[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[d4m10n]

I'm sure Bari Weiss and the cancel culture gang will be along shortly to decry this censorious nonsense.

At least we can agree that publications shouldn't be self-censoring in response to social media pressure campaigns. Go forth and apply that same principle to something you didn't enjoy reading.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

... and then they'll only be violent to each other. But at least the biggest ones will be safe from predation by males that are even bigger and stronger than they are.

More seriously, this only solves the safety problem, not the identity problem. Housing a transwoman separately from both men and women does not honor her womanhood. This is potentially a human rights violation.

Actually it's a conflict between two human rights: the right to be treated as a woman by society in every context, and the right to be safe while under the care of the state (or however you want to phrase these things).

Which one is more important? Which one should prisons prioritize with their limited resources?

These are questions for the trans-inclusionists to answer.

Yes, if we accept the restraint that these facilities will be underfunded to the point that we know inmates will be routinely subjected to criminal violence from one another and staff, there are no good solutions.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, if we accept the restraint that these facilities will be underfunded to the point that we know inmates will be routinely subjected to criminal violence from one another and staff, there are no good solutions.

You go to public policy with the resources you have, not the resources you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

In the current prison system, do you believe transwomen have a right to be housed with women?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You go to public policy with the resources you have, not the resources you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

In the current prison system, do you believe transwomen have a right to be housed with women?

No idea, but it seems clear to me they have a right not to be thrown to the wolves in a men's facility.

As has been said here, there's a lot of competing concerns, such as assessing the harm that would come from segregating trans women to a facility/wing entirely to their own which would essentially amount to social ostracization. In places where gender identity is considered a protected class characteristic, I would assume there is a duty to consider whether such discrimination is lawful.

I'm not convinced that there are no measures that could be taken now, even with our extremely cavalier attitude towards prison conditions, that would make it impossible to allow transwomen to be incarcerated within women's facilities.

 

[theprestige]

No idea,

Then all of this is a non-issue, as far as prisons are concerned. Transwomen are not necessarily women when it comes to prison housing. We can move on to sports.

Do you believe transwomen have a right to compete with women in amateur, academic, or professional sports leagues?

but it seems clear to me they have a right not to be thrown to the wolves in a men's facility.

Like all the others in the facility, they are also wolves. Surely there exist smaller, weaker criminal men who have a similar right not to be thrown to the wolves in a men's facility. And yet there they are.

But again, this is now a gender non-issue. You're talking about segregating prisoners by weight class for safety reasons. We already do this, broadly, by maintaining separate men's and women's facilities.

Anyway, it's not a gender issue anymore, and segregating prisons by weight class is far outside the topic of the thread.

As for the rest, I wanted to mention just one thing:

In places where gender identity is considered a protected class characteristic

I couldn't care less about arguments by appeals to the law. As far as I'm concerned, this is a debate about what policy should be, not about what we should do under existing policy.

If you won't even say whether you believe gender identity should be a protected class, then I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. At the end of the day, we're already on the same page: transwomen are not (necessarily) women.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Then all of this is a non-issue, as far as prisons are concerned. Transwomen are not necessarily women when it comes to prison housing. We can move on to sports.

Do you believe transwomen have a right to compete with women in amateur, academic, or professional sports leagues?


Like all the others in the facility, they are also wolves. Surely there exist smaller, weaker criminal men who have a similar right not to be thrown to the wolves in a men's facility. And yet there they are.

But again, this is now a gender non-issue. You're talking about segregating prisoners by weight class for safety reasons. We already do this, broadly, by maintaining separate men's and women's facilities.

Anyway, it's not a gender issue anymore, and segregating prisons by weight class is far outside the topic of the thread.

As for the rest, I wanted to mention just one thing:

I couldn't care less about arguments by appeals to the law. As far as I'm concerned, this is a debate about what policy should be, not about what we should do under existing policy.

If you won't even say whether you believe gender identity should be a protected class, then I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. At the end of the day, we're already on the same page: transwomen are not (necessarily) women.

If we're talking about what should be, then it's pretty obvious to me that trans women would be incarcerated as other women, only removed to special segregation for individual risk factors (such as a specific history of violence or sex offenses) rather than collectively treated as dangerous.

