Convicted of sex crimes as a man, felon no longer deemed threat because of gender change

[laughing dog]

So?
There is more to the determination that this person is not a threat than the gender change, so it is incomplete which makes it inaccurate.

Naturally, headlines are supposed to eye-catching, so it is par for the course to have incomplete or misleading headlines. However, OP discussions need not be incomplete, and disregarding/dismssing the person's history or the determinations of psychologists is more problematic.

The gender change changed the determination.

That is the headline, that is not confirmed by the AG

Attorney general spokesman Lynn Hicks wouldn’t comment on the reason for the dismissal other than to say “an offender’s hormone levels are an important part of substantiating an offender’s likelihood of recidivism.”

 

[Jarhyn]

First, you're wrong. The first trans person I knew was one of my undergrad psychology lecturers (long enough ago that they were referred to as transsexual (M t F)), and decades before the concept of preferred pronouns and misgendering as a hate crime entered the public consciousness.

But, even if your charge were true--it isn't--it's irrelevant. It is a shutdown tactic of the woke to claim epistemic exclusivity--and I ain't having a bar of it, luvvie.



I suppose then you'd be equally at home with a trans man having his recidivism risk 'upgraded' when he begins medical transition?

As in, the exact situation here, but with crimes committed as a woman, sentence served, but is held indefinitely as long as he keeps taking testosterone?

And, alternatively, if he chooses to de-transition, you're okay with the State re-evaluating him and letting him go on that basis?

I hope you're aware enough to consider what you're endorsing.

It entirely depends on the evaluation made by those around them in their current context. There's a reason these people made this decision (observation of behavioral differences), and it's comical to see you, some guy sitting at home utterly shitting their pants over professionals doing their fucking jobs, think that they know more than said professionals about the context.

Oy gevalt. I never made any claim that I knew more than the 'professionals' doing their 'fucking jobs'. What I can tell you is that predicting re-offending is notoriously slippery and it would be interesting to see statistics on the accuracy of their judgments.

But that aside, since you avoided answering, I'll put it to you more directly. If a woman committed sex crimes and was sentenced as a woman, and she began transitioning to be a man (by taking testosterone), and this changed her rating from "less likely to reoffend and let them go" to "more likely to reoffend and keep them in custody indefinitely", would you support that determination?

It depends entirely on the situation and your failure to actually contextualize something tells me that you wouldn't support that determination no matter the real reasons.

It's not the transition itself, or the gender or even the hormones, it's the resulting person. If someone becomes more violent, entitled, and wanton after transitioning yes, they should be kept under closer watch. The fact that you are ignoring everything around the transition and trying to make it about the gender tells me you're just a sexist, and it isn't about the person for you, but about "whelp, they're letting them go because WOMAN" rather than the fact that the woman they self-actualized is not as violent as the man they thought they were.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Metaphor]

It's not the transition itself, or the gender or even the hormones, it's the resulting person. If someone becomes more violent, entitled, and wanton after transitioning yes, they should be kept under closer watch. The fact that you are ignoring everything around the transition and trying to make it about the gender tells me you're just a sexist, and it isn't about the person for you, but about "whelp, they're letting them go because WOMAN" rather than the fact that the woman they self-actualized is not as violent as the man they thought they were.

Gospa have mercy; you simply don't understand what the term 'sexist' means, do you?

Even if I were mistaken about the reasons the determination were made, that wouldn't make me sexist. I'm not the sexist one for thinking the person's gender shouldn't play a role in letting them go free.

 

[repoman]

We need to be looking at MAO alleles as well. Shit alleles, throw away the key.

 

[Metaphor]

It depends entirely on the situation and your failure to actually contextualize something tells me that you wouldn't support that determination no matter the real reasons.

I did contextualise it for you. You refuse to be drawn on an answer. That tells me what I need to know about you.

As for me, I find it very, very dangerous for the State to use the amount of circulating testosterone in an ex-offender as one of its yardsticks to determine likely recidivism, and then continue to hold the ex-offender indefinitely based on that information. When your freedom depends on a factor over which you have no control, the State should not use it against you.

