ACLU blocks woman's request for data on numbers of transgender inmates in women's prisons

[Metaphor]

The release was blocked by a judge, not the ACLU. The PM didn't bother to get the ACLU's side of the matter to include in the story, so poor journalism.

So, as Bronzeage said: The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

In other words, you can identify no errors of fact in the story.

It's right there in bold. Both you and the PM said it was the ACLU that blocked the action.

The ACLU's injunction convinced a judge to block the release, or the ACLU sued to prevent release. I do not feel anything is lost by saying 'the ACLU blocked the release', since I assume most people know the ACLU is a non-government organisation and does not have formal judicial power.

However, if you personally feel the need to check the bias of every source you read, because you are not confident in your own judgment, please feel free.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's right there in bold. Both you and the PM said it was the ACLU that blocked the action.

The ACLU's injunction convinced a judge to block the release, or the ACLU sued to prevent release. I do not feel anything is lost by saying 'the ACLU blocked the release', since I assume most people know the ACLU is a non-government organisation and does not have formal judicial power.

However, if you personally feel the need to check the bias of every source you read, because you are not confident in your own judgment, please feel free.

It's not my judgement I distrust, it's yours. Lack of trust in your judgement has served me quite well.

 

[Metaphor]

It's right there in bold. Both you and the PM said it was the ACLU that blocked the action.

The ACLU's injunction convinced a judge to block the release, or the ACLU sued to prevent release. I do not feel anything is lost by saying 'the ACLU blocked the release', since I assume most people know the ACLU is a non-government organisation and does not have formal judicial power.

However, if you personally feel the need to check the bias of every source you read, because you are not confident in your own judgment, please feel free.

It's not my judgement I distrust, it's yours. Lack of trust in your judgement has served me quite well.

If you don't trust my judgment, then it would not matter what source I chose for a story. I read stories on the Guardian and I understand its left wing bias. I don't care, as long as they do not make errors of fact in their reporting.

 

[Copernicus]

Have you considered the possibility that your personal experience might not be a great criterion for granting an FOI request?

I don't know what you mean. I think the government agency that received the request should handle it.

What I mean is that your opinion about how government officials usually deal with such requests is not sufficient to support your broad generalization. Another person with equal experience might have a different feeling. A court would certainly want a criterion that is more objective than your confidence and assurances about how government officials and bureaucrats normally behave.

I've worked with the problem of redacting sensitive information (and have developed a patented technique for a methodology to extract such information). It is far from a trivial exercise, and it requires someone with training and skills to do it properly. In any case, the FOI does not appear to ask for documents. It asks for information that may not currently exist in that form. This has already been pointed out to you by Loren Pechtel. FOI requests are for existing documents, not analyses of those documents.

I am aware that FOIs are for existing documents. The letter asks for five pieces of information which may be contained by one or more documents or no documents. For example, request 3) is "Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a women's facility"

A document(s) that contain this information may or may not exist, but if the document didn't exist, it doesn't need an injunction to prevent its release. Its non-existence prevents its release.

Now, it is my opinion that the ACLU wants to prevent making public any of the information contained in request 3), even if nobody's privacy rights were violated.

As I said, the FOI is clearly a fishing expedition. It would take considerable resources and expense for a government agency to drop everything and go searching its haystack for anything that might satisfy some group that doesn't know where the information is or in what documents it could possibly reside.

Note: It is my opinion that you want to make public any information covered broadly by request 3, even if somebody's privacy rights were violated. Of course, my opinion of your goals and intentions is just as good as your opinion of the ACLU's. Neither opinion is a sufficient basis to reach a conclusion about the legality of this FOI request. That is for a court to decide.

 

[Metaphor]

As I said, the FOI is clearly a fishing expedition.

If that FOI request is, then every FOI request is.

When the public requests documents, they don't know what documents exist, in what form, what they might contain, or how to correctly refer to them.

It would take considerable resources and expense for a government agency to drop everything and go searching its haystack for anything that might satisfy some group that doesn't know where the information is or in what documents it could possibly reside.

That's what FOI legislation requires: responding to people who ask for documents. FOI legislation does not require people to ask for specific documents or identify them by name. I know: I've been involved in providing documents for FOI requests.

Note: It is my opinion that you want to make public any information covered broadly by request 3, even if somebody's privacy rights were violated. Of course, my opinion of your goals and intentions is just as good as your opinion of the ACLU's. Neither is a sufficient basis to reach a conclusion about the legality of this FOI request.

The FOI request is, of course, 'legal'. Even if the requester is mistaken about what she is entitled to, I cannot imagine being mistaken when making a request makes your behaviour illegal. The FOI request might result in 'no documents released' for a number of reasons.

