University head says free speech does not override transgender safety

[Jarhyn]

Are you in that Egyptian river?

I wasn't having much luck in finding overall risks to the transgendered but very high in the search criteria was a transwoman who was quite openly murdered by her cellmate for being trans.

Was her cellmate female? I rather suspect not.

These are male criminals who were already in a male prison, and who voluntarily made a request to be moved to a female prison on the basis of their newly found identity as "women". Who the hell do you think they're being "outed" to? Do you think the females that they're being housed with are blind, deaf, and complete idiots who are totally unable to tell that they're male?

This is kool-aid.

There are many rights that transgender people need and absolutely should have.

Expecting the entire world to pretend that objective reality doesn't exist, and that biology isn't real... that's not a right.

The cellmate was biologically male but presenting as female.

The cellmate told the guards he would kill said person if they were placed in his cell. They were placed in his cell. He killed them, then he told the guards what he had done.

This does not parse cleanly. It has many vexing parses.

 

[Emily Lake]

So no, if they aren't a burly rapist likely to rape them, I can think of every reason that "female" should be told to shut it.

Sure, yep. Totally a great approach. We'll just take all of these statistics showing massively disproportionate rates of sexual assault and domestic violence where males are the perpetrators and females are the victims, and we'll just shove them under this couch cushion and pretend they don't exist. We'll just turn our brains off and pretend that the forced marriages, sexual slavery, genital mutilation, menstruation huts, corrective and revenge rape, systematic oppressions of females across the whole fucking globe... that's all something we have imagined, it's not real, and if people would just learn that you can't actually know someone's sex ever, it's all a mystery, there wouldn't be a problem. Let's just tell all of those women and girls to "identify" out of being systematically abused.

But as my husband points out, it's way easier to dig a hole than build a pole, and so quite unlikely that they are "intact". It also takes a while on the path to get a diagnosis.

If you can't supply geometry past "they have a penis" that doesn't get your argument anywhere. The penis itself is entirely irrelevant.

Pay attention here, please.

THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING AND THEY ARE BEING MOVED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SELF-DECLARATION ALONE, WITH NO DIAGNOSIS AND NO HORMONES AND NO SURGERY.

Read that again. Your "they're unlikely to be intact" is utter bullshit, because the people being moved from male prisons to female prisons ARE FULLY INTACT.

Give this some thought.

In Canada, the UK, California, Washington, and now Maine - male prisoners can be moved to the female ward on the sole basis of their self-declaration. There is zero requirement that they have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nor that they have any dysphoria of any sort. There is zero requirement that they live or present as their adopted sex. There is zero requirement that they take cross-sex hormones, or take hormone suppressants for their actual sex. There is zero requirement that they have any surgery of any type at all.

Over 80% of people who identify as transgender do NOT have genital reconstruction surgery.

Your "unlikely" is based on your fantasy of how you think it should work.

IF THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS ACTUALLY WORKING, I WOULD NOT HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE IDEA OF HOW IT SHOULD WORK AND HOW IT IS ACTUALLY WORKING.

I appreciate you being supportive of your spouse's transition. I think that's great, and I think it's a wonderful thing for both of you. Everyone who has gender dysphoria and seeks transition as a treatment should have such caring support.

But don't let it shut your brain down so you can't see what is going on in the world outside of your personal life.

 

[Emily Lake]

The cellmate was biologically male but presenting as female.

The cellmate told the guards he would kill said person if they were placed in his cell. They were placed in his cell. He killed them, then he told the guards what he had done.

So to clarify: A transgender identified male was killed by a male prisoner because they were trans.

That's horrible. It absolutely sucks, and I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

On the other hand, I also don't think that moving transgender identified males into a female prison is a rational solution in any way at all.

 

[laughing dog]

The cellmate was biologically male but presenting as female.

The cellmate told the guards he would kill said person if they were placed in his cell. They were placed in his cell. He killed them, then he told the guards what he had done.

So to clarify: A transgender identified male was killed by a male prisoner because they were trans.

That's horrible. It absolutely sucks, and I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

On the other hand, I also don't think that moving transgender identified males into a female prison is a rational solution in any way at all.

It is rational to move people to an area that reduces their probability of murder.

 

[Emily Lake]

The cellmate was biologically male but presenting as female.

