• 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: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
mumblethrax said:
Then where do you want to talk about?


In the US, the basis for overcoming anti-discrimination law of this kind would be the rational basis test. Which means that such discrimination has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, real or hypothetical.

It would go something like this, I think:

Trans Prisoner Who Has Committed Brutal Acts of Violence Against Women: "Women's prison, please!"
Hypothetical State Where They Give Two ***** About Prisoners and Trans People are Legally Protected from Discrimination in Prisons: "Upon review of your request...no."
TPWHCBAoVAW: "Racist!"
HSWTGTSAPaTPaLPfDiP: "Lol."
TPWHCBAoVAW: "You're discriminating against me!"
HSWTGTSAPaTPaLPfDiP: "Yeah. We get to do that because you pose a risk to female prisoners."
TPWHCBAoVAW: "I'm going to sue!"
HSWTGTSAPaTPaLPfDiP: "Ok. Have fun proving that we don't have a basis for doing this, because that's what you need to do."


Because they don't want hyper-permissive self-id laws, obviously.

Still not seeing where the danger is.
Click to expand...

The danger is in hyper-permissive self-id laws, such as the ones trans rights activists want implemented.
 
Matthew Best said:
The danger is in hyper-permissive self-id laws, such as the ones trans rights activists want implemented.
Click to expand...

what is the danger, exactly?

That we might have to change the wording in some texts?
How does that spell the demise of civilization as we know it?
 
Matthew Best said:
The danger is in hyper-permissive self-id laws, such as the ones trans rights activists want implemented.
Click to expand...
That was what would happen in the case of the most permissive possible self-id law.

Let me put it to you this way: why is it permissible to segregate prisoners by sex in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
If it doesn't say that a person's legal sex should be determined by their self-declared gender identity without any medical requirements, then it's not really a self ID law, is it.

And if a self ID law is passed, then a man can become a woman, and thus that woman would have to be housed in a women's prison, absent a legal mechanism for housing a woman in a male prison.

If you think all of this is ridiculous, then we are in agreement. But I still have to wonder why trans rights activists are pushing for it if it's so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Part of a self ID law could carve out exceptions for certain aspects. That's how many such "rights" legislation works. For instance in the UK equality legislation says in effect you can't be discriminated on the grounds of being a woman in employment but there are exceptions, the RCC church can still discriminate against women in employment by not allowing women to become priests.
 
Matthew Best said:
Yes. The point is to indicate how stupid and dangerous "self ID" is as a concept.
Click to expand...

No, that's bollocks. The murders were committed years prior.

smartcooky said:
The families of the victims will surely be comforted by the knowledge that their loved ones were murdered by a "far outlier"
Click to expand...

Nonsense - as above, the person in question committed the murders prior to being incarcerated or the question of gender arising.
 
mumblethrax said:
That was what would happen in the case of the most permissive possible self-id law.

Let me put it to you this way: why is it permissible to segregate prisoners by sex in the first place?
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of permission. it's a matter of necessity. In case you aren't aware of, or are choosing to ignore, the facts, females are understandably extremely wary of males, with good reason. Segregation of males and females in prison is for the safety of the females.

And that's the same reason males should be segregated from females when females are at their most vulnerable outside prison.
 
Lplus said:
It isn't a matter of permission. it's a matter of necessity. In case you aren't aware of, or are choosing to ignore, the facts, females are understandably extremely wary of males, with good reason. Segregation of males and females in prison is for the safety of the females.



And that's the same reason males should be segregated from females when females are at their most vulnerable outside prison.
Click to expand...

Their most vulnerable outside prison would be in any relationship. That is by far where women remain horribly vulnerable, we've only just started to recognise such abuse as coercive control. Anyone concerned about women being victims of abuse, rape and murder should be looking as to what can be done to reduce the risk in everyday life.

That of course does not mean we should look to increase risk in less vulnerable situations.
 
Darat said:
Their most vulnerable outside prison would be in any relationship. That is by far where women remain horribly vulnerable, we've only just started to recognise such abuse as coercive control. Anyone concerned about women being victims of abuse, rape and murder should be looking as to what can be done to reduce the risk in everyday life.

That of course does not mean we should look to increase risk in less vulnerable situations.
Click to expand...

Oh come off it. You try to walk it back in the last sentence, but you are criticising those concerned about self id’d transwomen being imprisoned with women because women are vulnerable in other situations. Are you serious?
 
lionking said:
Oh come off it. You try to walk it back in the last sentence, but you are criticising those concerned about self id’d transwomen being imprisoned with women because women are vulnerable in other situations. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

You really should stick to reading what I post as that is what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Their most vulnerable outside prison would be in any relationship. That is by far where women remain horribly vulnerable, we've only just started to recognise such abuse as coercive control. Anyone concerned about women being victims of abuse, rape and murder should be looking as to what can be done to reduce the risk in everyday life.

That of course does not mean we should look to increase risk in less vulnerable situations.
Click to expand...

Oh, very good, Darat. :bigclap

In the context of this thread the most vulnerable places for females are changing rooms, toilets and safe refuges.

I must be more precise,
I must be more precise,
I must be more precise

X 200
 
d4m10n said:
If we're going to debate prison policy, let's at least look at the policy proposals put forth by activists themselves.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/04/1126801351/trans-rights-transgender-inmates

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179...suit-transgender-inmate-christina-lusk-prison

https://www.genderjustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/lusk-v-doc-complaint.pdf

Sent from my Albany Primo using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lusk is one case where I'd say he should be in women's prison. He had socially transitioned before his incarceration, was and is actively pursuing bottom surgery, and was not imprisoned for a sex-related crime. Actually kinda surprised this happened in Minnesota, which is building a reputation as a transhaven.

Now Lusk isn't a hard case, and the NPR articles make it clear he is the thin end of the wedge here:

(It should be noted that the authenticity around a trans person's gender identity is not inherently tied to surgeries, other medical treatments or changes to legal documents. Some people don't take these steps for a variety of reasons.)
Click to expand...
 
Lplus said:
It isn't a matter of permission. it's a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...
That's rather the point. If the safety of prisoners is enough overcome the relevant anti-discrimination laws and allows us to segregate prisons on the basis of sex, why wouldn't it be enough to do so on the basis of gender identity?
 
Yeah I like how at no point in this discourse does "Hey many NOBODY should get raped or assaulted in prison" comes up, like we've just given up on that as even a possibility.
 
mumblethrax said:
That's rather the point. If the safety of prisoners is enough overcome the relevant anti-discrimination laws and allows us to segregate prisons on the basis of sex, why wouldn't it be enough to do so on the basis of gender identity?
Click to expand...

That rather depends on whether it is possible to segregate on the basis of gender whilst maintaining the segregation on the basis of sex.
 
Lplus said:
Yes it does. Segregation on the basis of sex is the paramount requirement.
Click to expand...
There is no distinction between sex and gender in the eyes of the law. Changing your legal sex is how you change your gender for legal purposes.

The only relevant question is can the state segregate on the basis of gender identity when serious interests are at stake? And the answer is, duh.
 
Pretending you live in a world where other people who believe different thins, no matter how "wrong" they are, don't exist is both stupid and counter productive.

If we put someone who looks like what some/many/most people think of as a woman into an all male prison we're going to have problems. It's naive on a level I can't put into words to argue against that based on "But they define as a man!"

Whether or not people SHOULD be able to... override? (not the exact word I'm looking for but close) a person's gender identity is a very, very different thing from pretending that some of them still aren't going to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom