This week in trans: extra prison time possible for misgendering

[laughing dog]

Making what up? ...

Your responses are full of assumptions about intentions and knowledge of the "prisons" and what life there is like.

Good. I care what happens to imprisoned people, and that includes imprisoned women who refuse to participate in State-mandated religion.

You keep babbling about "State-mandated religion". But you do not care what happens to all imprisoned people.

And for some reason, you are incapable of understanding that someone else might find it insulting or abusive?

I believe that someone else might find it so, but I find that somebody thinking calling a biological male 'he' to be 'threatening, abusive, or insulting' is not a reasonable thing to respect.

You are entitled to your beliefs. The prison authorities believe otherwise. And, it is just possible that they have better reasons for their belief than you do.

I'm 'not an expert' in countless things, as are you. But I do not automatically accept or reject an argument based on the perceived 'expertise' of the person who puts forward that argument. To do so would be fallacious.

You shouldn't automatically accept a position based on the expertise of others. No one is asking you to do that. I am suggesting you are applying your principles without regard to the actual situation. Prison is different than the free world.

So... "acknowledging reality in a way laughing dog considers hateful should be a punishable by the State"?

You admit you have no problem with the prison rule in general, you clearly agree that "the State" in the context of prisons can punish acknowledging reality in a way you consider hateful. In the context of prisons, I think "the State" gets to interpret its rules. In this context, it is a reasonable interpretation if intentional misgendering in speech is causing problems in there.

I am applying my rule of reason, not some unbending principle.

 

[Metaphor]

You keep babbling about "State-mandated religion".

And you keep using the word 'babbling' when you don't want to address a point.

But you do not care what happens to all imprisoned people.

That is your mistaken opinion. Of course, I don't care particularly more about imprisoned people than I do about the general population, but I do care that people have their single-sex spaces violated and I do care when the State decides to punish speech.

You are entitled to your beliefs. The prison authorities believe otherwise. And, it is just possible that they have better reasons for their belief than you do.

They might. Perhaps you can glean these reasons from their bald assertions better than I can.

You shouldn't automatically accept a position based on the expertise of others. No one is asking you to do that. I am suggesting you are applying your principles without regard to the actual situation.

The actual situation is that the UK is putting male prisoners in the women's estate, and that the prison authorities have either discovered these male prisoners being "misgendered", or pre-emptively fear that misgendering will happen. No matter which is the case, the State should not punish people for calling biological males 'he'.

Do your figurative ankles get sore from jumping to such silly conclusions so much?

I agree that 'acknowledging reality' (like teasing fat people for being fat) can be mean-spirited (perhaps even 'hateful'). But I do not believe that the State should punish people for being mean-spirited (even when they are being mean-spirited by using falsehoods).

But calling a biological male 'he' is not generally mean-spirited; it is the ordinary state of affairs. It is how humans who are not engaging in polite fictions perceive adult human males. As a 'him'.

And, even if it were mean-spirited, the State should not punish people for being mean-spirited. Indeed, it takes a special kind of sadistic energy to put males in the women's estate, and then punish women for pointing out that there are males in the women's estate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm 'not an expert' in countless things, as are you. But I do not automatically accept or reject an argument based on the perceived 'expertise' of the person who puts forward that argument. To do so would be fallacious.

No, you automatically reject arguments for different reasons.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm 'not an expert' in countless things, as are you. But I do not automatically accept or reject an argument based on the perceived 'expertise' of the person who puts forward that argument. To do so would be fallacious.

No, you automatically reject arguments for different reasons.

What arguments have I 'automatically' rejected?

 

[Toni]

Have you ever answered a question that I've asked you?

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?




Have you ever answered a question that I've asked you?

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?

See the above bolded part.

You did not answer my question. I did not ask "should prison sentences be extended for anything other than serious violent behaviour"? I asked:

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?

If you want to answer that question, please do so. If you do not, at least have the courtesy of not pretending you have.

I answered the question quite clearly but I cannot understand it for you, particularly when you choose to not understand.

We all realize that you have an exceptionally binary outlook in life. We do not have to share it nor cater to it.

 

[laughing dog]

And you keep using the word 'babbling' when you don't want to address a point.

It is not possible to address to babble. It is literally nonsense.

That is your mistaken opinion. Of course, I don't care particularly more about imprisoned people than I do about the general population, but I do care that people have their single-sex spaces violated and I do care when the State decides to punish speech.

My observation is not an opinion. It is based on your stated disregard for transgendered prisoners.

They might. Perhaps you can glean these reasons from their bald assertions better than I can.