I am interested in the information requested and hope the FOI is successful. And if it is not, I think such statistics should be made available to the public voluntarily.

 

[Copernicus]

You don't know what FOI requests are like in the US and the state of Washington. You live in Australia. Normally, FOI requests are for documents, not just broad categories of information. It is up to a court to decide whether the request is legal and valid. So far, a court has decided that it is not. Those requesting it have the option of satisfying the court that it is or appealing to a higher court. The ACLU and the court know what the laws here are and what they are doing. You don't. The law here asks those seeking release of documents and records to be as specific as possible. Moreover, some records are exempted--patient records and some investigative reports. The FOI under question asks for both types of information without any clear specification of which documents or records are needed. It is clear why the injunction was granted by the court.

 

[bigfield]

What you mean is: transgender people sometimes attempt to present as a sex they are not.

I prefer the way I framed it.

Note though that while there are different degrees of 'success' in 'passing', transgender ideology does not say that trans people need to pass, or attempt to pass, as the opposite sex, in order to receive the sex-based rights (or access to restricted spaces) of that sex.

You're right, but in practice, a trans person is going to have a hard time getting other people to gender them the way they want unless they adopt gender cues like clothing, hairstyle, and manner of speech.

I know there are lots of jokes about identifying as an attack helicopter, or men identifying as women to game the system, but I'm more interested in how this affects actual trans people who are making an effort to be accepted as the gender they identify as.
The way I see it, if I meet someone who, as far as I can tell, is a woman, then don't see why I should have any trouble addressing her as such,

But who is stopping you from addressing a trans person the way you want to address them? As far as I can tell, nobody anywhere. It is rather the opposite: trans activists demand that other people address trans people with their 'preferred pronouns'. The penalty for refusing this demand depends on the legal and social capture that trans ideology has made in certain jurisdictions.

and I don't see what would cause anyone to be alarmed when she uses the women's toilets.

Are you a female? Why do you imply that 'alarm' might be the only justifiable reason to exclude males from female space? Why isn't it enough for women and girls to say 'we want a female only space'?

I think that most people would agree that this is common sense, but some jurisdictions have laws banning trans women from identifying as women when it comes to something as mundane as taking a shit.

No one can stop you 'identifying' as a woman. But they might be able to stop you entering a single-sex space if you are not the sex that qualifies.

To defend trans identity, in that instance, would be to oppose such legislation.

I would think that the ACLU's natural position is to defend a person's rights to privacy (people shouldn't have to prove their biological sex when it isn't necessary) and freedom of expression (if a biologically female person wants to identify as a man then why not let her?). What do you think their position should be on the matter?

It seems to me there is no barrier to 'freedom of (gender) expression'. What laws (in the Western world, I mean) forbid men from dressing in clothes marketed to women? Or women from dressing in clothes marketed to men? What law forbids women to have buzzcuts or men to wear makeup? (The military has differing dress codes for men and women, and that should be lifted. If you allow one sex makeup or jewelry it ought be allowed for both. But that isn't a trans issue.)

It seems to me the only freedom of expression that is being curtailed is a person's freedom to dissent to radical gender ideology.

You ask about the 'right to privacy'. How do you think, for example, a single-sex space violates a right to privacy? A person's sex is not a secret; the government knows your sex already. Indeed, if the sex of your child was meant to be a secret, parents all over the world for millennia have been 'violating' this right, by freely disclosing the sex of their children to family, friends, strangers. Single-sex spaces are an honour system already: what keeps men out of women's toilets right now is the fact that men don't belong in women's toilets.

What 'right to privacy' do girls and boys have if someone of the opposite sex can be in their intimate spaces? Do you think an 11 year old girl has the right to not see an adult male's penis when she is changing? If you don't think she has the right not to see it, why have separate intimate spaces delineated by sex at all? Note that there's no right to privacy from your own sex being discussed: people never had that right.

I agree that sex-segregated facilities are largely a honour-based system, although I would also add that people tend to police each other when it comes to things like changing rooms and toilets. If a man goes into a woman's toilet, the women there aren't going to like it. In the same way, if a trans man, who "passes" as a man, goes into a women's toilet, he's also going to be treated as if he doesn't belong there. It seems to me that it makes more sense for trans men to use the men's facilities and for trans women to use the women's facilities.

I'm quite certain that an 11 year old girl would not want to see a cock and balls, but then the same is probably true for 11 year old boys as well. Dicks just look weird. However, this isn't going to be a problem with respect to trans people who have had bottom surgery, just those who still have their factory parts.

You ask, why have intimate spaces delineated at all? I think that's a good question. If it's to stop perverts from perving, then we're not doing a very good job when it comes to same-sex attracted perverts.

 

[J842P]

Are you opposed to transgender activism in general or just this particular action by the ACLU?

But the ACLU is simply another institution captured by trans ideology.

Oh, now being trans is an "ideology."

Pray tell, what are the tenets of this ideology?

Let me guess...suggesting that trans people have rights is a belief system...

No, that is a buffoonish interpretation of what Metaphor said.

 

[J842P]

No, not to prison, though a woman in my own city was fined $10,000 and ordered to publically apologise when she 'liked' certain comments on her Facebook.

You know when you link a story, other people can read it, right?

This wasn't some random person who was caught making anti-trans comments to a friend at the pub where someone else overheard and next thing you know she was clapped in leg irons.

No, the woman you feel was terribly wronged by the "trans agenda" made public comments on social media which ran afoul of your discrimination laws. She paid a small fine and apologized. Problem solved? No, she failed to rectify the situation, leaving the offending comments up on her social media and "liking" discriminatory responses, which - one would have to assume - she knew would run her afoul of the law she had already violated.

Now, I'm not familiar with your anti-discrimination laws, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they aren't limited to gender identity. Therefore, anyone making such comments towards any class protected under the law could face similar consequences. Yet you chose to highlight this one case and present it as proof that there's some sinister trans agenda wiping out your personal liberties. It's not. Turns out your country has some consequential anti-discrimination laws, and that strikes me as a good thing.

It seems like you're bothered because trans people are protected by your laws. I can't help but wonder if you'd be this upset over someone being fined for making "vilifying and victimising " statements against racial or ethnic minorities.

So, are you going to acknowledge that we have people in this very thread who espouse the opinions that Metaphor has described as trans-ideology, which you have tried hard to imply doesn't exist?

Or are we just going to gloss over that?

 

[Copernicus]

It is not at all clear that there is anything like a trans "ideology", except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals. What is very clear is that there is an anti-trans ideology, as embodied by groups like the  Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) group that was behind the FOI request.

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American non-profit organization known for its opposition to transgender rights. WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization; it was founded by Lierre Keith in 2013 and is currently chaired by Natasha Chart. WoLF has engaged in litigation on transgender topics, working against the Obama administration's Title IX directives, and filing briefs against the plaintiff in the Gavin Grimm case. It has been characterized as trans-exclusionary radical feminist group.

 

[J842P]

It is not at all clear that there is anything like a trans "ideology", except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals. What is very clear is that there is an anti-trans ideology, as embodied by groups like the  Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) group that was behind the FOI request.

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American non-profit organization known for its opposition to transgender rights. WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization; it was founded by Lierre Keith in 2013 and is currently chaired by Natasha Chart. WoLF has engaged in litigation on transgender topics, working against the Obama administration's Title IX directives, and filing briefs against the plaintiff in the Gavin Grimm case. It has been characterized as trans-exclusionary radical feminist group.

This is just lazy, motivated reasoning. There are entire departments that espouse this ideology, e.g. Gender Studies, Queer Studies, which filters down to Education departments, and despite some (IMO nominal) diversity of thought, there is an over-arching dogma that exists. This does not include all or even most transpeople, as far as I can tell. This is an ideology that has roots in the academy, and most people who espouse the gender ideology are not even transgender.


And yes, there are people, e.g. the so-called TERFs, who oppose that ideology.

Indeed, one way we could define gender ideology is by what it is opposed to, namely, TERFs and trans-medicalists (i.e. "truscum").

That fact that you deny that this exists makes it impossible to take you seriously, especially when you are able to point to *the other side in this internecine fight* and are able to identify that no problem. Instead, you just use thinly veiled accusations of bigotry as a cudgel against people like Metaphor, probably because you have no interest in honesty or truth.

 

[Copernicus]

It is not at all clear that there is anything like a trans "ideology", except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals. What is very clear is that there is an anti-trans ideology, as embodied by groups like the  Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) group that was behind the FOI request.

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American non-profit organization known for its opposition to transgender rights. WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization; it was founded by Lierre Keith in 2013 and is currently chaired by Natasha Chart. WoLF has engaged in litigation on transgender topics, working against the Obama administration's Title IX directives, and filing briefs against the plaintiff in the Gavin Grimm case. It has been characterized as trans-exclusionary radical feminist group.

