Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Giordano]

Yes, that's being done in the UK apparently through a third separate wing.



Not necessarily. Do you have such a solution? Because if not, how does that position not equate to "We're going to keep putting male sex offenders in female prisons until we can come up with a perfect solution for all sexual assaults in prison"? It might not be the perfect solution to all sexual assault in prison, but that doesn't mean that stopping to put male sex offenders in female prisons isn't a good idea. And between a good idea and no idea, the former has first priority, right?

You yourself even present a solution for trans-women assaulting other women: because there are so few of them a third wing, even a small tier of cell blocks, can help. I presume there are additional steps that can be taken. Up the penalties for any type of attack, and for a any form of retaliation for reporting attacks. Have adequate supervision and surveillance of prisoners. House at risk attackers and at risk vulnerable people separately, perhaps in individual cells but not isolated as in solitary.

What is the alternative? Place trans-women in the male population knowing they will very likely be assaulted?

My last sentence in my post was that in reality we have to do much more to prevent all forms of sexual assault in prisons. But we can’t ignore the biggest problems, cis on cis assaults, because for some reason we are obsessed with the much, much rarer trans attackers.

 

[caveman1917]

You yourself even present a solution for trans-women assaulting other women: because there are so few of them a third wing, even a small tier of cell blocks, can help. I presume there are additional steps that can be taken. Up the penalties for any type of attack, and for a any form of retaliation for reporting attacks. Have adequate supervision and surveillance of prisoners. House at risk attackers and at risk vulnerable people separately, perhaps in individual cells but not isolated as in solitary.

What is the alternative? Place trans-women in the male population knowing they will very likely be assaulted?

My last sentence in my post was that in reality we have to do much more to prevent all forms of sexual assault in prisons. But we can’t ignore the biggest problems, cis on cis assaults, because for some reason we are obsessed with the much, much rarer trans attackers.

If you agree with implementing a solution for trans-women assaulting cis-women even before a solution is known for cis-women assaulting cis-women then the latter isn't the first priority. It's also simply not the case in general that the first priority is solving the biggest part of the problem (especially when "biggest" depends on the choice of metric used, ie "per capita rate" vs "absolute numbers" in this case), it also depends on how difficult a solution is and if one even exists. If all you meant to say is that there is more to be done to prevent all forms of sexual assault in prisons (the 124 total cases for the female estate) than preventing the cases involving male sex offenders (the 7 cases for the female estate) then sure, that's obvious to anyone who can compare the magnitude of the numbers 7 and 124, but that's not what you said about one having first priority.

 

[Roboramma]

Well hell, if we're only going to look at the aggregate, and not consider the impact to cohorts, then we should just move ALL sexual offenders to the women's prison. I mean, there are far fewer women incarcerated than men, so the total number of people raped in prison will definitely be reduced.

It will? I'm not seeing the logic. Are you assuming that sexual offenders don't rape each other?

That's the goal, right? Bring down total rapes?

Well, yes, probably. Unless we consider some rapes worse than others. If we do then it gets more complicated. Do you want to make that argument? I'm not opposed to it necessarily.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, we try that all the time, including on this thread. Several women have tried to explain that the term cis is as offensive to them as misgendering is to a trans person. We've been lectured to and patronised and told that it's a simple descriptor so suck it up snowflake.

Hey, it's not just women - I utterly refuse to use "cis" in front of either gender and I find it highly offensive as well.

I do think it's pretty funny that the anti-TERF people demand that 99.9% of people must use an adjective to enable the other 0.1% not to.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, that would be shocking!

Imagine if nearly 20% of women in the US are sexually assaulted or raped in their lives? That would be pretty shocking too, wouldn't it?

Well, I'm not shocked but I certainly think it's horrible.

Bob didn't say 4.4% of men in prison are sexually assaulted or raped though, he said they're raped. And that's over the course of their sentence, not their lives.

Is the rate of rape of men in prison similar to the rate of rape of women in general? I don't know. I think both are horrible. I'm certainly not trying to argue that men have it worse than women. I think the reverse is true, probably to at least an order of magnitude.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm expecting US prisons to be more dangerous in general than UK prisons, yes. So for all such data (not just sexual assaults, but generic assaults, etc) to be inflated across the board.



I was referring to the conclusion drawn by Roboramma from that data, making a comparison between the percentage of trans-women sexually assaulted in male US prisons vs the percentage of trans-women sexually assaulting someone in female UK prisons. That comparison assumes the same base rate of sexual assaults in US and UK prisons, and see previous paragraph for that.

Thanks for pointing out the different sources of data. I agree that comparing rape in the US prison system to rape in the UK prison system may not be a valid comparison.

It still does seem concerning.

My current view is that separate facilities for trans women is probably the best way to deal with the problem. They do seem to be particularly at risk. But keeping them in the women's prison also does seem to put women prisoners at risk. Separate facilities could help to mitigate the risk to trans women without putting women in the women's prison population at greater risk.

 

[The Atheist]

My current view is that separate facilities for trans women is probably the best way to deal with the problem.

Nailed.

Funny how problems can have such easy answers every now and then.

 

[d4m10n]

Several women have tried to explain that the term cis is as offensive to them as misgendering is to a trans person. We've been lectured to and patronised and told that it's a simple descriptor so suck it up snowflake.

Um, yeah; it is a simple descriptor. There isn't exactly a social stigma associated with having one's body match one's sense of self, it is by far the most common human condition.

 

[cullennz]

Oh, we try that all the time, including on this thread. Several women have tried to explain that the term cis is as offensive to them as misgendering is to a trans person. We've been lectured to and patronised and told that it's a simple descriptor so suck it up snowflake.