It is not hard. Just try to imagine yourself in their position and then think.

The actual situation is that the UK is putting male prisoners in the women's estate, and that the prison authorities have either discovered these male prisoners being "misgendered", or pre-emptively fear that misgendering will happen. No matter which is the case, the State should not punish people for calling biological males 'he'.

The prison authorities are punishing prisoners for using "he" as a deliberate insult.

I agree that 'acknowledging reality' (like teasing fat people for being fat) can be mean-spirited (perhaps even 'hateful'). But I do not believe that the State should punish people for being mean-spirited (even when they are being mean-spirited by using falsehoods).

You contradict yourself, since you do not disapprove of the prison rule in general.

But calling a biological male 'he' is not generally mean-spirited; it is the ordinary state of affairs. It is how humans who are not engaging in polite fictions perceive adult human males. As a 'him'.

The prison rule is not about ordinary state of affairs - it is about deliberate insults.

And, even if it were mean-spirited, the State should not punish people for being mean-spirited.

You contradict yourself (see above).

Indeed, it takes a special kind of sadistic energy to put males in the women's estate, and then punish women for pointing out that there are males in the women's estate.

That is a pretty warped way of describing the situation, since it ignores the reasons for placing transgendered women in a woman's prison in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deliberately misgendering people could be considered bullying or harassment. In a prison setting, it would be difficult to escape such harassment. I understand the reasoning behind such rules.

I wonder if there is an issue in male prisons with transgendered men being harassed, etc. and what the policies there are. Anybody know?

Exactly. Deliberate misgendering is a form of harassment. And in prison you can't just walk away from your harasser.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Deliberately misgendering people could be considered bullying or harassment. In a prison setting, it would be difficult to escape such harassment. I understand the reasoning behind such rules.

I wonder if there is an issue in male prisons with transgendered men being harassed, etc. and what the policies there are. Anybody know?

Exactly. Deliberate misgendering is a form of harassment. And in prison you can't just walk away from your harasser.

First, what is your evidence that they are misgendering anybody? They are saying that some people are not women. Would you like to debate whether they are women?

Second, even if the assessment were mistaken, what is your evidence that it is harassment?

 

[Metaphor]

You did not answer my question. I did not ask "should prison sentences be extended for anything other than serious violent behaviour"? I asked:

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?

If you want to answer that question, please do so. If you do not, at least have the courtesy of not pretending you have.

I answered the question quite clearly but I cannot understand it for you, particularly when you choose to not understand.

Toni, you did not. I realise you have a high degree of confidence that you have, but you did not answer the question. As best as I can tell, you answered the question: "Should the State extend prison sentences for prisoners who misgender?", to which your answer appears to be "no".

But I did not ask that question. I asked "Should the State punish people who misgender?" You have not answered that question.

We all realize

Who is 'we', got a mouse in your purse?

 

[Metaphor]

Deliberately misgendering people could be considered bullying or harassment. In a prison setting, it would be difficult to escape such harassment. I understand the reasoning behind such rules.

I wonder if there is an issue in male prisons with transgendered men being harassed, etc. and what the policies there are. Anybody know?

Exactly. Deliberate misgendering is a form of harassment. And in prison you can't just walk away from your harasser.

Calling a biological male 'he' is not misgendering, deliberate or otherwise. He pronouns are used for males of many species, especially mammals.

 

[Metaphor]

My observation is not an opinion. It is based on your stated disregard for transgendered prisoners.

When did I state disregard for them?

The prison authorities are punishing prisoners for using "he" as a deliberate insult.

No. They are assuming calling a biologically male prisoner 'he' is an insult.

You contradict yourself, since you do not disapprove of the prison rule in general.

I do not contradict myself. I said the State should not punish people for uttering mean-spirited words. I do not believe that the mere uttering of mean-spirited words amounts to threatening, abusive or harassing behaviour. (I'm also especially dubious of the word 'abusive' in the 'threatening, abusive, harassing' sentence, because it seems more subjective than the other two).

The prison rule is not about ordinary state of affairs - it is about deliberate insults.

No, it is not about insults. Or rather, it simply defines calling a biological male 'he' as an insult.

You contradict yourself (see above).

No, I haven't (see above).

That is a pretty warped way of describing the situation, since it ignores the reasons for placing transgendered women in a woman's prison in the first place.

It is a truthful way of describing the situation. The UK authorities have put biological males in the women's estate. They are doing this because they have an ideological view that trans women are women.

