This week in trans: extra prison time possible for misgendering

[Jarhyn]

Transgendered women need not male genitilia. And, do you have any evidence that transgendered women necessarily share cells with cis-women?

My understanding is that transgendered women were placed in women's prisons because they were targets for violence in men's prisons and too hard to protect there. IMO, a better solution is to have a transgendered women section in a woman's prison than to have them mixed in with the general population if there are going to be problems.


FIFY

I think the idea of a transgendered section in a prison is in theory a good idea. Might be a little difficult though with an existing prison. Will they have their own exercise yard, cafeteria, rec room? What about prison jobs? All that may be a tall order if there are only a handful or less trans prisoners, not to mention the social isolation aspects. That could be more damaging overall than the risk of violence. The other point is that there are many prisoners who are at high risk of violence from other prisoners. Pedophiles, wife beaters/killers, snitches, celebrity prisoners (Jeffrey Dahmer, anyone). Shouldn't they get their own section too?

It's interesting that you recognize the more general form of the problem (prisons by their nature and principles of operation create safety issues for the people so imprisoned), but you seem unwilling to accept that there is, because of the generality of the problem, a general solution.

This to me all comes down to the failure for developed nations to move away from "punishment" and towards something more useful and less awful than merely binning people, often with those who they will inevitably harm for no good reason.

 

[ZiprHead]

Restorative Justice

What is Restorative Justice?

Restorative justice repairs the harm caused by crime. When victims, offenders and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational.

It emphasizes accountability, making amends, and — if they are interested — facilitated meetings between victims, offenders, and other persons.

 

[Toni]

Transgendered women need not male genitilia. And, do you have any evidence that transgendered women necessarily share cells with cis-women?

My understanding is that transgendered women were placed in women's prisons because they were targets for violence in men's prisons and too hard to protect there. IMO, a better solution is to have a transgendered women section in a woman's prison than to have them mixed in with the general population if there are going to be problems.


FIFY

I think the idea of a transgendered section in a prison is in theory a good idea. Might be a little difficult though with an existing prison. Will they have their own exercise yard, cafeteria, rec room? What about prison jobs? All that may be a tall order if there are only a handful or less trans prisoners, not to mention the social isolation aspects. That could be more damaging overall than the risk of violence. The other point is that there are many prisoners who are at high risk of violence from other prisoners. Pedophiles, wife beaters/killers, snitches, celebrity prisoners (Jeffrey Dahmer, anyone). Shouldn't they get their own section too?

It's interesting that you recognize the more general form of the problem (prisons by their nature and principles of operation create safety issues for the people so imprisoned), but you seem unwilling to accept that there is, because of the generality of the problem, a general solution.

This to me all comes down to the failure for developed nations to move away from "punishment" and towards something more useful and less awful than merely binning people, often with those who they will inevitably harm for no good reason.

I absolutely agree that prisons are unnecessarily dangerous, violent and brutal places and that the source of the brutality is not confined to the inmates. Given that most sentences are not for life, not only is the brutal, violent nature of prison life morally indefensible but also impractical and unwise.

It is obvious to most thinking people that it is simply smarter to provide treatment for mental illness and substance abuse as well as job training. We need those things before people get sent to prison as well. We are failing our society by not providing those things.

But: it is my observation that a certain percentage of people are strongly motivated by fear of punishment. To a certain extent, we all are. I drive the speed limit ( more or less) because I don’t want a ticket. A bigger fear for me is that I don’t want to cause an accident which would cost money or worse, hurt someone. Mostly I just think if the ticket though. But I don’t steal or assault other people because I think that’s wrong—even if I could do it without being caught or punished, I think it is wrong to take what is mine or to hurt others if it can be avoided. Probably most people here feel the same but some people only refrain from streaking, etc. because they fear punishment. Without that fear, they’d take whatever they wanted, hurt people if they wanted. I don’t know if it’s how they are wired/genetic, how they were raised or a combination. But it’s true.

And I think that it’s also true that some people cannot be fixed. I don’t want to believe that but I do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

 

[Jarhyn]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

"If the places for reducing and resolving criminal intent are to be kept safe, we have to let them operate in a framework of criminal networks and enterprises."

