UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Metaphor]

And he wouldn't be my friend. I assume he also beats up anyone that doesn't call him "him", or who says his name or pronouns audibly with the implications of air quotes, and then laughs and brags about it. It would be a really shitty thing to put that person in with "women".

If a woman tried to beat me up for calling her "her", she's going to get a taste of what an actual man can do to defend himself.

 

[ZiprHead]

And he wouldn't be my friend. I assume he also beats up anyone that doesn't call him "him", or who says his name or pronouns audibly with the implications of air quotes, and then laughs and brags about it. It would be a really shitty thing to put that person in with "women".

If a woman tried to beat me up for calling her "her", she's going to get a taste of what an actual man can do to defend himself.

There's lots of people out there who wouldn't consider you to be a man because you prefer dick and not vagina.

 

[Metaphor]

And he wouldn't be my friend. I assume he also beats up anyone that doesn't call him "him", or who says his name or pronouns audibly with the implications of air quotes, and then laughs and brags about it. It would be a really shitty thing to put that person in with "women".

If a woman tried to beat me up for calling her "her", she's going to get a taste of what an actual man can do to defend himself.

There's lots of people out there who wouldn't consider you to be a man because you prefer dick and not vagina.

So what? They're wrong. I'm an adult human male and that's the only criterion.

Of course, I'm not even asking anyone to call me anything, or using the force of the State to force other people to say things they don't believe. And I'm not beating anybody up because they don't agree to my self-evaluated personality type.

Edit: it is, of course, very telling that Jarhyn imagines trans men to be violent thugs who will beat up somebody for pronoun heresy.

 

[Jarhyn]

And he wouldn't be my friend. I assume he also beats up anyone that doesn't call him "him", or who says his name or pronouns audibly with the implications of air quotes, and then laughs and brags about it. It would be a really shitty thing to put that person in with "women".

If a woman tried to beat me up for calling her "her", she's going to get a taste of what an actual man can do to defend himself.

There's lots of people out there who wouldn't consider you to be a man because you prefer dick and not vagina.

And they call ME edgy... I imagine a rule of large numbers combined with the fact that some really shitty humans happen to exist.

I recall watching machismo people with something to prove getting their ass handed to them by actual professional fighters, and those weren't even people on testosterone.

When discussing where to put such folks who misbehave, there are clear trends and they all or it exactly around the center of "testosterone exposure" and "pregnancy risk".

 

[Emily Lake]

ETA ~This particular murderer is male sex. BBC pronoun protocols aren't about sex. You might want that for some reason, but neither BBC nor I care about your preferred pronoun protocols. ~

I think it's worth pointing out that in the UK, this male person's crimes get RECORDED in line with his declared gender identity. This gets RECORDED as a crime committed by a female.

Which skews statistics, and reduces the funding and focus needed to combat violence against women.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet you nor Emily nor anyone else who cares So Much™ about this seems to care at all when someone whose chosen victims are °°° and they also happen to be °°°.

It doesn't even seem a concern in your minds.

This indicates it's more about something else rather then whether they are a °°° who victimized °°° versus a ••• who victimized °°°.

What matters is "they are with °°° and victimize °°°." Whether they are ••• or °°° does not matter

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with the dots there. All it does is make your posts unintelligible and needlessly confusing.

But to run with your complaint about "only caring when the victim is xx and the perpetrator is xy"... I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see you take this same vacuous argument and go harass someone who "only cares when the victim is black and the perpetrator is white". Let's see that for a change.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that prisoners, within prisons, should be separated by target class. Generally they are separated currently within the estates by "had a target class vs had no target class". Violent offenders tend to go elsewhere than the nonviolent offenders.

This would generally indicate that this person go to max security, given that they killed two people, and be kept separate from those they would rape or kill, which I assume would be anyone regardless of the estate they end up in. Which is described thus:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves

What do you think is gained by making the system a whole lot more complicated, when the net result is going to be 99% the same as separating by sex? Why is it so important to you to pretend that sex is irrelevant and doesn't matter?

 

[Emily Lake]

That's patent nonsense.

American prisons are (or were) separated by sex.

It's actually true, even though Jarhyn is using that to mislead.

Prisons are separated by sex*, across the board. They are also further separated by other characteristics, one of which is a proxy for the violence of the crimes committed. There are local jails and prisons at the town/county/state level for local crimes - the US allows states to make laws that apply only to that state. A lot of drug and alcohol use crimes, petty crimes, misdemeanors, and non-violent robberies etc. end up in local jails. Local jails are largely "low security", because the prisoners aren't expected to be particularly violent or to escape. Many states will have a state high security prison for perpetrators that committed violent or dangerous crimes that are still deemed to be effectively state-level crimes.

We also have Federal prisons, varying between minimum and maximum security. Those house criminals who have committed crimes crossing state lines, or which are federal-level crimes - drug or weapon smuggling, human trafficking, organized crime, as well as financial crimes.

But they are all separated by sex*.

*Some are now being treated as if they're separated by said-out-loud declarations of gender-identity... but so far only local incarceration has done this. California and Washington are some of the most glaring examples... complete with all of the problems that activists just pretend aren't happening or dismiss as not important. But several other states allow housing by gender identity to varying degrees of review and approval.

 

[TomC]

ETA ~This particular murderer is male sex. BBC pronoun protocols aren't about sex. You might want that for some reason, but neither BBC nor I care about your preferred pronoun protocols. ~

I think it's worth pointing out that in the UK, this male person's crimes get RECORDED in line with his declared gender identity. This gets RECORDED as a crime committed by a female.

Which skews statistics, and reduces the funding and focus needed to combat violence against women.

I would like to think that the Brits are little more sophisticated than that.

But I'm of Irish heritage, so it's easy for me to believe that they're ethically and morally primitive.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman".

This is bullshit.

They have always been separated by sex. You're trying to retroactively shoehorn a redefinition of the terms "man" and "woman" into scenarios that are extremely clear cut.

Prisons have been separated by male and female for about as long as prisons have existed. They were referred to as "Men's prisons" under the meaning of "Adult male of the human species" and "Women's prisons" under the meaning of "Adult female of the human species".

You can argue that the current meaning of words shift over time... but you can't just arbitrarily decide to overwrite the clearly understood historical meaning with your new-fangled sloppiness.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have no penis does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people.

Lol, seriously?

Are you under the impression that a female taking testosterone will grow to be taller than she would without it? That's not how it works. Height is governed by the adrenal gland, not the pituitary and gametes. Height is *correlated* with sex, but it isn't causally related to hormones. If a female is 6 feet tall, they'd have been 6 feet tall without testosterone.

I'll also add that this male fantasy of the super aggressive female rapist running around sexually assaulting women is... well... mostly a male fantasy. It's so incredibly rare that females forcibly penetrate anyone that your argument is quite hollow.

 

[TomC]

They have always been separated by sex. You're trying to retroactively shoehorn a redefinition of the terms "man" and "woman" into scenarios that are extremely clear cut.

I don't want to talk about the prison system itself. I don't know a lot about it, but I have a ton of reasons for finding it appalling. Sex segregation isn't one of those reasons.

The problem I'm having is that Jarhyn seems to think that sex is a fuzzy concept. But "meaningfully impacted by testosterone" is clear.
That makes no sense to me.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

You clearly display that you only give a shit about people with penises raping people without them and not people who lack them raping people in general.

99% of rapes are committed by people with penises. Only 1% are committed by people who lack a penis.
97% of the victims of rape are people without penises. Only 3% of the victims of rape are people with penises.

Your determination to pretend that the rapes committed by people without penises are equivalent in some rational fashion as the rapes committed by people with penises is disingenuous.

I do care about the 3% of rape victims who are male - who are almost completely being raped by other males. I also care about the people who are raped by females. But it simply is not nearly as starkly dramatic a problem as the massively disproportionate number of rapes committed by testiculators that use women as their prey.

 

[Emily Lake]

Don't be coy, Tom. Everyone knows that in year 9 you were known as "Rapist Tom" because you had another Tom in your class who was called Tall Tom to tell you apart.

Nah.

I was well over 6 feet at age 14.
I was Tall Tom. The nerd. Voted most likely to die a virgin.

This seriously disappointed my Dad. In the sense that he had visions of basketball scholarships in my future. I was literally 6'3" as a 9th grader. Dad tried desperately to get me interested in b-ball. So did my high school coach. Didn't work.
At all.

Tom

Holy cow. You and Met are both so tall! And here I am at 5'1". It must be nice to see the top of the grocery shelves.

 

[Emily Lake]

Edit: it is, of course, very telling that Jarhyn imagines trans men to be violent thugs who will beat up somebody for pronoun heresy.

This is a repeated theme, not just from Jarhyn, but from a lot of TRAs. They all seem to envision transwomen as being completely harmless and demure, and to think transmen are aggressive and violent... and to use those stereotypes as part of their argument.

In reality, all it does is expose their own inherent sexism.

 

[Emily Lake]

ETA ~This particular murderer is male sex. BBC pronoun protocols aren't about sex. You might want that for some reason, but neither BBC nor I care about your preferred pronoun protocols. ~

I think it's worth pointing out that in the UK, this male person's crimes get RECORDED in line with his declared gender identity. This gets RECORDED as a crime committed by a female.

Which skews statistics, and reduces the funding and focus needed to combat violence against women.

I would like to think that the Brits are little more sophisticated than that.

But I'm of Irish heritage, so it's easy for me to believe that they're ethically and morally primitive.
Tom

Unfortunately, they are not so reasonable as one might wish they were. It's actually quite a problem, and has a great many women upset. It's causing a lot of problems with statistics, and it has come up repeatedly in challenges to the Census as well as to the Office of Statistical whatever the heck they call it. Scotland is even worse (I know, part of UK, but in this case enough independent to bear mention).

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't want to talk about the prison system itself. I don't know a lot about it, but I have a ton of reasons for finding it appalling. Sex segregation isn't one of those reasons.

Agreed, prison is a discussion all on it's own once we step away from the separation by sex.

The problem I'm having is that Jarhyn seems to think that sex is a fuzzy concept. But "meaningfully impacted by testosterone" is clear.
That makes no sense to me.
Tom

It makes no sense at all. In fact, I think it probably wouldn't even make sense to most TRAs. I'm not even convinced it actually makes sense to Jarhyn... it's merely part of his overall position that sex is irrelevant and meaningless and should never ever be referenced regardless of the well-documented and observed material differences associated with it. Jarhyn seems to have a very deep investment in pushing the belief that sex is not worth noting.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Emily Lake

I'll note that it's not a competition "which sex/gender misbehaves less". Making prejudiced judgements against people on the basis of their perceived sex is sexism, and most of us agree "sexism is bad behavior".

The thing I think it is sexist to do is to deny "woman" as a cluster concept of assumed treatment and social expectation patterns as requested through direct signalling, and even polite request for clarification to that person on any basis which you may consider "sex" except as may be directly applicable and exactly necessary to primary effect:

"What sex are you?"

"I am a woman."

"But what's in your pants?"

"I only do show me yours I'll show you mine. But I don't wanna play that game with you."

The directly applicable primary effects here as relates conversations on prisons are "steroids?" "violence?" "pregnancy risk X core population?"

It means that most prison populations will see no change at all, and those who do shit like what the "juvenile offender" did end up housed with others who have been on Testosterone, just like you want. It means that whatever rapist or whatever gets to end up housed with people who have been on those particular steroids.

Good for them. It means that if some person who has been taking testosterone and perhaps learning some very bad behavior among certain "men", they end up away from the people not taking the steroids.

It acknowledges that everyone has certain rights to be on or take that particular steroid, and that doing so has consequences: you get sorted together when you behave badly, and kept physically separated in that context if "possible babies".