Of course, there is an asymmetry. There is nothing about trans men causing trouble on the men's estate, or needing special rules not to be misgendered by men. I suspect it's because trans men know they are women, they know that as a biological female on the men's estate they might get into Serious Trouble, and so if they go to prison, they choose the estate that aligns with their 'gender assigned at birth'.

 

[laughing dog]

When did I state disregard for them?

When you dismiss the possibility that referring to them as "he" or "him" as insulting. I had an acquaintance who transitioned his gender to female. While he was alive, it was very hurtful and insulting to be referred to as a male. What you don’t seem to grasp is that your view is immaterial to the situation. If prisoners are insulting or harassing other prisoners, how they do it is not relevant to the situation - it is up to the prison authorities to keep the peace as best they can.

No. They are assuming calling a biologically male prisoner 'he' is an insult.

That is your unsupported conclusion. As far as we know, they are responding to actual events where it is used as an insult.

I do not contradict myself. I said the State should not punish people for uttering mean-spirited words. I do not believe that the mere uttering of mean-spirited words amounts to threatening, abusive or harassing behaviour. (I'm also especially dubious of the word 'abusive' in the 'threatening, abusive, harassing' sentence, because it seems more subjective than the other two).

You can contort yourself all you want, but you are contradicting yourself.

No, it is not about insults. Or rather, it simply defines calling a biological male 'he' as an insult.

No, it does not. From your OP

Deliberately referring to a trans woman as “he” or “him” may be treated as breaching a prison rule against “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”…..
The punishment warning was sounded by Justice Minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar QC, who said: “Incidents where a prisoner uses incorrect pronouns for another prisoner will be considered on a case-by-case basis,…..

To the literate, that indicates calling a transwoman a “he” may be an insult.

It is a truthful way of describing the situation.

No, it is not, since it omits important information.

The UK authorities have put biological males in the women's estate. They are doing this because they have an ideological view that trans women are women.

You are imputing motives because those motives conform to your biases.

Of course, there is an asymmetry. There is nothing about trans men causing trouble on the men's estate, or needing special rules not to be misgendered by men. I suspect it's because trans men know they are women, they know that as a biological female on the men's estate they might get into Serious Trouble, and so if they go to prison, they choose the estate that aligns with their 'gender assigned at birth'.

Your suspicions only reflect your warped feelings.

 

[Arctish]

But the offense described in the OP, the one you think shouldn't be an offense at all, is the act of denying someone's identity?

Calling a biological male 'he' is not 'misgendering', nor is it 'abusive, threatening, or harassing'.

Pronouns do not refer to someone's identity. They have never done so. Many languages across many centuries have used pronouns and none of them depended on the 'gender identity' of anybody. They refer to the sex of that person. I have never enquired about somebody's gender before using pronouns for them, because their gender identity is entirely irrelevant. I do not enquire about their star sign, either.

But, even if, in this Brave New World, pronouns can be as infinite as 'gender identity', and pronouns are instead references to 'gender identity', 'misgendering' ought not be punished by the State.

When I asked you for the definition of gender you're using, you spoke of gender identity. You said it was the thoughts in a person's head regarding how they view themselves. Can you clarify your meaning when you use the term 'gender' or speak of 'misgendering'?.

Calling a biological male 'he' is not misgendering, deliberate or otherwise. He pronouns are used for males of many species, especially mammals.

How would you know whether someone is a biological male? Biological sex and gender aren't strictly binary, aren't always paired the same way, and aren't always readily apparent.

Anyway the issue here isn't that someone might mistakenly call a person with a beard 'he' when in fact she is a 'she'. The issue is knowingly and deliberately denying their identity, and the likelihood that this behavior will stir up trouble in a prison.

Prisons are full of a-holes, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to be an a-hole in prison.

 

[Metaphor]

When you dismiss the possibility that referring to them as "he" or "him" as insulting.

They might perceive the truth as psychologically distressing, but the truth is not an insult.

I had an acquaintance who transitioned his gender to female. While he was alive, it was very hurtful and insulting to be referred to as a male. What you don’t seem to grasp is that your view is immaterial to the situation. If prisoners are insulting or harassing other prisoners, how they do it is not relevant to the situation - it is up to the prison authorities to keep the peace as best they can.

There is no evidence that this policy is based on 'insulting' or 'harassing' incidents of any kind. In any case, you are preferencing one imagined set of feelings over another. Is my distress at being told to engage in a State-mandated religion and be punished if I do not, worth any consideration to you?

That is your unsupported conclusion. As far as we know, they are responding to actual events where it is used as an insult.