While I wouldn't go as far as saying it offends me, can I be put on the anti "cis" prefix list too please?

Because it is incredibly pointless as stupid.

Thanks in advance!

[emoji106]

 

[Meadmaker]

Um, yeah; it is a simple descriptor. There isn't exactly a social stigma associated with having one's body match one's sense of self, it is by far the most common human condition.

I agree. I don't object to cis, much. However, I understand the objection. Using "cis" is part of getting acceptance for the idea that there are two kinds of women, those two kinds being "cis" and "trans". See, both are women, but they are just different sorts of women.

And that, right there, is the source of all the fuss. This thread's title has a different premise, although it is a matter of controversy.

So, I avoid the "cis" prefix unless it is just much easier to say than to dance around. I don't completely refuse to say it, but I prefer to just say "man" or "woman" unless it is absolutely necessary to specify which side of the fence I am placing trans people for the purposes of that particular discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

And now for a definitive argument from an atheist / skeptic podcaster:

https://twitter.com/elibosnick/status/1273369228498911233

CN: Swearing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[cullennz]

I agree. I don't object to cis, much. However, I understand the objection. Using "cis" is part of getting acceptance for the idea that there are two kinds of women, those two kinds being "cis" and "trans". See, both are women, but they are just different sorts of women.



And that, right there, is the source of all the fuss. This thread's title has a different premise, although it is a matter of controversy.



So, I avoid the "cis" prefix unless it is just much easier to say than to dance around. I don't completely refuse to say it, but I prefer to just say "man" or "woman" unless it is absolutely necessary to specify which side of the fence I am placing trans people for the purposes of that particular discussion.

Personally disagree.

Perfectly happy to think there are two types of women.

Women and trans women.

Happy to refer to trans women as she etc. The whole works.

Some pointless prefix to the first is redundant.

 

[Matthew Best]

Some pointless prefix to the first is redundant.

Not always. You've said that trans women are a subset of women. I can see how it might come in handy to have a shorthand way of referring to the subset of women who aren't trans women. If you just say "women" then it might be confusing. Admittedly, this is only going to come up in a discussion such as this one - I doubt very much I'll ever say "cis women" in the real world, as I'm not really in the habit of having conversations like this there.

 

[cullennz]

Not always. You've said that trans women are a subset of women. I can see how it might come in handy to have a shorthand way of referring to the subset of women who aren't trans women. If you just say "women" then it might be confusing. Admittedly, this is only going to come up in a discussion such as this one - I doubt very much I'll ever say "cis women" in the real world, as I'm not really in the habit of having conversations like this there.

Sorry

How is it needed?

Women:
Gender = women
Sex = Female

Trans women:
Gender = woman (unless they are a jerk)
Sex = male

 

[lionking]

Not always. You've said that trans women are a subset of women. I can see how it might come in handy to have a shorthand way of referring to the subset of women who aren't trans women. If you just say "women" then it might be confusing. Admittedly, this is only going to come up in a discussion such as this one - I doubt very much I'll ever say "cis women" in the real world, as I'm not really in the habit of having conversations like this there.

And that’s the point. I just asked my wife if she ever heard of the cis prefix and if she knew she was a cis-woman. She looked at me if I had lost my mind and asked where on earth this came from and why on earth should she be referred to as such.

I had no good answer.

Am I a misgenderer? Probably. Do I care? No.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sorry

How is it needed?

Women:
Gender = women
Sex = Female

Trans women:
Gender = woman (unless they are a jerk)
Sex = male

Given that you've already said that "there are two types of women: women and trans women" you then run into the problem of saying that a trans woman is a type of woman, and a woman is the other type of woman. This could be confusing to say the least.

 

[Matthew Best]

Am I a misgenderer? Probably.

I don't see why?

Who did you misgender?

 

[cullennz]

Given that you've already said that "there are two types of women: women and trans women" you then run into the problem of saying that a trans woman is a type of woman, and a woman is the other type of woman. This could be confusing to say the least.

I assumed you meant gender and not sex

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, what I was saying is that self-ID, and other forms of trans-accommodation chip away at that system of protections and customs that have been erected for the safety and comfort of women.

Evidence?

Trans-accommodation, when taken to the extreme, as self-ID provisions do, creates situations where there is a person who is large, like a man typically is, and strong, like a man typically is, and has a fully functioning penis that could make a normal woman pregnant, as a man typically has, and yet, we are told, that if the presence of such a person in a normally private space makes a woman uncomfortable, then the woman is a bigot for not accepting that the muscular, penis-equipped person is really a woman.

Actually, the research I cited indicated that the women in women's shelters don't perceive trans women in this way - and that's not just the testimony from the women who run women's shelters, but also attested to the fact that they are currently legally allowed to exclude trans women on the basis that they are trans if they do make the other women uncomfortable and not a one of them has ever had cause to use that exemption.

So, yes, all the actual evidence that I've seen suggests that most women are fine with the idea of trans women in women's shelters, and that is borne out by the actual experiences of people running women's shelters. Which, in case I need to remind you, already operate on a basis of self-identification.

"Well, my mate thinks..." and "it stands to reason..." are not counter-arguments, I'm afraid.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's not what was said though - what was said was that some transwomen don't want to pass. And as far as I can tell, that would mean that they're perfectly content looking like, behaving like, dressing like, and being perceived as a cis-man... but want to have other people pretend that they don't notice that? I don't know. That's where I really end up confused.

That's because you're still insisting on this false dichotomy.