You don't seem to like the idea of people opting to take that steroid from as early an age as others.

You also really don't seem to like the idea of people opting to not take that steroid from an early enough age for it to matter.

Do you really not want to have to share your society of womanhood with people born with penises, do you? Why do you need to find out new ways to look down on that?

Because some of those folks are shitty criminals who hurt people you do accept as such? So are other folks who you would claim as such even against their objections!

It doesn't needlessly complicate so much as resolve edge cases you throw such tantrums over. I will note it does this in such a way that takes a piece of language out of legal treatment and replaces it with words simple minds might have a hard time stringing together, words such as "Testosterone Impacted", and maybe some actual standards to go with it.

You yourself have often decried how [with no standards of hormonal impact, they want to force this down our throats], some variation on the theme. You bring up that relative who isn't turning off the testosterone faucet enough for your liking. This gives a decision on her, too.

It means she ends up in prison (mostly) with people who use "he" and "him".

It means she plays at swimming with people who (mostly) use "he" and "him".

It also ends up meaning that so does our friend Lia... And in the same way with our other not-friend.

It solves all the edge cases you want to see solved the way you would see them solved even where someone has taken no testosterone (especially in recent history) and was born with a penis but has no balls. You recall that prison bunkmate you agreed on, yeah?

You can track whatever statistics you want on that metric, but it still means people have the right to do either regardless of gonadal morphology.

In some respects, in public life, I would expect hormone use to be regulated to reasonable bounds, exceptions made for natural outliers to allow near-immediate discretion, and delays required to a reasonable age or assessment point otherwise.

On the basis of all these facts, it appears your views are quite sexist. I have proven that you can separate these without resorting to "sex" or even "gender", and you even get those standards you asked for.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Emily Lake

I find it interesting insofar as I started where you and some others stand. Then I did a synthesis on YOUR argument.

I looked at it and realized that concessions needed to be made. Words had to be released from tight authoritarian control, and better metrics achieved.

The core of the issue, and you brought it up many times, is that there are a lot of people who are going to use bad faith around "man" and "woman" to get sorted inappropriately.

But there is another crux, in that there is a valid cry coming from a lot of folks: "We wish to be free in our identities and hormones and seek the treatment you offer of (man/woman/wizard/what-have-you) as pertains to all non-sexual interactions in polite society."

No good compromise makes everyone happy. A good compromise on this means giving them that much, because it is a reasonable request. You give it to the person you just met and only barely glanced at on the street, you can give it to this kind-enough(?) stranger.

If they are 230 lbs of solid muscle, have a five o'clock shadow, and are looking at you like a piece of meat, you treat them like you would treat anyone who is 230 lbs of solid muscle and looking at you like a piece of meat, while calling her "she" and "her". Possibly while getting handle on your adrenaline and whatever weapon you have taught yourself to handle under pressure.

This compromise does not require you to trust anyone you would not.

You can still use your eyes to see, and your voice to object to bad behavior. It does not require sexism to do this.

Most trans folks wouldn't object to what I would propose. Some would, and those we can laugh at together as they fail to get what they want. I choose not to laugh at folks who are just living their lives, nor to deny them privacy or dignity of recognition of their identity as they see fit.

I would also as soon move to the Nordic model of rehabilitation, and end the slavery.

 

[Metaphor]

Edit: it is, of course, very telling that Jarhyn imagines trans men to be violent thugs who will beat up somebody for pronoun heresy.

This is a repeated theme, not just from Jarhyn, but from a lot of TRAs. They all seem to envision transwomen as being completely harmless and demure, and to think transmen are aggressive and violent... and to use those stereotypes as part of their argument.

In reality, all it does is expose their own inherent sexism.

It's trans women who tend to be far more violent than trans men. Every single "TERF" who has been assaulted by a trans person that I've read of, has been assaulted by a trans woman.

Apparently, putting a frock on doesn't suddenly make a male demure and retiring. Who'd have guessed?