The cellmate told the guards he would kill said person if they were placed in his cell. They were placed in his cell. He killed them, then he told the guards what he had done.

So to clarify: A transgender identified male was killed by a male prisoner because they were trans.

That's horrible. It absolutely sucks, and I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

On the other hand, I also don't think that moving transgender identified males into a female prison is a rational solution in any way at all.

It is rational to move people to an area that reduces their probability of murder.

In this thread: Men support putting men into prisons with women, to protect those men from harm perpetrated by other men.

Also in this thread: Impact on women? <crickets>

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is rational to move people to an area that reduces their probability of murder.

In this thread: Men support putting men into prisons with women, to protect those men from harm perpetrated by other men.

Also in this thread: Impact on women? <crickets>

In this thread, PEOPLE support putting PEOPLE into the appropriate prison, such that it maximizes protection for all PEOPLE involved. Some of those PEOPLE also support increasing funding and restructuring women's prisons to increase safety because it is a UBIQUITOUS problem, especially involving neglect by staff that leads to abuse by other staff and prisoners.

 

[Emily Lake]

In this thread, PEOPLE support putting PEOPLE into the appropriate prison, such that it maximizes protection for all PEOPLE involved. Some of those PEOPLE also support increasing funding and restructuring women's prisons to increase safety because it is a UBIQUITOUS problem, especially involving neglect by staff that leads to abuse by other staff and prisoners.

In what way does putting males into female prisons maximize protection for "all people"? Are women not considered people?


ETA: Let me ask a follow-up question.

Do you think that putting females into male prisons would increase protection for "all people"? Those females are less likely to attack and harm a male prisoner than another male would be, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, this group of red foxes are total assholes to this one gray fox, because the gray one is different from them. It's really a serious shame that the red foxes keep nipping at the gray one, and making it eat last - sometimes it doesn't even get enough to have a full belly, the poor thing!






I have a brilliant idea - let's put the gray fox in the henhouse! That will make everything safer for everyone! What could go wrong?

 

[Jarhyn]

<even more sexist screed>

First, you have to actually validate your claim that prisoners being transferred are "fully intact", that the "fully intact" prisoners being transferred (a suspect claim already...) are specifically likely to rape, and that the people the other end of the interaction are already housed with are not more likely to rape them than the new inmate.

You, Emily Lake, have posted a massive screed accusing all people with penises of being "likely rapists" and likewise universally ignoring the geometry that nobody wants to be housed with an actual likely rapist, penis or no, and the penis itself is not the relevant part.

It is more likely to me that a woman born with a penis is more likely at risk from a population of largely uneducated to women prone to violence and abuse than the new inmate is likely to be.

Again, you want to see penises and trivia rather than (literally the entire rest of the person).

You can blame "men", whatever nonsensical definition you ascribe to that, but it is not "men". It is "specific individuals", of which many are men.

I reiterate, you cannot reasonably use group statistics to evaluate individuals, because individuals are not groups.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In this thread, PEOPLE support putting PEOPLE into the appropriate prison, such that it maximizes protection for all PEOPLE involved. Some of those PEOPLE also support increasing funding and restructuring women's prisons to increase safety because it is a UBIQUITOUS problem, especially involving neglect by staff that leads to abuse by other staff and prisoners.

In what way does putting males into female prisons maximize protection for "all people"? Are women not considered people?

Figure out the cost-benefit math for each individual where it may be appropriate to move that individual.

ETA: Let me ask a follow-up question.

No.

Do you think that putting females into male prisons would increase protection for "all people"?

I think people should make decisions based on evidence and reasoning. I would not answer the question without looking up numbers and checking each person where it may be appropriate to move that person.

Those females are less likely to attack and harm a male prisoner than another male would be, right?

That's a ridiculous question in the context of what I said. You are flailing against strawmen.

 

[Metaphor]

<even more sexist screed>

First, you have to actually validate your claim that prisoners being transferred are "fully intact",

I am glad you agree that the State needs to make public these statistics.

that the "fully intact" prisoners being transferred (a suspect claim already...) are specifically likely to rape,

Emily doesn't have to do anything of the kind. What on earth does "specifically likely to rape" mean? More likely than other prisoners? More likely than female prisoners?