If, holding everything else constant, an actuarial relationship between perceived race of ex-offender and recidivism rates was shown (for example, if, controlling for all other factors, black ex-offenders were more likely to re-offend than white ex-offenders), would you think race was a fair thing to use against ex-offenders as one of the factors in whether they are held indefinitely?

I wouldn't.

 

[Jarhyn]

It depends entirely on the situation and your failure to actually contextualize something tells me that you wouldn't support that determination no matter the real reasons.

I did contextualise it for you. You refuse to be drawn on an answer. That tells me what I need to know about you.

As for me, I find it very, very dangerous for the State to use the amount of circulating testosterone in an ex-offender as one of its yardsticks to determine likely recidivism, and then continue to hold the ex-offender indefinitely based on that information. When your freedom depends on a factor over which you have no control, the State should not use it against you.

If, holding everything else constant, an actuarial relationship between perceived race of ex-offender and recidivism rates was shown (for example, if, controlling for all other factors, black ex-offenders were more likely to re-offend than white ex-offenders), would you think race was a fair thing to use against ex-offenders as one of the factors in whether they are held indefinitely?

I wouldn't.

No, you didn't. You made it about gender rather than the wider context of the situation: did their behavior change?

If their behavior is different, it's about their behavior not their gender. But instead you frame it as being about gender and sexism when it is a utilitarian choice: their behavior is different as a result of treatment.

It is about behavior, specifically the behavior of the individual. You have just also now made an intensely racist comment, too.

 

[Metaphor]

No, you didn't. You made it about gender rather than the wider context of the situation: did their behavior change?

Among the other things you don't understand is the word recidivism. We don't know if their behaviour has changed. We are trying to predict it.

If their behavior is different, it's about their behavior not their gender. But instead you frame it as being about gender and sexism when it is a utilitarian choice: their behavior is different as a result of treatment.

It is about behavior, specifically the behavior of the individual. You have just also now made an intensely racist comment, too.

Like the word 'sexism', you also appear not to understand what the word 'racism' means, or you don't understand a hypothetical scenario, or both, or you are a troll who doesn't care about the meaning of words but merely the scoring of imaginary--and imagined--points.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That'd make the OP title alarmist and incorrect.

The title was the title of the article, word for word. It is also an accurate summary of the situation.

Not really since of the probation officer meetings, signing up on the registry, etc...

I think it is important we shouldn't allow legal experts or doctors to provide an analysis of this person. We need far removed Aussie know-it-alls to determine what should be done to people like Smith, a person that has committed terrible acts, after having been the victim of such acts themselves.

I hope this works. This person was broken by terrible people as a child, and I hope they can find peace, being able to endure what has happened to them, what they have done to others, and try to cope with life. But, I'm not an Aussie Know-It-All who uses a misogynistic news aggregater to follow obscure stories.

If my national origin is such a concern to you, perhaps we can add little flags or a red box around avatars to indicate undesirables. Then you can tell at a glance.

So that is what you got from those two paragraphs. Really speaks to how addicted to identity politics you are.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you didn't. You made it about gender rather than the wider context of the situation: did their behavior change?

Among the other things you don't understand is the word recidivism. We don't know if their behaviour has changed. We are trying to predict it.

If their behavior is different, it's about their behavior not their gender. But instead you frame it as being about gender and sexism when it is a utilitarian choice: their behavior is different as a result of treatment.

It is about behavior, specifically the behavior of the individual. You have just also now made an intensely racist comment, too.

Like the word 'sexism', you also appear not to understand what the word 'racism' means, or you don't understand a hypothetical scenario, or both, or you are a troll who doesn't care about the meaning of words but merely the scoring of imaginary--and imagined--points.

No, your scenario only reveals your racism. The answer to your question was already imbedded in my post: it's about behavior, not classifiers.

The article of the OP frames it in regards to classification rather than behavior. In any criminal justice setting, there is a high visibility of behavior. You, as I previously mentioned, seem very motivated to ignore the determinations of professionals, who see behavior, in favor of the biased propaganda spewed by a rag journalist who clearly only sees (and thus writes about) classifiers.

