the legislation it states that their are exemption provided by the ECHR that trump their piece of primary legislation. So unenforceable in the majority of cases that Police Scotland have already shat themsleves and stated that they will not be charging or arresting J K Rowling. Your couldn't right it.

It’s an awful bill to the main reason with how vague it is. When u have a restriction, it would be better to be confident in knowing what u can and can’t do. Plus this bill because it’s so vague can be used unfairly if the right people are involved.

It’s a horrible bill brought on by the trans fascist bullies. Anything they can’t stand to hear they label as hate speech. Bullies in sheep’s clothing!

I agree that it's upsetting that misinformation was used, but I don't think it was deliberate or malicious from PolJoe. I would love to ask Ava for her justification why Bryant shouldn't be in a women's prison. It certainly seems like discrimination based on gender identity - to effectively say that her gender identity is no longer valid because of her crimes

@@LilyRoseKnits We are talking about prison. You have personal liberties like your freedom removed. Why does ‘gender’ identity still need to be protected when it’s clearly abused by criminals with a history of SA??

I kept thinking when they were discussing swastikas that Hindus (and also certain Buddhists) use the symbol with its main axis vertical and horizontal, whereas the Austrian artists used it angled at 45 degrees. Can anyone else confirm or refute this?

@@trevfindley5704It's always been a tenuous way to identify the user. Both faiths use versions of the swastika both on and off centre, and while the angled version is most closely associated with neo-Nazo groups, there are historical uses of it - the Nazis nicked it from somewhere, didn't they? In fact, a lot of cultures developed a version of the culture at around the same time, possibly due to a flaring star in the sky, or Haley's comet. I think Sagan has a piece to camera about it.

@@GoldnDusty Thanks for that. I had a feeling you would have a well informed opinion on this. I'll have a look for the Sagan video...

Yeah and I thought that was the most interesting thing they said all episode and it looks like they chickened out of showing most of it

I thought what Ed was saying was the most interesting take all episode and I think he may be right. The SNP are a broad chruch in the political spectrum united around independence but socially there views can diverge quite a lot this was seen in the recent leadership election when someone far more to the right of the party nearly got elected.

Would be nice to cut the 10min at start of last few shows down to a minute or less. We don’t need the random off camera chat

If they really hated nonces they'd be far more willing to listen to the safeguarding concerns of the gender critical. But they don't care, so they don't listen. They are typical posh champagne socialists.

I agree, perhaps the UK sovereign wealth fund could purchase Thames Water back from the current foreign sovereign wealth fund owners...

nonce

What's hateful about what she has said or done? She doesn't accept the premise that someone can just elect to identify as a different sex or that other people should be obliged through the compulsion of criminal legislation to partake and indulge in their fantasy.

​@@benghiskahn3673can people change nationality? Can a non-White person be British? What's the difference between that and changing gender (which is distinct from biological sex)

@@benghiskahn3673 so you’re doing one of the things that transphobes do which is called a motte and Bailey argument. Rowling did not calmly state “I don’t accept that people can change their sex”, she purposefully conflated sex offenders with innocent trans women. She went out of her way to misgender women like India, and has been weaponising her following online to harass trans women and any ally who dares to stick their head above the trenches. Rowling’s language was intentionally inflammatory and cruel. But then transphobes quickly retreat back and state “she was just stating her own personal belief that sex is real, this is all legal!”

​@@benghiskahn3673she denied a part of the holocaust now. We're not going to pretend she's at all reasonable or believe in the "she's just concerned" stuff anymore. Sorry.

I think the point is that the bill is so vague it's open to being abused by people who don't like what someone has said and want them to shut up. I don't like what JKR says but I don't think she should go to prison for it. It also works both ways so what happens when someone speaks out against nasty people (ie racists or transphobic) and those people accuse them or committing a hate crime?

They do, the subtitles are auto generated. They have ‘love podcasts, hate nonces’ on one of the thumbnails in an earlier episode.

Seeing as she has already been reported by the usual trans activist types, then you are wrong. And us ordinary muggles stand with her. It's only Guardian reading wets who don't.

@@roryhand6650 oh look I've outed at transphobe...

yeah me too

Skill issue

@@bassekaman8315 These thirty-somethings are harking back to their student days. No, it's a "get-the-eff-on-with-it-then" issue 🤣🤣🤣. I don't bore them with what I did over the weekend here in the south of France, do I? 🤔

They support the trans movement and the harm it causes, they won't report on that.

Bugger, you beat me to it! 😂

You're either very good at it, or very bad. Second sentence is a bit weird though.

PoliticsJoe isn't for kids per se, but it is for posh left wing students types who study politics who haven't a clue about the real world. Hence it's presenters. The difference is they should know better As they're all around 30.

​@@roryhand6650 You got me!

So you want someone arrested for words?

@@keithcommins I'm in two minds on this tbh. Whilst I think that maybe in some ways these laws go too far, there are other laws I disagree with but as long as they're the same for everyone that makes it harder to argue. The other mind is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. JK shouldn't be prosecuted for Her words before Her words were specifically prohibited. Also I'm not sure Her words were sufficient to warrant prosecution even under these laws. Unhelpful, unwelcome and unpleasant? certainly. Inciting hatred? Not so sure. A complex issue. Her response to the new laws rubbed Me the wrong way.

​@@johnbeer4963 Its NOT a complex issue actually unless you are inciting violence, which is very clear cut. I couldnt care less how "unhelpful, unwelcome and unpleasant" what JK said was, she has every right to be that, and speak that way. Nobody who is rational should be in "two minds" about this issue, freedom of speech is a fundamental cornerstone of a free society, if it goes we are on the way to totalitarianism. People have to be able to speak their minds as they wish, and they have every right to be as offensive as they wish. If you dont like that, you have the choice not to listen or you are free to challenge them. When you "freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom of consequences", who would cause these "consequences"? Certainly not the government - they have no business policing what people say, unless (like I said) there is a clear cut incitement to violence. EVERYTHING else should be fair game. *Her response to the new laws rubbed Me the wrong way* Why? It was the ONLY way to respond to such ridiculous laws. She was 100% correct.

@@keithcommins You contradict yourself mate with the "unless there is a clear cut incitement to violence" bit.. not a knock.. just highlighting how this isnt a yes/no subject

​@@johnbeer4963 Um, how did I "contradict" myself, exactly? I was crystal clear in what I said. Incitement to violence is very easily defined and VERY clear, and anything else is fair game. Being mean or offensive on the internet doesn't fall into that definition. What part of that above statement is giving you difficulty?

Yeah, some of the tone does feel a bit off from time to time, and this episode was particularly bad.

@@ZarchAlDain I thought so. I mean I’m not suggesting they don’t care but ? Sometimes there’s a time and place. Thanks for your comment.

@@christopherwhittaker2620 When you're a journalist it's easy to become hardened. At the time they first saw it they were probably just as horrified as everyone else but by the time they record the podcast they've seen it so many times that they've reset back to black humour.

@@ZarchAlDain no sorry I’m not buying that. They should make an extra effort to not do their usual black humour stuff on the horrendously traumatic topic of anything to do with the genocide. There’s a time and place. And their timing in this episode was way off the mark. And I say this as someone who has a mostly dark sense of humour and who is a genuinely big fan of the podcast.

@@christopherwhittaker2620 I absolutely agree. I'm just musing as to how they got to the place they did.