Your point about smaller men having no recourse is unfortunately for them correct. The issue for them is that they have no real grounds to claim their plight is the result of a discriminatory policy (unless they wanted to argue that higher rates of violence in men's facilities was evidence of discrimination, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion)

As a matter of principle, those running prisons should not be allowed to make decisions based on discriminating on the basis of protected class characteristics.

For example, while the problem of race organized prison gangs may be very real and responsible for a lot of violence, I would not support a policy (nor would it be legal) of racially segregated prisons.

So to answer your point more directly, I would say that when we're speculating about what policy should be, any policy that hinges on illegal gender discrimination is unacceptable.

 

[Ziggurat]

As a matter of principle, those running prisons should not be allowed to make decisions based on discriminating on the basis of protected class characteristics.

Taken at face value, that would mean no sex segregation at all.

Now, I don't know the details of UK law, but in the US, you can still discriminate on the basis of protected class characteristics, but there's a high barrier to do so. Compelling interest is required. Prisoner safety is a compelling interest which allows for sex segregation. If you put transwomen in a men's prison, you haven't discriminated on the basis of gender identity, you've discriminated on the basis of biological sex, and constitutionally, that's permissible.

But what you can do and what the government will do are not always the same, for better and for worse. And again, I don't know the details of how UK law handles this. I'm assuming there are allowed exceptions to discriminating on class protected characteristics, but I know little about how they are handled over there.

 

[theprestige]

If we're talking about what should be, then it's pretty obvious to me that trans women would be incarcerated as other women

How do you reconcile having no idea if they have a right to be incarcerated as other women with believing it's pretty obvious that they should be?

If there's no superseding human right involved, why isn't it obvious they should be incarcerated with the other males?

As a matter of principle, those running prisons should not be allowed to make decisions based on discriminating on the basis of protected class characteristics.

It's amusing that you think this is in dispute, or even remotely related to the topic actually being discussed.

For example, while the problem of race organized prison gangs may be very real and responsible for a lot of violence, I would not support a policy (nor would it be legal) of racially segregated prisons.

Apparently it is legal, if you do it under the umbrella of prison gang policy:

It is not uncommon to observe the wholesale placement of entire gangs or all gang affiliates in restrictive housing for indeterminate periods.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-restrictive-housing-manage-gangs-us-prisons​

So to answer your point more directly, I would say that when we're speculating about what policy should be, any policy that hinges on illegal gender discrimination is unacceptable.

It's amusing that you think this is in dispute, or even remotely related to the topic actually being discussed.

Anyway, I was all set to move on to sports, but it looks like we still have an unanswered question about prisons:

How do you reconcile having no idea if they have a right to be incarcerated as other women with believing it's pretty obvious that they should be?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How do you reconcile having no idea if they have a right to be incarcerated as other women with believing it's pretty obvious that they should be?

The current system is broken. I don't see any solution that anyone could even consider good. Seeing as there's not likely any public interest in actually addressing root causes of prison brutality, I don't see how any policy could really improve the current situation except marginally.

If there's no superseding human right involved, why isn't it obvious they should be incarcerated with the other males?

I suppose trans women have as much rights to not be thrown in a men's jail as cis women. Any concern about threats to personal safety apply as much to trans women, if not more so. Trans women face much the same risk by being virtue of being women, plus the additional danger of being queer and suffering transphobic violence.

Apparently it is legal, if you do it under the umbrella of prison gang policy:

It is not uncommon to observe the wholesale placement of entire gangs or all gang affiliates in restrictive housing for indeterminate periods.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-restrictive-housing-manage-gangs-us-prisons​

Segregating known gang members is not the same as universally racially segregated prisons. Surely you know this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Say the quiet part out loud. Society accepts that rampant violence, including sexual violence, in men's facilities is acceptable, if not desirable. So long as it's contained, nobody cares about this massive human rights violation.

Of course they don't matter just like sexual assaults from staff on prisoners doesn't matter. This is only used as a wedge issue not for actually caring about people.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Testimony to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDRC) given by Lauren Adams of WoLF.

https://www.womensliberationfront.org/news/wolfs-lauren-adams-testifies-at-cdcr-hearing



Emphasis mine.