It's about the behavior.

Now, let's ask ourselves why YOU, Metaphor, are so twisted up about people transitioning. I mean, your examples of trans people in your life (seriously, "a professor", so no friends then?) Tell me that you haven't really KNOWN a trans person. You've SEEN and HEARD some trans people talk, to be sure, but you've never sat down and really asked them about their experiences, their lives and reasons?

You post all these kinds of threads that make it obvious to me and everyone else here that there's something about women that frustrates and exacerbates you. That there is something you want to try your very hardest to convince yourself that transition isn't a good thing.

Why? Why are you so adamant against the very idea? Why do you seem so bitter about what women have? About what trans people have?

I think you should probably think about that some.

 

[Metaphor]

No, your scenario only reveals your racism. The answer to your question was already imbedded in my post: it's about behavior, not classifiers.

The experts are already using classifiers to predict behaviour. The age of the ex-offender is one of the demographic characteristics they use.

As for my 'racism', what you've asserted without evidence I will dismiss without evidence.

The article of the OP frames it in regards to classification rather than behavior. In any criminal justice setting, there is a high visibility of behavior. You, as I previously mentioned, seem very motivated to ignore the determinations of professionals, who see behavior, in favor of the biased propaganda spewed by a rag journalist who clearly only sees (and thus writes about) classifiers.

Motivated to ignore the determinations of professionals? What you assert without evidence I will dismiss without evidence.

It's about the behavior.

Now, let's ask ourselves why YOU, Metaphor, are so twisted up about people transitioning.

I'm not.

I mean, your examples of trans people in your life (seriously, "a professor", so no friends then?)

Evidently you don't read my posts closely or with good faith. I said that was the first trans person I encountered, decades ago. But whether I know or are friends with many or none is irrelevant.

Tell me that you haven't really KNOWN a trans person. You've SEEN and HEARD some trans people talk, to be sure, but you've never sat down and really asked them about their experiences, their lives and reasons?

You post all these kinds of threads that make it obvious to me and everyone else here that there's something about women that frustrates and exacerbates you. That there is something you want to try your very hardest to convince yourself that transition isn't a good thing.

Why do you believe women frustrate me?

Why? Why are you so adamant against the very idea? Why do you seem so bitter about what women have? About what trans people have?

The very idea of what? Transitioning? I'm not against any adult doing what they want to their own bodies.

 

[Jarhyn]

The experts are already using classifiers to predict behaviour. The age of the ex-offender is one of the demographic characteristics they use.

As for my 'racism', what you've asserted without evidence I will dismiss without evidence.



Motivated to ignore the determinations of professionals? What you assert without evidence I will dismiss without evidence.

It's about the behavior.

Now, let's ask ourselves why YOU, Metaphor, are so twisted up about people transitioning.

I'm not.

I mean, your examples of trans people in your life (seriously, "a professor", so no friends then?)

Evidently you don't read my posts closely or with good faith. I said that was the first trans person I encountered, decades ago. But whether I know or are friends with many or none is irrelevant.

Tell me that you haven't really KNOWN a trans person. You've SEEN and HEARD some trans people talk, to be sure, but you've never sat down and really asked them about their experiences, their lives and reasons?

You post all these kinds of threads that make it obvious to me and everyone else here that there's something about women that frustrates and exacerbates you. That there is something you want to try your very hardest to convince yourself that transition isn't a good thing.

Why do you believe women frustrate me?

Why? Why are you so adamant against the very idea? Why do you seem so bitter about what women have? About what trans people have?

The very idea of what? Transitioning? I'm not against any adult doing what they want to their own bodies.

You are clearly deluding yourself to think that your own history doesn't speak for itself: I had to go back almost a hundred posts in your forum record to find a post that wasn't somehow whinging about something to do about how women get some thing that men do not.

And here you are again, starting a thread to whinge that a woman who was under constant supervision in a controlled environment was decided, after a decision by people who saw their behavior and were party to changes in it, decided that their behavior was no longer problematic.

