4 ms·

Side request: if it doesn't bother you too much I would prefer you refer to trans women with penises as trans women with penises rather than as "intact" trans w

by jolux 5y ago

Side request: if it doesn't bother you too much I would prefer you refer to trans women with penises as trans women with penises rather than as "intact" trans women. Such phrasing suggests that trans women without penises are damaged. > Without any stats for transwomen in particular, human males are more likely to be rapists, and an intact transwoman is closer to a man than a ciswoman is, no? This argument is rather tangential. Is there any empirical evidence that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis women? Is the median trans woman more likely to sexually assault people than cis women who have been convicted of sexual assault, or who have already committed sexual assault in the prison? > MyHypatia literally made the same point you're making in their original comment. Specifically, they said that putting trans women in women's prisons would be imposing the threat of rape on cis women. After I pointed out that cis women already rape other cis women in women's prisons, they clarified that it was actually impregnation they were really worried about introducing, not rape as such. I don't think my criticism of this concern has been addressed.

eropple 5y ago
I think your posts in this thread are downright admirable, and for that reason, in case you're not aware (and if you are, readers probably aren't)--it is probably worth noting that "intact" is common TERF watchwording, pushed and intended to normalize the position that trans women are not women.
- MyHypatia 5y ago
  I wasn't aware that some folks don't like the word "intact". What is the preferred way of referring to a trans-woman with a penis?
  - jolux 5y ago
    In this context “trans woman with a penis” or “woman with a penis” is fine. You can’t go wrong with scientific language. Pretty much nobody who is trans uses the word “intact,” I would go so far as to say it’s offensive and that you should avoid using it in the future if you don’t want to offend people. I find it offensive, certainly. It’s reminiscent of transphobic people describing trans women who have had vaginoplasties as mutilated.
  - eropple 5y ago
    I mean, I'm not trans, I'm not in a place to note "preferred" nomenclature, but I moderate spaces where there are trans folks and "pre-operative", or perhaps "without bottom surgery", seems to be a neutral description. With that said, the focus on genitalia strikes me as odd and really unfounded in the first place for a productive conversation.
    - MyHypatia 5y ago
      I do agree that focus on genitalia is generally unnecessary and unwelcome. In this case though we are discussing trans-women fearing people with penises raping them in men's prisons, and cis-women fearing people with penises raping them in women's prisons. In this context, if a trans-woman doesn't have a penis then this fear is unfounded and they should be housed with cis-women. If a trans-woman does have a penis, then I think this fear is reasonable (after all, that is what trans-women are escaping when they leave men's prisons). Basically, this is one of the few cases where discussing genitalia is relevant.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
fastball 5y ago
Sure, no problem. Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged. I don't think there are enough transwomen in prisons to make any reasonable statistical statement about transwomen in particular being more or less likely to be rapists. And I don't really think the argument is tangential. People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises, and are worried about the introduction of someone with a penis (who statistically is much more likely to be a rapist by nature of having a penis), I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that gender identity is a confounding factor in those statistics. And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons? With regards to MyHypatia, I was referring to the fact that, in the second half of your comment to which I initially replied, it seemed like you felt MyHypatia did not recognize the direness of the trans situation in prisons. But they clearly do, as evidenced by this from their first comment: > The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real
- jolux 5y ago
  > Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged. It may be used to describe their foreskin, but I've never heard or seen it used to describe them as whole people. It sounds very odd. What is the negation of intact? You can't really use a word to describe a category exclusively without implying the opposite of the other category. > People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. I don't think you can argue this is a clear statistical reality without data about trans women. As far as I know contemporary research suggests sexual assault by women has been historically undercounted. I don't know if the numbers come out similar in the end, but it seems like the kind of thing that is easily colored by social bias. > If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises Is it because they didn't have penises? Or because they weren't men? I don't know of any specific information, but this is an important distinction, because the general perception for a long time has been that men are more violent than women, and I think it's more because of male secondary sexual characteristics (muscle tone and height, mainly) than primary. Would a burly intersex person with high testosterone and ambiguous genitalia who sexually assaulted somebody have been put in a women's prison? Should they be today? > And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons? I don't know, but I do think it's worth asking the question! Do we segregate people by gender because it's fundamentally necessary, or because our prison system is so brutal that we can't imagine inmates of different genders living together peacefully? There could very well be science on this subject that I'm not aware of, but on its face the sexual segregation of American prisons seems hard to separate from their brutality and corruption.