I've asked LondonJohn and SuburbanTurkey before: How much is too much? Is this too much? Or do you need more females to be assaulted by their fully-intact transgender identified male fellow inmates before we consider that perhaps... just perhaps... it's a bad idea to put males in with females where those vulnerable females have no escape.

Yes, the conditions of prisons are terrible, where people with credible fears to their safety have no good options. You won't see me defending the system that routinely forces people to share cells with known rapists and murderers.

Not sure what these anecdotes are supposed to illustrate other than the depraved indifference jailers have for people in their care.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, the conditions of prisons are terrible, where people with credible fears to their safety have no good options. You won't see me defending the system that routinely forces people to share cells with known rapists and murderers.

Not sure what these anecdotes are supposed to illustrate other than the depraved indifference jailers have for people in their care.

That's... some extreme dodging there.

To paraphrase...

EC: Putting male people into female prisons increases the risk to sexual assault faced by female inmates. I think this is a bad idea, regardless of how they identify. At the end of the day, a transwoman is still male, and is still a risk to female inmates.

ST & LJ: You're overreacting and being hyperbolic, that's all just ERF propaganda, it would never happen, transwomen are women and don't represent any risk to other women. You're just scaremongering.

EC: No, I'm simply recognizing that males, regardless of their gender identity, are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and more prone to violence and to sexual assault than females. It's clearly a bad idea to put genitally intact males in the female prison.

ST & LJ: Bah! Just more transphobic nonsense, you TERFy witch! You have no proof at all that this causes any harm to females. You're just being dishonest and malicious. There's not proof of this at all!

EC: Here's proof

ST: That's proof of nothing but the depraved indifference of jailers.

I rather think it's proof of the depraved indifference of politicians and activists with respect to the safety and rights of females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd also like to once more ask: In what specific ways are transwomen more like females than like males?

The claim has been made repeatedly by both SuburbanTurkey and LondonJohn that transwomen and females share a lot in common, more so than is shared by transwomen and males. You've both been repeatedly asked to provide some support for your bare assertion.

Please do so. If you truly believe that transwomen have more in common with females than with males, you should be able to actually put words to what those commonalities are.

 

[theprestige]

Segregating known gang members is not the same as universally racially segregated prisons. Surely you know this.

If prison gangs tend to organize along racial lines, and if inmates tend to affiliate with a gang in order to survive, it could be argued that segregating gang members is de facto racial segregation. But it's not a molehill I intend to fight over, let alone die on.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was no 'recategorisation of transgender identity' in the DSM5. This is an outline of the changes made to the previous diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) in DSM5 and the rationale for them as outlined by Zucker et al (2013).

In DSM-IV GID was placed in the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, even though there was little or no theoretical overlap between GID and sexual disorders. As Zucker et al explain "The placement of these three diagnostic classes in the same section in DSM-IV was probably influenced by several considerations, including clinical utility (e.g., that clinicians and researchers who study these phenomena tend to affiliate at common scientific meetings, tend to publish in the same periodicals, and probably have at least some familiarity with all of the conditions more so than clinicians and researchers who specialize in other areas of interest to psychiatry)."

However, consultation lead to a decision to separate gender dysphoria from sexual disorder to reduce stigma. Likewise the title was changed from GID to gender dysphoria (GD) to focus on distress rather than identity and reduce stigma. It is a myth that under DSM-IV, simply having a 'trans identity' was considered a disorder, but under DSM5 only having dysphoria is. Under DSMIV there was also a requirement for 'evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning' to make the diagnosis. Having a trans identity or being 'gender variant' without dysphoria was not sufficient. In other words, the name was changed but the underlying theory and the basis for diagnosis receive only minor revision.

The narrative that 'trans identity' was declassified as being a disorder in a manner parallel to homosexuality is pushed by activists for political reasons. As Singal states '"One of the main warning signs I look for when determining whether a given outlet is trustworthy on the subject of youth GD is whether it disseminates activist talking points without fact-checking them. This is one such talking point: the idea that in the DSM-IV, simply “being trans” and/or acting in a gender nonconforming way was considered a mental disorder, but then in the DSM-5, this injustice was rectified'."

DSM5 gave out the clear message that it now views transgender identity as a valid condition in its own right. And they did this by recategorising gender dysphoria. After all, if the DSM's authors no longer consider gender dysphoria to be a disorder, this - by direct implication - means they no longer consider transgender identity to be a disorder (or the product of a disorder) either.

