Males in female prisons

[WankingMonkey]

I have noticed a fair bit of support for 'identification' over sex on MN. I am just wondering what peoples opinions are on males wanting into female prisons because they are 'trans'?

If possible, have a think, write out a reply...and [i]then[/i] read this

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soham-child-killer-ian-huntley-9626220

As I have seen many defenses along the lines of 'noone would pretend to be a woman' and such. But here we have a clear example of this in action. And it is impossible to let 'some' do it and not others, isn't it. You can't make laws without clear boundaries of course.

I actually can't believe it has taken someone like Huntley to wake up a fair few of my friends, this is all over my facebook today with people suddenly u-turning on their previous stance...

Italian

Haha. The former.

how could [behaving differently] be a biological thing?

Our bodies work differently. Those with the correct education (and not especially high level) can tell the sex from a skeleton. Our brains are different physically in some ways. For example, the hypothalamos is more than twice the size in a male's brain than a female's.

It certainly isn't my area of expertise but it would seem more than likely that, given provable physical differences in our bodies (skeletal, genitals, reproductive organs, muscular, brain) that they function differently.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that in spite of these differences in the brain physically, it should function in the same way. This is bourne out through my observation, as I said. I also find that teachers are willing to accept there are differences in behaviour of girls and boys and they tend to agree it is due to biology as opposed to the poisons of a patriarchy from birth.

Why are you so sure that boy and girl brains function so identically? There are physical differences so how is it more likely that this has no effect on behaviour, learning style and what have you.

My biggest weakness is accepting I may, possibly, occasionally have been wrong... fortunately I rarely have to.

However, I'm definitely shifting towards the fence.

My (current) train of thought:

1. men and women are different mentally and physically. The physicalness tends to be in favour of men in almost every way. The mental aspect is swings and roundabouts for both sexes.

1. feminists want to have their cake and eat it. We are either the same / equal or not. If we are not the same then stop moaning about the pay gap myth (we'll have another thread for that one) and things like that. If we are the same, why do you want segregation?

1. Accepting men and women are different, maybe there are times women need different measures.

1. This should not amount to positive discrimination. To my mind this is charity. I do not want charity because of my vagina. It's patronising and would drive me insane. I want to compete on a level playing field and know if I 'win' it's because I'm the best and not because of the sloping pitch.

1. Interestingly, using the hypothalamus, gay men's is similar in size to women's and significantly smaller than hetero mens. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other brain differences in trans people. It's certainly not atypical behaviour.

1. I'm a cold, heartless bitch. If we need to segregate women, men, transmen and transwomen then it would cost a fortune. If you commit a crime then you do sacrifice some things. An element of your safety is one. You are a criminal and are locked up with other criminals. Of course your safety is compromised. That is on you.

1. As segregation between 4 'types' plus the categories of offence or prisoner cannot happen, segregation must be limited.

1. Men commit much more violence. I think, therefore, that a woman who does so is manlike and can be housed with men.

1. Claiming a trans woman is dangerous because they have (or had) a penis is offensive. Claiming they're dangerous because of a past crime is fair. If a trans (ex-man) child abuser was housed with other male and female child abusers then I do largely feel 'fuck the lot of you'. Wardens shouldn't turn a blind eye to anything and should do their job to the best of their ability and try to keep everyone safe. This, I don't think, should extend to female only prisons.

Would you agree that there's less or no need for a very low risk trans to be kept away from women prisoners? Imprisoned for tax evasion and until then had been an exemplary person. I would.

As you can see, I do tend to think you lost your right to (more) reasonable allowances when you committed a crime. I'm swaying in my opinions, but still feel I'm right-ish!

DJ

Only you read it as an insult.

Don't act like an idiot.

why you wont tackle the issue of male violence

I'm not superwoman. I've stepped in to kick a mans arse when he threw a punch at his girlfriend. I tackle violence whenever I see it.

I've never said that women should defend themselves more effectively. I've said that viewing a man as bad, simply for being a man, is a terrible and bigoted view.

