• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Horhang said:
Evidence here:
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-...re-lifestyle-14cd954b06360d21349b77233318369e

Relevant quote:
The law Newsom signed Saturday says officers must ask inmates privately during the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those inmates can then request to be placed in a facility that houses either men or women.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if AP could link to the text of the actual bill, or at least cite it by name. I'd like to see if it really specifies transsexual housing of prisoners based on nothing more than their verbal request. I'm curious because we've seen another California law that requires a signed affidavit, recorded by the courts, in order to legally change one's gender identity. It would be tragicomic if the prison housing law doesn't even ask to see that piece of paper.
 
stanfr said:
I don' t vehemently disagree with this--I just lean toward the second sentence and you clearly are dug in on the first. I see the effort to discriminate against LGBTQ groups more dangerous than the reverse. So now that we are fully in agreement, let someone else bring up Hitler and then we're done! : p
Click to expand...

I was hoping we'd not be done at least until you'd addressed the point I raised at the end of that post:

"If you think you have a better solution [than barring trans access to sex segregated spaces, etc.], let's hear it."

But if you're not interested in going that far, we can dispense with the Hitler misdirection and be done right now. I entered this thread a lot more sympathetic to the plight of trans folks, a lot more concerned about what we could do to expand and fortify their rights, without unnecessarily harming anyone else. Now I just want some answers.

You don't have any answers for me. You're just trying to shame me into feeling bad about my current position on trans rights and where we should take them. But I know how I got from where you seem to be, to where I am now. You can't shame me for the journey that brought me to this point. You can't shame me for the conclusions I've reached. If that's the best you've got, then yeah, we're done.
 
stanfr said:
How are they at risk in a men's prison?
Click to expand...

This is a familiar trans-activist dodge: If we just solve the problem of prison violence, then we don't have to worry about housing men and women together. Meanwhile, women will just have to put up with having men for cellmates, because there's literally no other way to handle this.
 
theprestige said:
This is a familiar trans-activist dodge: If we just solve the problem of prison violence, then we don't have to worry about housing men and women together. Meanwhile, women will just have to put up with having men for cellmates, because there's literally no other way to handle this.
Click to expand...
There is a very obvious solution we are all missing. If trans women are women, and women want to be protected from trans women in the same way they are protected from men, but we have to treat trans women as wholly and completely women, then the answer is to protect women from other women in the same way they are protected from men.
 
stanfr said:
No, that is the cherry-picked quote. You clearly either didn't even read your own story or are conveniently ignoring all the multiple caveats cited in the story, which as a whole in no way says a person can define their gender just by declaring their preferred identity. And you clearly have never been in a prison, or you would know something about the risks involved for trans individuals.
Click to expand...

In what way was that a”cherry-picked” quote. The law says inmates will be asked their gender and placed based on their response. If you are referring to the caveat of “management and security concerns” that is no caveat and such rulings can be appealed.
This law has already been exploited, see “Hannah” Tubbs.
 
shuttlt said:
There is a very obvious solution we are all missing. If trans women are women, and women want to be protected from trans women in the same way they are protected from men, but we have to treat trans women as wholly and completely women, then the answer is to protect women from other women in the same way they are protected from men.
Click to expand...

Nobody is missing this ridiculous “solution”.
 
lionking said:
As they are male bodied, not much. How about answering my question? Do you think self-identified transwomen are at risk in a women’s prisons? How about female prisoners incarcerated with male bodied transwomen?
Click to expand...

Seriously?
Do you realize how high the risk of sexual assault is for "male bodied" *men*??

You really have no clue.
I am not sure what the risk is for transwomen, but I do know that unless you can find a group to belong with in prison--you are at risk.
So, if you are the sole transwoman in a female prison, I suspect the risk is very high.
 
lionking said:
The female swimmers quoted said they disturbed. What is your definition of indecent exposure? I would have thought showing a penis to women who were disturbed by it fits the bill.
Click to expand...

It sure does! Now show me a criminal complaint that was thrown out by a prosecutor as a result.
 
d4m10n said:
How can that matter if she has a legal right to be nude anywhere cisgender women do?
Click to expand...

I don't think the statutes explicitly state that she has a right to be nude, can you point out where they say that? But I understand your point, that *is why* I am not going to nail myself to a plank protecting those rights.
 
lionking said:
Nobody is missing this ridiculous “solution”.
Click to expand...
No indeed. I was partly offering it to illustrate how incompatible the two sets of demands are and what would be needed for them to coexist. Steps towards solutions are really only concessions from Rolfe's side without any kind of agreement, or underlying principle around which one could agree, as to how far the concessions will go.
 
theprestige said:
A female getting pregnant after being raped by her male cellmate is something that really should never happen, in sex-segregated prisons. But it already has.
Click to expand...

Yep, they've been raped by prison guards too, you'd think that should not happen but it certainly does.
 
theprestige said:
I was hoping we'd not be done at least until you'd addressed the point I raised at the end of that post:

"If you think you have a better solution [than barring trans access to sex segregated spaces, etc.], let's hear it."

But if you're not interested in going that far, we can dispense with the Hitler misdirection and be done right now. I entered this thread a lot more sympathetic to the plight of trans folks, a lot more concerned about what we could do to expand and fortify their rights, without unnecessarily harming anyone else. Now I just want some answers. You don't have any answers for me. You're just trying to shame me into feeling bad about my current position on trans rights and where we should take them. But I know how I got from where you seem to be, to where I am now. You can't shame me for the journey that brought me to this point. You can't shame me for the conclusions I've reached. If that's the best you've got, then yeah, we're done.
Click to expand...

Honestly I find that hard to believe based on your responses. But I respect your demand for answers, It's just ironic that you don't seem to want to afford me any right to not have all the answers, when supposedly I am "where i seem to be" ;)
 
theprestige said:
Just explain to them that the facilities in question are sex-segregated. Gender identity doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit claims to the contrary at ¶ 24:
Every individual’s sex is multifaceted and comprised of many distinct biologically-influenced characteristics, including, but not limited to, chromosomal makeup, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity. Where there is a divergence between these characteristics, gender identity is the most important and determinative factor. Therefore, someone’s sex or gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.
Click to expand...
I really don't see this getting far in the courts, but it's interesting to know how progressives are hoping to reshape our ideas about sex and gender.
 
theprestige said:
This is a familiar trans-activist dodge: If we just solve the problem of prison violence, then we don't have to worry about housing men and women together. Meanwhile, women will just have to put up with having men for cellmates, because there's literally no other way to handle this.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. But from my perspective, the way you phrase it, it is Inherently a problem to house a self-identified woman with another woman, if the former has a penis. It *assumes* the former is a sexual predator. A penis is not necessary to sexually assault another individual, but it certainly could be used that way.
And again, I am mostly playing devil's advocate here (as I have from the start!) because I am not sure it is a good idea, either. But I haven't arrived at your absolute certainty that it is. I think I would literally have to visit a prison (as I once did on numerous occasions as a public defender!) to talk to the parties who are directly affected by this, to arrive at a conclusive opinion about it. I dare say you've never directly talked to the parties whoese interests are directly at stake.
 
theprestige said:
Just explain to them that the facilities in question are sex-segregated. Gender identity doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...

This is Oklahoma, they don't even have to go that far--just explain to them that since they identify as women, and women are inherently inferior to men, their opinions mean didly-squat!
 
shuttlt said:
No indeed. I was partly offering it to illustrate how incompatible the two sets of demands are and what would be needed for them to coexist. Steps towards solutions are really only concessions from Rolfe's side without any kind of agreement, or underlying principle around which one could agree, as to how far the concessions will go.
Click to expand...

The solution is to do away with sex entirely by putting us all in cyborg bodies.
As the new Kaylon empire, we all shall stand united! :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom