4 ms·

Even one case of women prisoners being raped by men who are incarcerated in a women's prisons is sufficient to show that this recent experiment in removing this

by dover 4y ago

Even one case of women prisoners being raped by men who are incarcerated in a women's prisons is sufficient to show that this recent experiment in removing this safeguarding measure for women inmates has been a failure, and must be abandoned. That we have several documented cases already only supports this point further.

defrost 4y ago
Any instance of inmates being abused by other inmates or by guards in a prison system is a violation of duty of care. I absolutely agree that measures should be in place to eliminate such abuse and to uphold duty of care. You have failed to demonstrate that trans people in prisons pose any additional risk over and above what already exists - measures put in place should stop same sex abuse and guard abuse equally as well as they stop trans abuse of others (or, indeed abuse of trans by others - which you have blindly overlooked). That abuse does occur highlights a failure of protective measures overall - and the incidence of abuse by trans prisoners appears to be the very least of the actual incidents that actually occur. Unless, of course, you can actually link to actual comparative numbers. Otherwise you are just engaged in blinkered and selective pearl clutching.
- dover 4y ago
  I'm talking about men in women's prisons. Any man can call himself a woman, and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. Effectively making women's prisons mixed-sex environments. Sex-segregation of prisons (and other spaces where women are vulnerable) exists for good reason: the safety and dignity of women. The need for this has been well-documented since the 19th century, when reformers campaigned for improvements to prison conditions, including making them separated by sex. Elizabeth Fry in particular kept extensive diaries of the horrors that women had to endure in mixed-sex prisons. This isn't "pearl clutching", as you put it, it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Evidence that has since been added to with these cases I've cited, that resulted from prison authorities deciding to reintroduce mixed-sex environments. On the flip side, you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. You appear to have simply assumed that this should be the case, and are basing your rhetoric upon this assumption.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. > it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them. > you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison? … Or do they not count?
    - dover 4y ago
      > This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. California, Washington, Ireland, for example. All places where prisoners are being incarcerated based on their claims of "gender identity" rather than sex. > Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them. Sorry, but this isn't how this works. It is already well established that men present significant risk to women, particularly in spaces where women are vulnerable. If you want to claim that a subset of these men - that is, any man who calls himself a woman - poses a significantly lower risk to women, then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. > I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison? I entirely agree that women who call themselves men must not be placed in men's prisons, just as men who call themselves women must not be incarcerated with women. As I argued above, this is the whole point of sex-segregated prisons, safeguarding women from male sexual abuse and violence.
      - wizzwizz4 4y ago
        > California, Washington, Ireland, for example. You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. > then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violence? You can't just weaponise the null hypothesis like that: how am I supposed to prove this point in the hypothetical world where it's correct? If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't. > I entirely agree that [thing I didn't say] One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.² You know full well how I'm using words, here (just as I know how you're using them), and it should be clear what I was trying to say. What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison? Reactionary policies are rarely good ones, even where it would be better to go back to the way things were. Don't you know you can't go home again? Unless you address the flaws, not just the perceived benefits, of your proposals, I won't see them as thought-through. Doing the right thing is hard. Working out what the right thing is is hard – and usually painful.³ Do you care more about believing yourself to be right already, or about ultimately doing the right thing? The specific details of this pointless internet argument aside, your strategy here is not one that will help you to learn and improve and become better at making things better. --- ¹: Personally, I place a large portion of the blame on patriarchy. Many men I know are decent people: violent macho behaviour doesn't seem to be inherent. ²: Unless what you seek to alter is the political landscape, of course – but this website is not an effective place to do that. ³: I shy too much from that pain to be confident in making policy decisions myself. I can often, however, spot flaws in bad policy.

by dover 4y ago

defrost 4y ago

Any instance of inmates being abused by other inmates or by guards in a prison system is a violation of duty of care. I absolutely agree that measures should be in place to eliminate such abuse and to uphold duty of care. You have failed to demonstrate that trans people in prisons pose any additional risk over and above what already exists - measures put in place should stop same sex abuse and guard abuse equally as well as they stop trans abuse of others (or, indeed abuse of trans by others - which you have blindly overlooked). That abuse does occur highlights a failure of protective measures overall - and the incidence of abuse by trans prisoners appears to be the very least of the actual incidents that actually occur. Unless, of course, you can actually link to actual comparative numbers. Otherwise you are just engaged in blinkered and selective pearl clutching.

dover 4y ago
I'm talking about men in women's prisons. Any man can call himself a woman, and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. Effectively making women's prisons mixed-sex environments. Sex-segregation of prisons (and other spaces where women are vulnerable) exists for good reason: the safety and dignity of women. The need for this has been well-documented since the 19th century, when reformers campaigned for improvements to prison conditions, including making them separated by sex. Elizabeth Fry in particular kept extensive diaries of the horrors that women had to endure in mixed-sex prisons. This isn't "pearl clutching", as you put it, it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Evidence that has since been added to with these cases I've cited, that resulted from prison authorities deciding to reintroduce mixed-sex environments. On the flip side, you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. You appear to have simply assumed that this should be the case, and are basing your rhetoric upon this assumption.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. > it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them. > you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison? … Or do they not count?
  - dover 4y ago
    > This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. California, Washington, Ireland, for example. All places where prisoners are being incarcerated based on their claims of "gender identity" rather than sex. > Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them. Sorry, but this isn't how this works. It is already well established that men present significant risk to women, particularly in spaces where women are vulnerable. If you want to claim that a subset of these men - that is, any man who calls himself a woman - poses a significantly lower risk to women, then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. > I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison? I entirely agree that women who call themselves men must not be placed in men's prisons, just as men who call themselves women must not be incarcerated with women. As I argued above, this is the whole point of sex-segregated prisons, safeguarding women from male sexual abuse and violence.
    - wizzwizz4 4y ago
      > California, Washington, Ireland, for example. You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. > then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violence? You can't just weaponise the null hypothesis like that: how am I supposed to prove this point in the hypothetical world where it's correct? If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't. > I entirely agree that [thing I didn't say] One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.² You know full well how I'm using words, here (just as I know how you're using them), and it should be clear what I was trying to say. What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison? Reactionary policies are rarely good ones, even where it would be better to go back to the way things were. Don't you know you can't go home again? Unless you address the flaws, not just the perceived benefits, of your proposals, I won't see them as thought-through. Doing the right thing is hard. Working out what the right thing is is hard – and usually painful.³ Do you care more about believing yourself to be right already, or about ultimately doing the right thing? The specific details of this pointless internet argument aside, your strategy here is not one that will help you to learn and improve and become better at making things better. --- ¹: Personally, I place a large portion of the blame on patriarchy. Many men I know are decent people: violent macho behaviour doesn't seem to be inherent. ²: Unless what you seek to alter is the political landscape, of course – but this website is not an effective place to do that. ³: I shy too much from that pain to be confident in making policy decisions myself. I can often, however, spot flaws in bad policy.