This is just lazy, motivated reasoning. There are entire departments that espouse this ideology, e.g. Gender Studies, Queer Studies, which filters down to Education departments, and despite some (IMO nominal) diversity of thought, there is an over-arching dogma that exists. This does not include all or even most transpeople, as far as I can tell. This is an ideology that has roots in the academy, and most people who espouse the gender ideology are not even transgender.


And yes, there are people, e.g. the so-called TERFs, who oppose that ideology.

Indeed, one way we could define gender ideology is by what it is opposed to, namely, TERFs and trans-medicalists (i.e. "truscum").

That fact that you deny that this exists makes it impossible to take you seriously, especially when you are able to point to *the other side in this internecine fight* and are able to identify that no problem. Instead, you just use thinly veiled accusations of bigotry as a cudgel against people like Metaphor, probably because you have no interest in honesty or truth.

First of all, what I said is that it wasn't clear that there was any trans "ideology" except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals. That is not denying that there is broad public support for transgender rights, but that support alone is not really an ideology dedicated to promoting just transgender rights. It is part of the broader civil rights movement that promotes rights for a wide spectrum of groups. General support for transgender rights is, in fact, quite popular, but it isn't exclusive support for just transgender people.

Link: New poll finds Americans oppose anti-transgender laws by wide margin

OTOH, there clearly are organizations like WoLF that are dedicated almost exclusively to fighting against transgender rights. You admit this, but quite grudgingly: "And yes, there are people, e.g. the so-called TERFs, who oppose that ideology." It is not an ideology that they oppose, however. It is a class of people. You call it an ideology, because that sounds a lot better than saying that they oppose rights for transgender individuals. The FOI that is the topic of this thread is part of their agenda to bolster a narrative against transgender rights, not an ideology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) This is a request for medical information. As such, great care needs to be taken with the data even if it is to be complied with. Note that it's very unlikely the data being asked for exists in that form[/i]. Compliance would require compiling it--and this is a realm where great care must be taken to avoid leaking information. You need medical researchers, not bureaucrats.

2) The numbers are going to be low. With the breakdown requested it will narrow it down to a few people. This could be dangerous for the people involved. As such, it should be denied, period, even if enough care is taken in compiling the info.

No, it shouldn't "be denied, period".

Like any FOI request, things can be redacted where they are potentially compromising.

1) I don't trust the bureaucrats to redact properly here. They do not have a very good track record at hiding identities.

2) It's irrelevant anyway, my second point remains even if all identities were perfectly redacted.

 

[Metaphor]

First of all, what I said is that it wasn't clear that there was any trans "ideology" except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals.

Trans ideology is a set of beliefs and espoused values that transactivists champion.

OTOH, there clearly are organizations like WoLF that are dedicated almost exclusively to fighting against transgender rights. You admit this, but quite grudgingly: "And yes, there are people, e.g. the so-called TERFs, who oppose that ideology." It is not an ideology that they oppose, however. It is a class of people. You call it an ideology, because that sounds a lot better than saying that they oppose rights for transgender individuals. The FOI that is the topic of this thread is part of their agenda to bolster a narrative against transgender rights, not an ideology.

Why is it that transactivists support the suppression of statistics relating to trans people? If those statistics 'bolstered' the narrative against transgender rights, does that not indicate to you that there is something wrong with the 'rights' some trans people are demanding?

 

[Metaphor]

1) This is a request for medical information. As such, great care needs to be taken with the data even if it is to be complied with. Note that it's very unlikely the data being asked for exists in that form[/i]. Compliance would require compiling it--and this is a realm where great care must be taken to avoid leaking information. You need medical researchers, not bureaucrats.

2) The numbers are going to be low. With the breakdown requested it will narrow it down to a few people. This could be dangerous for the people involved. As such, it should be denied, period, even if enough care is taken in compiling the info.

No, it shouldn't "be denied, period".

Like any FOI request, things can be redacted where they are potentially compromising.

1) I don't trust the bureaucrats to redact properly here. They do not have a very good track record at hiding identities.

2) It's irrelevant anyway, my second point remains even if all identities were perfectly redacted.

If this particular request is going to be denied, then you appear to be saying something like: the public has no right to access statistics about the number of males in women's correctional facilities, ever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) I don't trust the bureaucrats to redact properly here. They do not have a very good track record at hiding identities.

2) It's irrelevant anyway, my second point remains even if all identities were perfectly redacted.

If this particular request is going to be denied, then you appear to be saying something like: the public has no right to access statistics about the number of males in women's correctional facilities, ever.

Broad level statistics would not be a problem. What I'm objecting to is the request is fine-grained enough that it might reveal identities and probably would reveal it to be one of a few. That's why I want the redacting to be done by medical researchers--they're far more used to ensuring data doesn't leak.

 

[Copernicus]

First of all, what I said is that it wasn't clear that there was any trans "ideology" except in the minds of those who stereotype transgender individuals.

Trans ideology is a set of beliefs and espoused values that transactivists champion.

No, Metaphor, you are confusing an ideology that you made up with what most people would call the  Transgender Rights Movement, which does not espouse your list of characteristic beliefs of "trans activists". I don't know whether you made those up off the top of your head or whether you picked it up from reading some anti-trans literature, but most people who go out and demonstrate are usually part of a broader civil rights movement for LGBT individuals.

OTOH, there clearly are organizations like WoLF that are dedicated almost exclusively to fighting against transgender rights. You admit this, but quite grudgingly: "And yes, there are people, e.g. the so-called TERFs, who oppose that ideology." It is not an ideology that they oppose, however. It is a class of people. You call it an ideology, because that sounds a lot better than saying that they oppose rights for transgender individuals. The FOI that is the topic of this thread is part of their agenda to bolster a narrative against transgender rights, not an ideology.

Why is it that transactivists support the suppression of statistics relating to trans people? If those statistics 'bolstered' the narrative against transgender rights, does that not indicate to you that there is something wrong with the 'rights' some trans people are demanding?

I'm sure that there are arguments over statistics, but that happens with all social movements. Your generalization is too broad and vague for me even to begin to address it. Obviously, people who promote LGBTQ civil rights can come up with bad arguments to support their case, but that doesn't mean that all arguments in support of such rights are bad. I suppose that you are being vague here because most of this is just coming off the top of your head.

 

[bilby]

1) I don't trust the bureaucrats to redact properly here. They do not have a very good track record at hiding identities.

2) It's irrelevant anyway, my second point remains even if all identities were perfectly redacted.

If this particular request is going to be denied, then you appear to be saying something like: the public has no right to access statistics about the number of males in women's correctional facilities, ever.

The number of male inmates in women's correctional facilities is, by definition, zero.

That is, if we use the definition adopted by those facilities themselves.

Your entire issue here is that you want your definition to replace the official one. But you would prefer to couch that issue in terms that make it undeniable that you are right - in other words, you are begging the question.

The whole ideological and righteousness discussion is bloody ridiculous. The moral priority is to avoid actual harm to actual people. Allowing or requesting greater levels of actual harm to actual people in an attempt to limit hypothetical or potential harm to unknown people who might or might not be or become victims at some future date is therefore immoral, no matter how well intentioned.

This is what's wrong with religion, and with the various political ideologies that cause (usually unintentional) harm. If you want to argue that an action or ideological position is harmful, you need to back that argument with actual instances of actual harm, that outweigh the actual instances of actual harm caused by the removal of that ideology from power. No amount of hypothetical harm can ever outweigh real harm.

This is why it's not acceptable to torture people in order to convert them to the one true faith, even if you firmly believe that doing so will save them from far worse torture in hell.

Your ideology doesn't justify your harmful impact on real people's real lives.

 

[repoman]

Hey Bilby,

remember when the social deal was that gender expression would be respected and the terms man and woman were mostly detached from genital/chromosomal/gamete sex? That male meant XY and female XX chromosomes, barring the rare intersex conditions that are not inherently related to gender expression.

Was that just the thin edge of the wedge to get to the total bullshit that you and your side are peddling now. Boiling society like a frog.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey Bilby,

remember when the social deal was that gender expression would be respected and the terms man and woman were mostly detached from genital/chromosomal/gamete sex? That male meant XY and female XX chromosomes, barring the rare intersex conditions that are not inherently related to gender expression.

Was that just the thin edge of the wedge to get to the total bullshit that you and your side are peddling now. Boiling society like a frog.

No. I always rejected, and quite vocally so, the idiocy that tries to wedge in that "barring intersex conditions..." Part. The issue is that gender expression is expected to be a function of rare (trans people are rare) condition wherein sex expression has gone away in the brainpan, and that "male" and "female" don't really distinguish trans people well in the first place. Using those terms in common language and even bandying them about as people do is abusive to the privacy of those of whom you speak.

At any rate, I personally always reserve the right to observe that I have not gone fare enough in the past to protect the privacy of people from lax reference.

At any rate, that social deal you reference wasn't respected in the first place. In fact that's the whole point here: some TERF group insisting that the deal you are claiming the left claims wasn't far enough now when it is in fact the right going ahead and trying to violate it themselves, insisting that "only females can be women".

Crybullying at its finest.