Gospa could have appeared to the authorities and whispered the policy into their ears for all we know.

You can contort yourself all you want, but you are contradicting yourself.

I am not. There is no contradiction between my views.

To the literate, that indicates calling a transwoman a “he” may be an insult.

Yes, I understand that the gender ideologues cannot imagine it any other way.

No, it is not, since it omits important information.

Calling a transwoman 'she' is a polite fiction, and it is that position that 'omits' important information (indeed, actively obscures the truth about the sex of the inmate).

You are imputing motives because those motives conform to your biases.

Yes, alternative hypotheses make much more sense. Like that they authorities believe transwomen are men, and that's why they're putting them on the female estate.

Your suspicions only reflect your warped feelings.

What do you suppose is happening to trans men in prison?

 

[Metaphor]

When I asked you for the definition of gender you're using, you spoke of gender identity. You said it was the thoughts in a person's head regarding how they view themselves. Can you clarify your meaning when you use the term 'gender' or speak of 'misgendering'?.

My understanding of what people mean when they say 'misgendering' is that somebody has used the terms appropriate for somebody's sex (boy, girl, man, woman, him, her, etc), where somebody claims a 'gender identity' that does not 'align' with their sex.

I try to avoid the term 'gender' if I can help it, because it appears to me people use it to mean 'sex', or sometimes 'sex-role', and there exist these terms already. Now, I believe gender identity exists, because thoughts exist, but I do not understand what gender means if it does not mean sex or sex-role. The best I can come up with is a gender is like a soul, and I don't believe in souls. Or, gender is like a personality, but I do not find it to be a very helpful addition to the terms of personality.

How would you know whether someone is a biological male?

I look at them or talk to them.

Biological sex and gender aren't strictly binary, aren't always paired the same way, and aren't always readily apparent.

It's true that the sex of clothed people isn't always and everywhere 'readily apparent'. As I've said before, it is possible I have mis-sexed some people in my lifetime.

Anyway the issue here isn't that someone might mistakenly call a person with a beard 'he' when in fact she is a 'she'. The issue is knowingly and deliberately denying their identity, and the likelihood that this behavior will stir up trouble in a prison.

Calling a biological male 'he' is not a denial of identity. Their 'identity' (gender identity) does not come into it. It is a term used for male mammals (and indeed most males in the animal kingdom).

Prisons are full of a-holes, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to be an a-hole in prison.

Oh, not true. The State has decided it will be the Grand Poobah of assholes in prisons, by putting males in the female estate, and then threatening women for acknowledging that reality.

 

[laughing dog]

They might perceive the truth as psychologically distressing, but the truth is not an insult.

I see the problem here, you have no idea what an insult is. An insult is to speak or treat with disrespect or abuse. How one phrases the truth can be disrespectful or abusive to the target.

There is no evidence that this policy is based on 'insulting' or 'harassing' incidents of any kind.

There is no evidence on what drove this policy. Yet that has not stopped you from imputing one.

In any case, you are preferencing one imagined set of feelings over another.

So are you. So, do you have an actual relevant point?

Is my distress at being told to engage in a State-mandated religion and be punished if I do not, worth any consideration to you?

We are discussing the prison policy. You claim you are not a prisoner in a prison.

Gospa could have appeared to the authorities and whispered the policy into their ears for all we know.

If you agree that we don't know the motives of the authorities, please stop pretending you do with your declarative statements.

I am not. There is no contradiction between my views.

Sure Jan.

Yes, I understand that the gender ideologues cannot imagine it any other way.

I am sure you miss the irony of that response.

 

[Metaphor]

I see the problem here, you have no idea what an insult is. An insult is to speak or treat with disrespect or abuse. How one phrases the truth can be disrespectful or abusive to the target.

"Disrespectful misgendering" was not banned. The OP article implied that a 'slip up' might be tolerated, but ordinary use of language would not be.

EDIT: I mean, I would use 'he' for any biological male, and I would not be doing it because I wanted to abuse, harass, or threaten that male. Yet I am certain that if I continued to do so, my actions would be regarded as abusive, harassing, or threatening. The UK State has demonstrated her disregard for freedom of speech repeatedly.

There is no evidence on what drove this policy. Yet that has not stopped you from imputing one.

The quoted authorities talk about how the policy fits in with existing legislation and policy. Nobody is quoted saying there were incidents of abusive "misgendering" driving the policy.

So are you. So, do you have an actual relevant point?

Well, yes. The State should not preference one set of feelings for another set, and the State should not punish people for "misgendering".

We are discussing the prison policy. You claim you are not a prisoner in a prison.

The prison policy is already a policy that reflects policies that the State has mandated in the non-prison community. I am not in prison, but my State can punish me for 'misgendering' on social media.

If you agree that we don't know the motives of the authorities, please stop pretending you do with your declarative statements.

It's true that arguing about the motivation for the policies is a furphy. The State should not punish people for 'misgendering', and you have said so yourself.

 

[none]

"Disrespectful misgendering" was not banned. The OP article implied that a 'slip up' might be tolerated, but ordinary use of language would not be.

EDIT: I mean, I would use 'he' for any biological male, and I would not be doing it because I wanted to abuse, harass, or threaten that male. Yet I am certain that if I continued to do so, my actions would be regarded as abusive, harassing, or threatening. The UK State has demonstrated her disregard for freedom of speech repeatedly.



The quoted authorities talk about how the policy fits in with existing legislation and policy. Nobody is quoted saying there were incidents of abusive "misgendering" driving the policy.

So are you. So, do you have an actual relevant point?

Well, yes. The State should not preference one set of feelings for another set, and the State should not punish people for "misgendering".

We are discussing the prison policy. You claim you are not a prisoner in a prison.

The prison policy is already a policy that reflects policies that the State has mandated in the non-prison community. I am not in prison, but my State can punish me for 'misgendering' on social media.

If you agree that we don't know the motives of the authorities, please stop pretending you do with your declarative statements.

It's true that arguing about the motivation for the policies is a furphy. The State should not punish people for 'misgendering', and you have said so yourself.

If you weren't so free you'd understand.
Oh the perils of freedom.
Dude eat a frog or whatever.

 

[laughing dog]

"Disrespectful misgendering" was not banned. The OP article implied that a 'slip up' might be tolerated, but ordinary use of language would not be.

You are reading between the lines.

EDIT: I mean, I would use 'he' for any biological male, and I would not be doing it because I wanted to abuse, harass, or threaten that male. Yet I am certain that if I continued to do so, my actions would be regarded as abusive, harassing, or threatening. The UK State has demonstrated her disregard for freedom of speech repeatedly.

This reflects on your ideology not on reality.

The quoted authorities talk about how the policy fits in with existing legislation and policy. Nobody is quoted saying there were incidents of abusive "misgendering" driving the policy.

That is not evidence of their motivation.

Well, yes. The State should not preference one set of feelings for another set, and the State should not punish people for "misgendering".

The State has preferences of one set of feelings all the time.

The prison policy is already a policy that reflects policies that the State has mandated in the non-prison community. I am not in prison, but my State can punish me for 'misgendering' on social media.

You live in Australia, not the UK.

It's true that arguing about the motivation for the policies is a furphy. The State should not punish people for 'misgendering', and you have said so yourself.

And you have agreed that prison authorities can punish prisoners for harassing, abusive or insulting language.

 

[Toni]

My understanding of what people mean when they say 'misgendering' is that somebody has used the terms appropriate for somebody's sex (boy, girl, man, woman, him, her, etc), where somebody claims a 'gender identity' that does not 'align' with their sex.

I try to avoid the term 'gender' if I can help it, because it appears to me people use it to mean 'sex', or sometimes 'sex-role', and there exist these terms already. Now, I believe gender identity exists, because thoughts exist, but I do not understand what gender means if it does not mean sex or sex-role. The best I can come up with is a gender is like a soul, and I don't believe in souls. Or, gender is like a personality, but I do not find it to be a very helpful addition to the terms of personality.



I look at them or talk to them.

Biological sex and gender aren't strictly binary, aren't always paired the same way, and aren't always readily apparent.

It's true that the sex of clothed people isn't always and everywhere 'readily apparent'. As I've said before, it is possible I have mis-sexed some people in my lifetime.

Anyway the issue here isn't that someone might mistakenly call a person with a beard 'he' when in fact she is a 'she'. The issue is knowingly and deliberately denying their identity, and the likelihood that this behavior will stir up trouble in a prison.

Calling a biological male 'he' is not a denial of identity. Their 'identity' (gender identity) does not come into it. It is a term used for male mammals (and indeed most males in the animal kingdom).

Prisons are full of a-holes, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to be an a-hole in prison.

Oh, not true. The State has decided it will be the Grand Poobah of assholes in prisons, by putting males in the female estate, and then threatening women for acknowledging that reality.

You make assumptions based upon your perceptions, not even based on the biological characteristics. You use words to mean what you want them to mean. You reason like a 4 year old.