3 ms·
> You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints a
by dover 4y ago
> You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you.
Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise. Could you enlighten me please?
I mentioned those three regions because they have self-identification policies for "gender identity" that extend to prisons, and men who call themselves women are currently incarcerated in women's prisons there.
> 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.
Okay then, please share your evidence? Keeping in mind that any man can call himself a woman.
> One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.
Agreed, so please refrain from implying that these men are female, as you did with your mention of "male-on-female violence". I'm sure you know they are male.
> What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison?
You are presumably referring to men with self-induced gynecomastia. This will likely be a subset of, or at least have a significant intersection with, men who call themselves women.
The same argument I made in other comments applies to these men too - their safety is an issue for the male prison estate to deal with. Men's prisons have plenty of experience handling at-risk prisoners, for example paedophiles, ex-police officers, ex-gang members. If men with breast tissue are at elevated risk, they can be handled in the same way. There is no reason to place these men in women's prisons.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago> Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise. Well, I did say earlier: > > 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. You misunderstand what "self-identification policies" are – or, at least, what current implementations look like. They don't "just believe" people: the processes for getting recognition can be quite convoluted. > Okay then, please share your evidence? I can't share the sum total of my relevant life experience, I'm afraid. You'll just have to make do with what I've already provided: the evidence from your own comments. As somebody who has researched this, and – presumably – is motivated to portray trans people in a bad light, you are not in possession of the statistical data I would expect to exist if trans women were statistically like men. People like you pick at every single case you can to paint $insert_group_here in a bad light, but in this case, you can't even get enough data points to make a statistically-plausible argument – and neither can anybody else who argues the same as you. (I have absolutely no idea why you can't: I would expect you to be able to. Apparently, reality is even more biased than I am!) > I'm sure you know they are male. :eyeroll: I'm sure you can't even define "male" coherently, consistently, in a way that lines up with your ideological beliefs about what it is and isn't. You know how I'm using words. I'm extending you the courtesy of accepting your language use: please return it. > The same argument I made in other comments applies to these […] too And by this argument, why have segregated prisons at all? Your original argument was about reducing harm… so why are you suddenly switching to a different argument, now that I've brought up the increased harm your proposal would cause? You've got two different criteria now. Please weigh both situations (thing you're complaining about, and your alternative proposal) according to both criteria. Don't just pick and choose, otherwise I'll have to assume you're arguing in bad faith.