They give you the opportunity to have your individual case reviewed.New Zealand has a defined procedure for sorting by gender instead of just sex. You asserted to the contrary. A good skeptic knows when to take new facts on board.
They give you the opportunity to have your individual case reviewed.
With a shed load of prerequisites
Because the prisons are based on sex
You haven't answered my questionExcept when gender is permitted to override sex.
Do you personally think that any bloke no matter how violent their crime should be allowed to chose to go to a women's prison if they say that internally they feel like a woman?
Kind of discrimatory from your opinions I have read, don't you think?Nope.
Nope.Kind of discrimatory from your opinions I have read, don't you think?
Why?Nope.
What is the ratio of transgender people who've been transferred to those who have been incarcerated?Just as an add on
Currently there have been 17 trans women who have been transferred to a women's prison in NZ
They are all segregated and can't share a cell with anyone other than a fellow trans who agrees to it.
There's a great example of your uber change for you.
Neither I nor you or anyone will ever knowWhat is the ratio of transgender people who've been transferred to those who have been incarcerated?
Mount Eden in Auckland
Dunedin
The women's one in Tawa
Every one in NZ
Let's get to the actual point of why prisons are separated by sex
Do you personally think that any bloke no matter how violent their crime should be allowed to chose to go to a women's prison if they say that internally they feel like a woman?
What I'm concerned about is putting female inmates in a position of risk based purely on some dudes spoken "inner feelings", which are entirely unverifiable as to their validity or motiveCullennz, if I read you correctly, you're concerned that a guy who looks like this image below might be placed in a women's prison simply based on feelings if we don't follow biological sex, right?
[qimg]https://i.pinimg.com/564x/88/e1/73/88e173f01e861086b16d37f661874a40.jpg[/qimg]
What I'm concerned about is putting female inmates in a position of risk based purely on some dudes spoken "inner feelings", which are entirely unverifiable as to their validity or motive
What aspect of a male creates that risk?
Is it that he may be attracted to women? Plenty of women are as well.
Is it that he may have greater muscle mass than women? Should women with high muscle mass be considered a similar risk then?
Would males with low muscle mass pass your test then or males who are confirmed to be attracted only to other males?
Is it the existence of a penis? I think that's the only plausibly relevant difference left.
I won't read through this huge bloated thread to try to find your position on post-op trans women, so I'll just ask here, does that do the trick?
That is the other gaping point
What if a male violent crim says they should be a woman and says they are also a lesbian?
Just chuck them in a women's prison on their word
On your last point
I think post op (or even before) I personally have called them by what they want.
"She" etc.
It is simple politeness and respect
But personally i dont just now think of them as an actual biological woman. They aren't a biological woman and never will be.
They are a trans woman whose wishes I accept and will support as far as possible.
Anyone of them with a history of violence.Could you answer my question?
What specific quality(or qualities) of a male creates the risk that you've mentioned?
Should women with an equivalent history of violence be equally segregated?Anyone of them with a history of violence.
History is full of extremely nasty small dudes
They have enough trouble looking out for violent women hurting women inmates without having to deal with some dude, who has the added issue of raping them.
But I'm guessing you will say that is their job.