by jolux 5y ago

eropple 5y ago

I think your posts in this thread are downright admirable, and for that reason, in case you're not aware (and if you are, readers probably aren't)--it is probably worth noting that "intact" is common TERF watchwording, pushed and intended to normalize the position that trans women are not women.

MyHypatia 5y ago
I wasn't aware that some folks don't like the word "intact". What is the preferred way of referring to a trans-woman with a penis?
- jolux 5y ago
  In this context “trans woman with a penis” or “woman with a penis” is fine. You can’t go wrong with scientific language. Pretty much nobody who is trans uses the word “intact,” I would go so far as to say it’s offensive and that you should avoid using it in the future if you don’t want to offend people. I find it offensive, certainly. It’s reminiscent of transphobic people describing trans women who have had vaginoplasties as mutilated.
- eropple 5y ago
  I mean, I'm not trans, I'm not in a place to note "preferred" nomenclature, but I moderate spaces where there are trans folks and "pre-operative", or perhaps "without bottom surgery", seems to be a neutral description. With that said, the focus on genitalia strikes me as odd and really unfounded in the first place for a productive conversation.
  - MyHypatia 5y ago
    I do agree that focus on genitalia is generally unnecessary and unwelcome. In this case though we are discussing trans-women fearing people with penises raping them in men's prisons, and cis-women fearing people with penises raping them in women's prisons. In this context, if a trans-woman doesn't have a penis then this fear is unfounded and they should be housed with cis-women. If a trans-woman does have a penis, then I think this fear is reasonable (after all, that is what trans-women are escaping when they leave men's prisons). Basically, this is one of the few cases where discussing genitalia is relevant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

fastball 5y ago

Sure, no problem. Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged. I don't think there are enough transwomen in prisons to make any reasonable statistical statement about transwomen in particular being more or less likely to be rapists. And I don't really think the argument is tangential. People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises, and are worried about the introduction of someone with a penis (who statistically is much more likely to be a rapist by nature of having a penis), I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that gender identity is a confounding factor in those statistics. And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons? With regards to MyHypatia, I was referring to the fact that, in the second half of your comment to which I initially replied, it seemed like you felt MyHypatia did not recognize the direness of the trans situation in prisons. But they clearly do, as evidenced by this from their first comment: > The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real

jolux 5y ago
> Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged. It may be used to describe their foreskin, but I've never heard or seen it used to describe them as whole people. It sounds very odd. What is the negation of intact? You can't really use a word to describe a category exclusively without implying the opposite of the other category. > People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. I don't think you can argue this is a clear statistical reality without data about trans women. As far as I know contemporary research suggests sexual assault by women has been historically undercounted. I don't know if the numbers come out similar in the end, but it seems like the kind of thing that is easily colored by social bias. > If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises Is it because they didn't have penises? Or because they weren't men? I don't know of any specific information, but this is an important distinction, because the general perception for a long time has been that men are more violent than women, and I think it's more because of male secondary sexual characteristics (muscle tone and height, mainly) than primary. Would a burly intersex person with high testosterone and ambiguous genitalia who sexually assaulted somebody have been put in a women's prison? Should they be today? > And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons? I don't know, but I do think it's worth asking the question! Do we segregate people by gender because it's fundamentally necessary, or because our prison system is so brutal that we can't imagine inmates of different genders living together peacefully? There could very well be science on this subject that I'm not aware of, but on its face the sexual segregation of American prisons seems hard to separate from their brutality and corruption.