No. Every individual with any power in these structures needs to be removed and placed in isolation from their networks, with continued attempts to organize criminal activity yielding an increasing level of corrective sophistication.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

"If the places for reducing and resolving criminal intent are to be kept safe, we have to let them operate in a framework of criminal networks and enterprises."

No. Every individual with any power in these structures needs to be removed and placed in isolation from their networks, with continued attempts to organize criminal activity yielding an increasing level of corrective sophistication.

Good luck with that. You make it sound like we haven't been trying to do this, since for ever. In the Soviet Union they were about as heavy handed as it's possible to be with inmates and ended up with a maffia identifiable by having huge crucifixes tattooed on their chests. The inmates feared the guy with the crucifix more than the guards. It doesn't work. In a western country where inmates have basic human rights, it's not going to happen. The one thing totalitarian regimes have going for it is that they're the only type of regime that can effectively curtail the activity of the maffia. But they still can't prevent them from running our prisons. What chance do we have?

We simply have to accept that our tools of coercion are limited when we're dealing with people with nothing left to lose.

Isn't it better to allow the inmates sort themselves out and do their best to come out of there in one piece? Perhaps they know better than us what it means to survive in prison? Well meaning tough love morons are only going to make an already difficult life worse, for no reason or benefit. They're already in prison. Why try to fuck their lives up even more?

 

[Jarhyn]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

"If the places for reducing and resolving criminal intent are to be kept safe, we have to let them operate in a framework of criminal networks and enterprises."

No. Every individual with any power in these structures needs to be removed and placed in isolation from their networks, with continued attempts to organize criminal activity yielding an increasing level of corrective sophistication.

Good luck with that. You make it sound like we haven't been trying to do this, since for ever. In the Soviet Union they were about as heavy handed as it's possible to be with inmates and ended up with a maffia identifiable by having huge crucifixes tattooed on their chests. The inmates feared the guy with the crucifix more than the guards. It doesn't work. In a western country where inmates have basic human rights, it's not going to happen. The one thing totalitarian regimes have going for it is that they're the only type of regime that can effectively curtail the activity of the maffia. But they still can't prevent them from running our prisons. What chance do we have?

We simply have to accept that our tools of coercion are limited when we're dealing with people with nothing left to lose.

Isn't it better to allow the inmates sort themselves out and do their best to come out of there in one piece? Perhaps they know better than us what it means to survive in prison? Well meaning tough love morons are only going to make an already difficult life worse, for no reason or benefit. They're already in prison. Why try to fuck their lives up even more?

Because we haven't.

Maybe you never paid attention to the whole thread where I put AM on ignore: it was because they consistently argued for the "virtues" of the punishment model.

US prisons are "punishment model".

The issue is "coercion" in the first place.

Look at what you are arguing: coerce those whose entire issue is that they do not use nor acknowledge value of tools other than coercion!

Correction in the first place starts with introducing the value of compassion not as weakness but strength.

 

[TomC]

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

Not always, but sometimes it very much is. Prison populations are generally more abusive and threatening than the rest of us. So they're stuck with much stricter rules.
Surely you recognize all this.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

I strongly suspect the rule in question is about prevention of potential violent behavior not about behavior modification.

 

[Gun Nut]

I strongly suspect that the more accurate tile, "Extra prison time for purposefully enraging other inmates" would not have gotten as much play time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I strongly suspect that the more accurate tile, "Extra prison time for purposefully enraging other inmates" would not have gotten as much play time.

Yup.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

"If the places for reducing and resolving criminal intent are to be kept safe, we have to let them operate in a framework of criminal networks and enterprises."

No. Every individual with any power in these structures needs to be removed and placed in isolation from their networks, with continued attempts to organize criminal activity yielding an increasing level of corrective sophistication.

Good luck with that. You make it sound like we haven't been trying to do this, since for ever. In the Soviet Union they were about as heavy handed as it's possible to be with inmates and ended up with a maffia identifiable by having huge crucifixes tattooed on their chests. The inmates feared the guy with the crucifix more than the guards. It doesn't work. In a western country where inmates have basic human rights, it's not going to happen. The one thing totalitarian regimes have going for it is that they're the only type of regime that can effectively curtail the activity of the maffia. But they still can't prevent them from running our prisons. What chance do we have?