The idea that government legislation is based on some scientific discovery about the nature of trans identity is fantasy. Zucker himself has pointed out that government legislation (such as Bill C6 in Canada) ignores the relevant science, because the briefing materials were prepared by activists who misrepresent this.

Boy, those shady behind-the-scenes transactivists, peddling their false and hyperbolic nonsense, really do have some clout don't they?! Pulling the wool over the eyes of legislatures all around the developed world?! And at the same time, seemingly denying all those legislatures the chance to either a) send out consultations to any/all interested parties, or b) pay any serious attention to, uhm, those activists who believe that transwomen are not women?!

WOW. This "policy capture" thing is bigger than I realised!!!!

 

[d4m10n]

DSM5 gave out the clear message that it now views transgender identity as a valid condition in its own right.

The manual doesn't ever say it's "valid" or "invalid" to have any given psychiatric condition; that's you putting your own spin on it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The manual doesn't ever say it's "valid" or "invalid" to have any given psychiatric condition; that's you putting your own spin on it.

The manual also doesn't ever address "identity" in any way whatsoever.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If prison gangs tend to organize along racial lines, and if inmates tend to affiliate with a gang in order to survive, it could be argued that segregating gang members is de facto racial segregation. But it's not a molehill I intend to fight over, let alone die on.

Perhaps I'm misinformed, are there prisons where nearly 100% of the population is gang affiliated? Segregating people who aren't known affiliates of a gang would be illegal discrimination.

Likewise treating all trans people as likely sex offenders seems prejudicial.

 

[Elaedith]

DSM5 gave out the clear message that it now views transgender identity as a valid condition in its own right. And they did this by recategorising gender dysphoria. After all, if the DSM's authors no longer consider gender dysphoria to be a disorder, this - by direct implication - means they no longer consider transgender identity to be a disorder (or the product of a disorder) either.

The DSM's authors DO consider gender dysphoria to be a disorder. It is a disorder because it causes functional distress and impairment, which are required for diagnosis. In discussing the name change, Zucker et al even compare GD to other diagnoses such as anorexia nervosa, which do not have the word 'disorder' in their name.

This same requirement of distress (dysphoria) was also present in the previous version, DSM-IV where the term 'gender identity disorder' was used. Thus, even though the name was changed to remove the word 'disorder' it is a myth that cross-sex identity or gender non-conformity alone (without distress) were previously considered disorders until DSM5.

In DSM-IV, GID appeared in a chapter called 'Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders' along with two other categories of disorder: Sexual Dysfunctions, and Paraphilias. Childhood GID has virtually no theoretical overlap with the other disorders in this chapter, but they were grouped this way for clinical utility. In DSM5, it was decided to give each of these three categories a separate chapter. None of these categories were 'declassified' as a disorder simply because they were split into separate chapters.

Other changes were made to improve the validity of the diagnostic criteria.

I invite anyone interested to check the article. You don't need to read the whole thing, just the rationale for name change and change in chapter structure.

Then you can make up your own mind about the how much weight to place on what LJ says.

Memo Outlining Evidence for Change for Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM-5

 

[theprestige]

The current system is broken. I don't see any solution that anyone could even consider good. Seeing as there's not likely any public interest in actually addressing root causes of prison brutality, I don't see how any policy could really improve the current situation except marginally.

Yes, we get all that. You've said it many times. It doesn't answer my question. Please answer my question.

I suppose trans women have as much rights to not be thrown in a men's jail as cis women. Any concern about threats to personal safety apply as much to trans women, if not more so. Trans women face much the same risk by being virtue of being women,

The risk to personal safety by virtue of being a woman is a threat based on statistical variances in size, strength between males and females. That is a risk that trans women very much do not face by virtue of being a woman.

What you're describing here is a females right not a womens right. Sex and gender are different, remember?

And sex segregation in prisons is legal, addressing your law of the land argument.

If females have a right to not be incarcerated with males (which I notice you never actually asserted), this must work both ways. They have a right not to be thrown in with the males, and they have a right not to have males thrown in with them.

Anyway, you're still talking about a safety-based segregation, not identity-based segregation.

And homosexual males still get thrown in with all the other males, in spite of the risk of homophobic violence. Why not transsexual males?