What to do about nice but misguided people

@Squiblet You don't need the brains of an archbishop to realise that transwomen would be at risk if incarcerated with the general male prison population. The solution is not to increase the risk to women prisoners but to provide better protection to trans prisoners in the male estate.

Well, let's see. This is from CNN.com in 2021:

A 2007 study from the University of California, Irvine, found that incarcerated transgender people were 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than a random sample of incarcerated men. Fifty-nine percent of transgender prisoners reported having been sexually assaulted within a California correctional facility compared to just 4.4% of the incarcerated population as a whole.

A 2019 meta-study published in the Intl Journal of Transgenderism found this result:

Despite these recent acknowledgements, research suggests that prisoners who transgress heteronormative sex, sexuality and gender boundaries are at higher risk of experiencing bullying, violence, harassment, coercion, and sexual assault compared to other prisoners (Atabay, 2009; Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015; Blight, 2000; Carr et al., 2016; Dunn, 2013; Gatherer et al., 2014; Grant et al., 2011; Jenness & Fenstermaker, 2014; Jenness, Maxson, Matsuda, & Sumner, 2007a; Jenness et al., 2007b; Meyer et al., 2017; National LGBTI Health Alliance, 2012; UNAIDS, 2014; White Hughto et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2017). For example, lesbian, gay, and bisexual prisoners are more likely to experience sexual assault than their heterosexual counterparts (from other inmates), and the likelihood is even greater for transgender women inmates (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013; Blight, 2000; Clark et al., 2017; Carr et al., 2016; Jenness et al., 2007b; Oparah, 2012; von Dresner, Underwood, Suarez, & Franklin, 2013; White Hughto et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2017).

All those studies were linked to in the footnotes, I think; I don't have time to click on them all.

As someone mentioned, one thing to try is having separate sections for trans women.

Now can people just self identify to get in there?

Probably not, as you need to protect against people that may be violent or predatory.

It's only problematic if you agree it is cruel and inhumane to house trans women with other male prisoners.

Can you explain why you think this?

This is where it will get interesting if (when 🤦‍♀️) Labour get in to government. Jess Phillips is vocally tweeting that this is unacceptable.
Her previous position would presumably have been to house transwomen in the women's estate. Now that she's realised the difference between sex and gender (identity belief), with specific reference to the impact its conflation has on women's safety (her speech in the June parliamentary debate was fab.. and quite a surprise), I think she's going to be quite a force to be reckoned with on this one.
Keir Starmer will either have to listen to her or move her aside. She took part in the fringe women's conference that wasn't allowed to be at the main Labour conference. She doesn't seem to be backing down on this one and, even non-Jess fans can hopefully agree, she has quite a track record of getting herself heard and getting results.

Apparently the Mens estate is now full. It's a shambles.

Sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders, are at a very high level of risk in the male prison estate. They are held separately from other prisoners for their own safety. The same could be done for trans prisoners.

Problematic is a sly weasel word. The expression "this is problematic" sounds like "this is a problem which needs to be solved" but actually means "I have a problem with this and I want it to go away".

But yes there are loads of very very vulnerable people in prison and the prison system is already well aware of this, one group is not The Most Vulnerable

That doesn't stop me worrying about them.

Honestly the men's estate is far far worse funded than the women's estate in prison.

But yes there are loads of very very vulnerable people in prison and the prison system is already well aware of this, one group is not The Most Vulnerable.

Gang members are vulnerable in prisons with rival gang members in, so are paedos, there are racists in prison and men of all colours, homphobes and gay men, they house them all. It's their LITERAL job.
They are an issue for the Mens Prison system which is much better funded than the Womens Prison system and has the necessary staff with the necessary training to deal with violent men.
If you don't want to be in prison there are ways of avoiding it.
You either sympathise with all criminals at risk in the prison system (which includes Women) or you're paying lip service to the current trendy group.

You won't get very far in persuading people of the validity of your arguments, if that's the tack you take.

I've thought about the issue quite a lot. While I think it is inhumane and cruel to women to open the doors of women's corrective facilities to trans women prisoners, I also think it would be inhumane and cruel to trans women prisoners to house them in men's facilities. They would be very much at risk.

It's a complex issue and definitely problematic. I don't have a solution - do you?

I think it can also be a holding statement. I'm currently having a marathon-like conversation with a(n extended) family member who I am very close to.

She's incredibly TWAW and has several friends and wider acquaintances who have either transitioned (all FtM) or have children who are trans-identified (both FtM and MtF). There seems to be quite a lot of this going on in her friendship group and/or local area.

She's aware of my daughter's story and is someone that I've been talking to about it during most stages. She's been very balanced and has agreed with me that a purely affirmative approach isn't right for her at all when all roads seem to point to the distress associated with puberty and autism (experience change and sensory issues of breast development and periods as trauma). However she's still very TWAW - nobody should question this, "trans people are who they say they are" etc.

In our most recent conversation, she said that she didn't agree with transwomen being in women's sports but that she couldn't really say this to some of her friends because they would get angry with her that she wasn't supportive of trans people.

She really is one of the loveliest and kindest people I know. If I were to ask her right now what her views were (I won't, but we're going to meet up soon for a proper long chat about it all - mostly about what I'm doing as part of my IRL "activism" to support girls like my daughter), I'm sure she would say it's "problematic".

IMO it's a statement which covers a wide range of views that are book-ended with a) I don't have any inclination to think about this to b) I'm very confused about what I think and I need some space.