We simply have to accept that our tools of coercion are limited when we're dealing with people with nothing left to lose.

Isn't it better to allow the inmates sort themselves out and do their best to come out of there in one piece? Perhaps they know better than us what it means to survive in prison? Well meaning tough love morons are only going to make an already difficult life worse, for no reason or benefit. They're already in prison. Why try to fuck their lives up even more?

Because we haven't.

Maybe you never paid attention to the whole thread where I put AM on ignore: it was because they consistently argued for the "virtues" of the punishment model.

US prisons are "punishment model".

The issue is "coercion" in the first place.

Look at what you are arguing: coerce those whose entire issue is that they do not use nor acknowledge value of tools other than coercion!

Correction in the first place starts with introducing the value of compassion not as weakness but strength.

I'm arguing for that inmates have bigger problems than which pronouns we use. Worrying about pronouns is a luxury matter for the middle-class. Trying to apply this to inmates, ie working class people is tone deaf to the extreme.

It's like trying to talk a single mother of four to switch to eco friendly locally sourced whole grain food, when she's struggling to feed her kids at all.

Being in prison, isn't that punishment enough? Why make it worse by adding a bunch of bizarre rules.

And finally, the current trend about people picking pronouns and expecting it to be respected. I think it's a fad. It's a really dumb fad. It's not about showing support for the trans community. It's just dumb. It's pointless virtue signaling for the benefit of nobody. Kids do it in the hope that it might annoy their parents. Adults do it because they want to show they're hip to the jib of the younguns'. It's just dumb and it's going to go away. Why use extreme punishments, like extending prison sentences for what's essentially a middle-class fad?

It reminds me of a story of a young middle-class guy at a constructing site who was called princess by one guy. Finally he snapped and told him to stop calling him that. After that... obviously... everybody called him princess. And that became his nickname. These are pretty harsh environments where you need thick skin to survive. Being prissy and polite isn't going to fly. Every community has it's social rules that need to be obeyed if one wants respect. In prisons, the prison officials and guards are the least important people for inmates to get respect from. Because they're not going to be around after the inmates gets out of prison.

It's a hard life being an ex-con. They need to network and make friends inside.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Let baby have his bottle." ... "Oh, see? His boyfriend is coming to his rescue."

Those all look like interactions to me. Is there any indication that Justice Minister Lord Wolfson limited his punishment warning to uses of the unwanted pronoun in the referenced prisoner's presence?

You were saying interactions were 2nd person, which has no gender pronouns, so harrassment is unpossible. I offered third person harrassment examples, which you acknowledge as interaction. Now you tangent? Meh.

I'm not following how my writing "generally involves" led to you reading "harrassment is unpossible". But if what I wrote was an overgeneralization missing some needed limitation, and if your purpose was to score a rhetorical point, then yes, it is possible to use a gender pronoun to harass someone -- it's possible after all to use any word to harass someone if the would-be harasser is creative enough -- so consider yourself awarded a point. All your examples of one high-schooler harassing another using a put-down that contained a third-person pronoun because the harasser phrased the put-down as if he were addressing onlookers would still be put-downs regardless of whether or not the pronouns were the ones the victims preferred. It was never the use of a particular pronoun that made the difference as to whether someone was being harassed. My concern here is that Lord Wolfson appears to be declaring it government policy to treat use of non-preferred pronouns as harassment per se. When he says such uses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, the exception that comes to his mind of a situation where it shouldn't be punished is "Prisoners may sometimes make an honest mistake", not "Prisoners may sometimes not be harassing anyone with them". That doesn't sound like a focus on preventing violent reactions; that sounds like a focus on preventing thought-crime.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whoa. Are you assuming there are only two gender pronouns?

You aren't at all interested in a persons right to how they present oneself, so it must be up to you to decide for them.

You have conflated "how others present them" with "how they present oneself". Your use of a pronoun doesn't stop another person from presenting him- or her- self in any particular way.

