This week in trans: extra prison time possible for misgendering

[Trausti]

Oh, snap, crackle, pop.

---

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

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!"

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

Incarcerated prisoners are notoriously reluctant to rat each other out to the authorities, for fear of ostracism or worse reprisals. Even if a harassed prisoner is brave enough to go on the record and makes a formal complaint about misgendering to the guards, when the harasser inevitably denies it, it will be one prisoner's word against the other's; and when the guards ask other prisoners if they witnessed the interaction, surprise, the other prisoners will say they weren't there or can't remember the exact words. So the only people likely to testify against an accused misgenderer are prison guards or administrators. When is a prisoner most likely to use an unpreferred pronoun right in front of an authority figure? When she's bullying another prisoner? Or when she's griping to that authority figure about being forced to undress in front of a man? If the authority figure doesn't like her, or simply doesn't like having to deal with inmate complaints and wants to discourage complaining, well, if misgendering is forbidden then that's a golden opportunity for the guard or administrator to write up the prisoner, as a reprisal. It's not like she'll be in a position to get revenge on a guard for testifying against her.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

 

[ZiprHead]

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Really? So if you call an African American man who was birthed by an unwed mother a "Black bastard!" he should not take offence?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Really? So if you call an African American man who was birthed by an unwed mother a "Black bastard!" he should not take offence?

How does that reply relate to what B20 said?

 

[none]

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Really? So if you call an African American man who was birthed by an unwed mother a "Black bastard!" he should not take offence?

How does that reply relate to what B20 said?

It's called etiquette and rules you know. Like I can't call you a crackhead.
It's about respect.

 

[Metaphor]

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Really? So if you call an African American man who was birthed by an unwed mother a "Black bastard!" he should not take offence?

How does that reply relate to what B20 said?

It's called etiquette and rules you know. Like I can't call you a crackhead.
It's about respect.

This coming from somebody who continuously calls me Methaphor.

 

[none]

Um, I can't but it fits

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a relationship.

People who are in such a situation tend to be stressed by it. Could the assholeness be a symptom of being in the wrong body?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a relationship.

People who are in such a situation tend to be stressed by it. Could the assholeness be a symptom of being in the wrong body?

You cannot be in the wrong body. You are your body.

How did trans ideology turn people into born-again spiritualists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a relationship.

People who are in such a situation tend to be stressed by it. Could the assholeness be a symptom of being in the wrong body?

I dunno. Could be. But they're looking for creepy vibes, not stress fractures.
All these people believe gays have gaydar, so i keep wanting to ask, 'Are you asking if anyone's transdar went off?'

 

[Emily Lake]

You cannot be in the wrong body. You are your body.

How did trans ideology turn people into born-again spiritualists?

It's the resurgence of the soul, as separate from the flesh. And nicely wrapped up in some ID-style irreducible complexity adjacent "oh it's so very complicated!".

 

[Arctish]

Identity is complicated.

It's also malleable, adaptive, accumulative, and intangible. It changes with circumstances, maturation, and developing self awareness. It goes way beyond chromosomes and social conventions.

How much or how little you care about someone else's identity is up to you. How society should treat people based on their identity is up to society, i.e. all of us deciding what it means and what to do.

 

[Metaphor]

Identity is complicated.

It's also malleable, adaptive, accumulative, and intangible. It changes with circumstances, maturation, and developing self awareness. It goes way beyond chromosomes and social conventions.

How much or how little you care about someone else's identity is up to you. How society should treat people based on their identity is up to society, i.e. all of us deciding what it means and what to do.

Why don't you respect Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman?

 

[Arctish]

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more valid and important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

 

[Metaphor]

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

 

[none]

wow, either that came out of the navel or the other hole...

 

[laughing dog]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

 

[none]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

fuck dude. YOU are defining what is or is not TRANS. of course dude is liberal..

 

[laughing dog]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.