You have yet to once substantiate for any of us that this was on the basis of their gender rather than the changes that altering their hormone balance brought to their actual behavior.

You would, what? Have her remain in custody? Even if her behavior no longer rises to 'violent and likely to reoffend' per the criterion that landed her there in the first place?

Do you seriously believe any of us, here, would deign to release a sex offender merely for the trivial change of pronouns? I don't know a person here who would make a decision on any rubric beyond actual behavioral change. I know a few who would describe such a decision with messy language (framing the discussion around the change in gender as a proxy for the change in behavior linked to said change in gender).

You really do bitch and moan every time boys don't get something girls get. Don't get me started about your whingefest about how boys weren't getting vaccines to prevent cervical genital warts in situation where vaccine rationing was required.

And your inability and refusal to talk about any experiences you have in which you actually came to know a transgendered person are evidence enough.

 

[Metaphor]

You are clearly deluding yourself to think that your own history doesn't speak for itself: I had to go back almost a hundred posts in your forum record to find a post that wasn't somehow whinging about something to do about how women get some thing that men do not.

So what? I believe Western society affords certain, unfair privileges to women and girls, and when I see them I will talk about them.

And here you are again, starting a thread to whinge that a woman who was under constant supervision in a controlled environment was decided, after a decision by people who saw their behavior and were party to changes in it, decided that their behavior was no longer problematic.

Non. I don't believe that a person can change sex.

You have yet to once substantiate for any of us that this was on the basis of their gender rather than the changes that altering their hormone balance brought to their actual behavior.

There are no women confined at Cherokee Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders. It seems to me that gender certainly enters into the equation.

You would, what? Have her remain in custody? Even if her behavior no longer rises to 'violent and likely to reoffend' per the criterion that landed her there in the first place?

Do you seriously believe any of us, here, would deign to release a sex offender merely for the trivial change of pronouns?

Not only do I believe it, I believe it's a widespread attitude. For fuck's sake, natal men with penises are placed in women's prisons on the basis of claiming trans status.

I don't know a person here who would make a decision on any rubric beyond actual behavioral change. I know a few who would describe such a decision with messy language (framing the discussion around the change in gender as a proxy for the change in behavior linked to said change in gender).

They haven't observed behavioural change. They're trying to predict it.

You really do bitch and moan every time boys don't get something girls get. Don't get me started about your whingefest about how boys weren't getting vaccines to prevent cervical genital warts in situation where vaccine rationing was required.

Vaccine rationing was not required. For those people that care to know what the actual topic was about, they can read the original thread.

And your inability and refusal to talk about any experiences you have in which you actually came to know a transgendered person are evidence enough.

I don't have any trans friends* or know of any trans people in my work environment. So what? What point do you think you are making?

*My gay bestie once told me that after high school and during the time he was at university, he identified as trans for a few months and wanted to take steps to present as a woman. He doesn't feel that way any more, so I probably don't pass your nonsensical trans litmus test.

 

[repoman]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12302736

Men's or women's prison?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12302736

Men's or women's prison?

Women's, likely. Not much information is given regarding her transition. It seems like she started transition prior to these events, so it isn't like there is a reason to suspect she is faking to gain access to women's facilities, as is the commonly voiced concern in similar cases.

Out of curiosity, how would you ordinarily sort violent female offenders? Some are more violent than this. Some may be physically stronger as well.

 

[repoman]

Cont8nuum fallacy. Men's prison is the only correct place.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, not a continuum fallacy. I simply assumed there was a reason for linking that case specifically in place of simply asking 'where should transgender inmates go?' in general. What, specifically, might set this case apart that it should be highlighted? I figured it might be the nature of her crimes or a perception that she possibly presents a unique risk.

 

[repoman]

News story about XY sexual predator in women's prison:

https://www.illinoistimes.com/springfield/transgender-inmate-accused-of-rape/Content?oid=11843778
The user comment about Pritzker is interesting.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The user comment about Pritzker is interesting.

Why? It's gibberish.