I doubt you conflated them by mistake. It's more likely that you're actually advocating the theory that a person has a right to have third parties present that person how he or she wishes to be presented. I.e., you aren't at all interested in a person's right to how he or she presents people, so it must be up to you to decide for him or her.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wonder if the "binary only" crowd on here asks to look down the front of people's pants if they are not sure what pronoun to use.

Trans people don't become trans just for kicks. As this thread is an example, they are hated by a wide swath of society, and very often the target of violence. They exist in all cultures and throughout history.

How is this thread an example of that hatred? What post can you point out that expresses hatred of trans people?

There are an awful lot of posts that express disapproval of thought-police. I don't suppose thought-police like being disapproved of any more than anyone else does. But thought-police do tend more than most to take out their displeasure on others by trumping up groundless thought-crime charges.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You were saying interactions were 2nd person, which has no gender pronouns, so harrassment is unpossible. I offered third person harrassment examples, which you acknowledge as interaction. Now you tangent? Meh.

I'm not following how my writing "generally involves" led to you reading "harrassment is unpossible".

probably the bit where you said, "Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane."
It's not even difficult.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All your examples of one high-schooler harassing another using a put-down that contained a third-person pronoun because the harasser phrased the put-down as if he were addressing onlookers would still be put-downs regardless of whether or not the pronouns were the ones the victims preferred..

To be frank, that's how i'd do it.
If i was locked up with a guy i knew to be transgendered, and he pissed me off sufficiently, i'd not just dox him. "Jefferson used to be Justine." Too self-incriminating.

I'd use the pronoun in the middle of another insult. "Better give baby back the basketball, Tony, you know how she gets."

Because chances are good that Jefferson will be more upset about the pronoun than the insult, which will do that much more damage. I mean, even if the other inmates don't realize i'm talking 'transgender,' they will see that he responds poorly to being called a 'she.' And that habit will spread in typical shark dynamics (or wolf, whichever you prefer. They smelt the blood and start circling.).

Until the day a completely clueless inmate is ranting about how horrible transgenders are, and some wag thinks he's witty by pointing to Jefferson and saying, "Like her?" And then there's a riot. But my hands are deniably clean. "I didn't even speak before Jefferson threw Todd at the television, Warden! I was playing solitaire!"

 

[laughing dog]

I'm arguing for that inmates have bigger problems than which pronouns we use.

First, this is not about what pronouns "we" use, it is about life in the prison. Second, the existence of larger problems does not preclude dealing with smaller problems. Third, and most importantly, you seem to unable to grasp that this is about reducing or avoiding inmates enraging other inmates to violence.

Really, your responses are almost completely off point to the actual issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm arguing for that inmates have bigger problems than which pronouns we use.

First, this is not about what pronouns "we" use, it is about life in the prison. Second, the existence of larger problems does not preclude dealing with smaller problems. Third, and most importantly, you seem to unable to grasp that this is about reducing or avoiding inmates enraging other inmates to violence.

Really, your responses are almost completely off point to the actual issue.

I wonder... If someone were to come up to Emily or even Metaphor and said "why don't you care about the science, I have a ____, you have a _____. It should be that simple, why aren't we having sex already?!?"

The "science' of "sexual dimorphism" is not contextual here. It is the "social reality" that matters, and the "social reality" revolves around "what people expose to society". All the science in the world will not change the discussion of "private" and "public" data... Unless that is "social science". Which says "society works better when we leave biology to contexts of biological goals".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Weird thing at work. A senior missile technician is on leave, and updated their facebook status to female. We now have two women in a previously all-male rating.
Some of the people in my group knew her before. They are falling over themselves trying to talk about this change. Will she be in the chief's quarters when she goes back, she'll have to use the single-man shower. No, i mean the single-person...
Will she be part of two-man rule during tube evolutions. Well, that's been two-person rule for a while. Old habits die hard.


The funniest, though, are the people trying to see if anyone remembers getting 'weird vibes' off of 'B' when she was 'K'.
Yeah. People got vibes. A BUNCH of people have been describing this individual as an asshole for years. I do not recall any discussions of 'weird' vibes in addition to this assessment. But now people are claiming to have known or noticed ...something... for a while.
Thank Zeno we're mostly on remote, so i just have to turn off my mic to laugh... man, i hate people.