Due to a combination of factors, from men committing more sexual offenses and the sentencing gap between men and women, there are more male prisoners in prison for sexual offenses than there are female prisoners in prison for any reason.

and that the people the other end of the interaction are already housed with are not more likely to rape them than the new inmate.

Female prisons are less violent than male prisons.

You, Emily Lake, have posted a massive screed accusing all people with penises of being "likely rapists" and likewise universally ignoring the geometry that nobody wants to be housed with an actual likely rapist, penis or no, and the penis itself is not the relevant part.

A penis is relevant, by itself and also because only men have penises.

It is more likely to me that a woman born with a penis

There is not such a thing. Somebody born with a penis is a boy.

is more likely at risk from a population of largely uneducated to women prone to violence and abuse than the new inmate is likely to be.

And have you produced such statistics to verify this?

Again, you want to see penises and trivia rather than (literally the entire rest of the person).

You can blame "men", whatever nonsensical definition you ascribe to that,

I'm pretty sure Emily would say men are adult human males, and it wouldn't be nonsense.

but it is not "men". It is "specific individuals", of which many are men.

I reiterate, you cannot reasonably use group statistics to evaluate individuals, because individuals are not groups.

You are right: individuals are not groups. Individuals who are male do not belong in female prisons. They simply do not qualify.

Next.

 

[laughing dog]

It is rational to move people to an area that reduces their probability of murder.

In this thread: Men support putting men into prisons with women, to protect those men from harm perpetrated by other men.

Also in this thread: Impact on women? <crickets>

Do I take it that you feel that a transgendered prisoner’s safety is less important than the concerns of women inmates about sexual violence?

BTW, I think separate facilities for transgender prisoners is reasonable temporary policy until society has sorted these issues out.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is rational to move people to an area that reduces their probability of murder.

In this thread: Men support putting men into prisons with women, to protect those men from harm perpetrated by other men.

Also in this thread: Impact on women? <crickets>

Do I take it that you feel that a transgendered prisoner’s safety is less important than the concerns of women inmates about sexual violence?

No. But I also think that in both cases the nearly overwhelming risk comes from males, and putting males into a female prison might very well reduce the risk that particular male faces from other males, but it does so at the increased risk to female prisoners. I don't think that putting the fox in the henhouse to protect it from other foxes is a good outcome overall, unless you just really don't give a fuck about the hens at all.

BTW, I think separate facilities for transgender prisoners is reasonable temporary policy until society has sorted these issues out.

Separate housing is a perfectly cromulent idea in my view. It's also, by the way, outright rejected as an option by trans rights activists, who cite that it is "outing" to those trans prisoners (despite them having outed themselves to be moved to a female prison in the first place) and that it doesn't affirm their gender identities.

 

[laughing dog]

Do I take it that you feel that a transgendered prisoner’s safety is less important than the concerns of women inmates about sexual violence?

No. But I also think that in both cases the nearly overwhelming risk comes from males, and putting males into a female prison might very well reduce the risk that particular male faces from other males, but it does so at the increased risk to female prisoners. I don't think that putting the fox in the henhouse to protect it from other foxes is a good outcome overall, unless you just really don't give a fuck about the hens at all.

Except you have not produced any evidence that women are put at more risk.

Separate housing is a perfectly cromulent idea in my view. It's also, by the way, outright rejected as an option by trans rights activists, who cite that it is "outing" to those trans prisoners (despite them having outed themselves to be moved to a female prison in the first place) and that it doesn't affirm their gender identities.

I don't see how it doesn't affirm their gender identity if they are housed in an area specific to their gender identity. I think it is a decent compromise until this is sorted out.

 

[Rhea]

Reminder to all posters: The goal of this forum is to provide a place for meaningful discussion. If all of you stop and look hard at each other’s posts, you will see a lot of good and interesting discussion. But you are all assigning motive to each other that is interrupting your ability to understand where your opponent is coming from.

Remember that insulting other members is against the TOU. Goading is against the TOU. Brinking is against the TOU.
Attack the argument, not the person. Motivate yourself to seek exchange of information and ideas. If you see something you utterly disagree with, try to find out why they think that and discuss the components.

A lot of people read without posting. ASk yourself if you are providing information to them and to each other, or if you are just slinging insults against the person.


Take a deep breath and return to discussing the concepts and ideas.