It's a Be Kind version of No Debate. I think more people who say it will get drawn towards talking and debating more as the harms being done by gender identity belief get more sunlight pouring in.

Ah, "problematic".

The favourite word of people who have very strong, fixed opinions that they can neither defend nor explain, even to themselves.

Not good enough. Try again.

I asked someone about sport and prisons. She said it was “problematic” but continues to post all the be nice stuff 🤷🏼‍♀️

In my experience if you ask the “just trying to be kind” lot with the facts about where gender ideology takes you in the real world- rapists in prison, children pushed into medical interventions etc- they just look sad and say “it’s so difficult/complicated”. Which in my opinion means “I have no intention of thinking any more deeply about this than be kind”.

"... any set of ideas that schools are going to teach kids about the nature of science, or truth, or justice, or fairness, is coming from a worldview perspective."

There is a sense in which this is, of course, simply true. There is a 'worldview perspective' underlying anything we might teach our kids.

However, there is another thought that often goes along with this truism, one which @Rudderneck seems to accept. It is that our 'worldview', being in the nature of things, one among many, has no greater claim on veracity or utility than any of the other available 'worldviews'. This is a mistake, and a bad one.

Why? Because this 'worldview' works. The science we inherited from the seventeenth century empiricists has given us antibiotics, vaccination, hybrid maize, streetlights, safe lifts, world trade, paperback books ... and so on and on.

Justice and fairness may still need some work (although some may think there has been progress even there over the last three hundred years or so, at least in some areas) ... and of course however useful our science is there still may be questions about the wisdom of some applications thereof. Nevertheless, the 'set of widely held ideas about reality' Rudderneck mentions, which we 'take for granted', including, for instance, ideas about the mechanics of the universe and technology based thereupon, whilst perhaps indeed not self-evident (some early responses in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will convince a reader of that), nevertheless work.

You want to go to the moon? You want a polio or covid vaccine? (And so on.) Try using any other 'worldview' than our scientific 'widely held ideas about reality'. Magic crystals? Gender identity? Ghosts and demons? Gods and devils? Substances, accidents, real essences, matter and form? Huh. Good luck. See how far you get.

No, Rudderneck, any 'good faith school', if it is to be any use to its pupils, must teach the same 'widely held views about reality' as other good schools, at least in its non-faith-based lessons.

It can't be really true that there is no real truth. Do you see why, Rudderneck? And do you see how this undercuts your own brand of relativism?

This is what I say regarding pronouns. Depending on who the audience is (I haven't needed it yet) I may also link it to the Yogyakarta Principles. It's number 6, just written in lots more words. This document was written by and is used by WPATH. So it's the official "trans advice" on the matter too.

@DrBlackbird I was told by a much younger woman who's very involved in the 'terf wars' to make the point that some are not ready to out themselves with pronouns and to do so could put pressure on them that they're not ready for 😃

I always, always challenge the 'most vulnerable group in society' phrase because it makes my teeth itch. NO group is the MOST vulnerable ALL the time.

It allowed me to successfully peak a friend who used it wrt Isla Bryson. In that situation, the women in Cornton Vale are the most vulnerable group, given something like 80% have head injuries and 90% have suffered male violence. (I cba to double check the stats rn but I'm not far off).

Crucially though, I did it in private. No-one wins on social media.

What do you mean she wants you to "use pronouns" in a hobby group? What does she actually want you to do?

I was going to suggest exactly that. There are plenty of examples of genuinely marginalised and vulnerable groups - refugees, people with serious disabilities, the elderly poor, Travellers etc.

Yes - it may be of more value to verbally analyse to someone with that simplistic view point that "most vulnerable" isn't a linear binary fact; it's often complex.

They like the hierarchy type approach of privilege and oppression which is really simplistic.

Glad I’ve read this thread as I’ve been wondering how to approach a friend about pronouns as she wants us to use them in a hobby group. I couldn’t think of a way to state my position without potentially alienating her, but the beliefs angle might hopefully do the trick.

And that argument paves the way for a neat segue into a discussion about third spaces, where you let the other person agree that third spaces would be a good solution allowing everyone's needs to be met, and then you point out that trans people don't seem to want third spaces, they aren't campaigning for them, and some have even explicitly said that if third spaces were provided they would refuse to use them on the grounds that they are "othering" and they want to be in women's spaces regardless of how women might feel about that. Which starts to look as though it actually has nothing to do with safety or comfort at all.

I don't think the arguments about sports or rapists are actually the most compelling when dealing with "be nice" people. Because they will tell you and themselves that you are talking about a very small number of people and that the vast majority of trans people are perfectly harmless.

When I was talking to my "be kind" friend about this, and we talked about changing rooms and toilets, she said, "I think they should be able to use whatever spaces they feel safe and comfortable in."

I replied, "What about women who don't feel safe or comfortable sharing intimate spaces with any members of the opposite sex for whatever reason? That's a lot of women. Religious women, rape survivors, teenage girls, older women, to be honest lots of women who aren't even in a particularly vulnerable group still don't feel safe or comfortable sharing toilets and changing rooms with members of the opposite sex? Where can they feel safe and comfortable? Because if you open up their spaces to anyone who wants to use them, there is nowhere they feel safe and comfortable. Now I'm all for people feeling safe and comfortable but I think all people should have that right, and it is not at all kind to women to say that they no longer have that right because we all need to be kind to trans people."

She had no comeback to that.

I was going to suggest exactly that. There are plenty of examples of genuinely marginalised and vulnerable groups - refugees, people with serious disabilities, the elderly poor, Travellers etc.