26 year old male who sexually assaulted 10 year old girl will be housed in juvenile female facility.

[ZiprHead]

My reading is that the rapist will be put in isolation. So the placement in a girls facility is kind of inconsequential. But had he been charged as an adult for the violent rape of a child, he’d face a long prison term and sex offender registration.

He didn't need to be charged as an adult, but he is now an adult and belongs in an adult prison.

This I agree with.

 

[TomC]

The correct pronoun for any person is exactly the pronoun that comports with their public and social identity.

The correct pronoun for males is 'he', for females is 'she', and for a group of people, or a hypothetical person, or somebody of unknown sex, is 'they'.

By what principle?

By usage in English over hundreds of years.

English usage has changed a good bit over the last few centuries. Especially, the last few decades.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

The correct pronoun for any person is exactly the pronoun that comports with their public and social identity.

The correct pronoun for males is 'he', for females is 'she', and for a group of people, or a hypothetical person, or somebody of unknown sex, is 'they'.

By what principle?

By usage in English over hundreds of years.

English usage has changed a good bit over the last few centuries. Especially, the last few decades.
Tom

Not to mention that language is contextual rather than prescriptive. To demand everyone limit their use of language to "Metaphor's chosen definitions" is essentially "newspeak".

Metaphor wants to make it impossible to express ideas in certain contexts, such as to express that someone is "socially and publicly female and IDGAF what's in their pants".

Like, it's 100% what the intent of
"newspeak" in 1984 was trying to discuss...

...Metaphorically.

 

[Metaphor]

The correct pronoun for any person is exactly the pronoun that comports with their public and social identity.

The correct pronoun for males is 'he', for females is 'she', and for a group of people, or a hypothetical person, or somebody of unknown sex, is 'they'.

By what principle?

By usage in English over hundreds of years.

English usage has changed a good bit over the last few centuries. Especially, the last few decades.
Tom

I am quite aware of that.

 

[Metaphor]

Not to mention that language is contextual rather than prescriptive. To demand everyone limit their use of language to "Metaphor's chosen definitions" is essentially "newspeak".

Non. I demand you not prescribe my use of language.

 

[Patooka]

Whether the prosecution made 'mistakes' is your supposition and is not in evidence. It could have been an oversight, or it could have been deliberate.

I honestly wonder what your opinion is between the two. It could go either way, I'm sure.

 

[TomC]

I am quite aware of that.

Post 38 suggested differently.

I don't really care much. One vicious perp will be having a bad life for awhile. I'm not losing sleep over that.

But, yeah, no. Centuries of English usage can become obsolete nowadays.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

[Metaphor]

I am quite aware of that.

Post 38 suggested differently.

No, it didn't.

English has changed substantially since it was recognisable as English, and nothing I've ever said implies differently.

The fact that historical usage dictates that the pronouns he, she, and they have been used in the way I've suggested does not mean that standard usage could not change in the future.

I don't really care much. One vicious perp will be having a bad life for awhile. I'm not losing sleep over that.

But, yeah, no. Centuries of English usage can become obsolete nowadays.
Tom

Jarhyn wanted to know why I used pronouns the way I do. I do it for the same reason I use other words the way I do.

 

[Metaphor]

I honestly wonder what your opinion is between the two. It could go either way, I'm sure.

I don't know what the public prosecutor was thinking. But if they had the discretion to try the child molester as an adult but tried him as a child, and that decision dictated that the child molester had to go to a juvenile facility upon conviction, then California law needs to change to remove the possibility that any person who is an adult serves their sentence (or the part of their sentence where they are an adult) in an adult facility.

 

[TomC]

The fact that historical usage dictates that the pronouns he, she, and they have been used in the way I've suggested does not mean that standard usage could not change in the future.

What I'm pointing out is that the usage has changed already, in the recent past. It's not something that might happen in the future. It's been happening for at least 20 years.

I know next to nothing about Tubbs, except the crime. I don't even know what "identifies as a transwoman" means. Under most circumstances, I don't care.

The reason it matters here is because of the criminal activity. A rape that looks really really male to me. There's a ton of stuff about Tubbs' crimes that call into question many things about ordinary things.
But Tubbs case is a bizarre outlier. Not important. Which isn't the same as dismissing Tubbs personhood.
Tom

 

[Toni]

There are so many questions left unanswered by the article linked and others I found. Apparently there have been a number of other arrests by which means they matched DNA to the rapist. So….why are there no other sentences that are being served right now? No convictions? That opens a lot of serious questions about the legal system. Was this person unfairly targeted and accused? Was this related to trans bigotry ( unfair arrests) or inadequate prosecution?

In any case, Hannah will be isolated out of sight from other inmates during their sentence. The juveniles should be safe from
Hannah. That is the real concern, isn’t it?

It bears considering that while sexual assault and rape are more often committed by males, females can also commit acts of sexual violence against other females and against makes as well. Even as juveniles. It is unlikely that there have been zero juvenile XX females convicted of sexual assault against other XX female juveniles. How are they held during their sentences?

 

[Patooka]

don't know what the public prosecutor was thinking. But if they had the discretion to try the child molester as an adult but tried him as a child, and that decision dictated that the child molester had to go to a juvenile facility upon conviction, then California law needs to change to remove the possibility that any person who is an adult serves their sentence (or the part of their sentence where they are an adult) in an adult facility.

I am certain you are arguing that in good faith. As such, I will give your opinion the dignity it deserves.

 

[ZiprHead]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

 

[Patooka]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

Don't change the subject my dude. We know what this thread is about.

 

[Metaphor]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

 

[ZiprHead]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

Again, what difference does it make.

 

[Metaphor]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

Again, what difference does it make.

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates. All prisons should be unisex and all-ages, and the violent offenders can just be locked up within the lockup.

Is that what you are proposing?

 

[ZiprHead]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

Again, what difference does it make.

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates. All prisons should be unisex and all-ages, and the violent offenders can just be locked up within the lockup.

Is that what you are proposing?

Why not?

 

[TomC]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

Again, what difference does it make.

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates. All prisons should be unisex and all-ages, and the violent offenders can just be locked up within the lockup.

Is that what you are proposing?

Are you unable to understand the concept of solidarity confinement, or does that just interfere with what you already believe?
Tom