I had a meeting during writing my reply so I suspect it's long and a little unstructured...

The difference in the hypothalamus is apparently only evident from about 4 years of age. In the research I have just quickly scanned the suggestion was that social factors could be involved in this difference.

The most recent summary of brain differences that I was reading (from a New Scientist article I think) was that it's too simplistic to think of brain differences as male/female, and that all brains are mosaics of what are considered feminine or masculine features. When educating children it seems more prudent to me to have a range of learning styles/approaches available for all children, and to take into account the actual individual children in front of you before deciding on how they need to be educated. Speaking personally, I would have been failed as a child if someone had decided how to educate me based on my sex, as my particular brain seems to display many more supposedly masculine features than feminine.

SpeakNoWords

The difference in the hypothalamus is apparently only evident from about 4 years of age. In the research I have just quickly scanned the suggestion was that social factors could be involved in this difference.

True it's only apparent from around 4. I've never read that this is likely due to social factors just developmental stages. Children have very different brains to adults. They need to learn a lot extremely quickly and increased brain plasticity helps them. I think it's to help with language as this is the most complex thing we ever achieve.

Sticking with the hypothalamous, it's responsible for sex drive among other things (IIRC). Of course this isn't necessary in infants - there seem very sound evolutionary reasons as to it increasing in size after a certain age as there do for other brain differences. I see humans as nothing more than intelligent animals. Really though, we're all here to compete for limited resources and to try to ensure the survival of our young, if necessary at the expense of others.

I think brains can be male or female as a typical idea taking account of averages of millions. Of course there is no one size fits all. We talk about generalities.

When educating children it seems more prudent to me to have a range of learning styles/approaches available for all children, and to take into account the actual individual children in front of you before deciding on how they need to be educated.

Thanks for feminisplaining that one. I'll be sure to pass it on to my teachers in tomorrow 's briefing. Can they contact you if they have any questions?

I think teachers need several styles for every single child they teach as the same child can learn differently from one hour to the next. In good schools, they do

I would have been failed as a child if someone had decided how to educate me based on my sex, as my particular brain seems to display many more supposedly masculine features than feminine.

Yes you would have been failed. It's perfectly fair and natural, to my mind, to say, "many girls learn through x, y, z and excel in the following subjects... boys tend to...". This absolutely doesn't mean, "all boys..." or "all girls...". This is why I believe it's futile using positive discrimination to lure girls into STEM subjects. There are no barriers to them achieving whatever they want besides their intellect, aptitude and drive. The same for boys. If they are discriminated against because of their sex then that is illegal. In my experience, it is very rare for it to happen. The reason women are under-represented is due to the working conditions and the fact that it is suited to a typically boy brain. Having said that, in mathematics mock exams, the girls are smashing the boys this year. Against the trend but because it is a trend and nothing more.

edit:

I meant to follow on from:

I see humans as nothing more than intelligent animals. Really though, we're all here to compete for limited resources and to try to ensure the survival of our young, if necessary at the expense of others.

with

and throughout the animal kingdom, there are great behavioural differences between males and females. That can't be blamed on toxic masculinity or the patriarchy surely?

What then is the point of talking in simplistic terms about "boys learn like this" and "girls learn like this" when in reality children learn in a variety of ways, and the sex of the child in front of you is no predictor of how they will learn.

"There are no barriers to them achieving whatever they want besides their intellect, aptitude and drive." I disagree. In my opinion and experience there are plenty of social barriers to accessing STEM fields, and plenty of casual sexism experienced by girls. Of course direct discrimination is illegal, but that is not the only barrier to girls accessing STEM subjects/careers.

ail thank you for including me in the not too thick brigade!

"Why are you so sure that boy and girl brains function so identically?" because they are almost identical at birth.

"..hypothalamos is more than twice the size in a male's brain than a female's."

You know, I am sure, brains are very plastic.

www.news-medical.net/health/Hypothalamus-Males-and-Females.aspx

"the preoptic area that regulates mating behavior, is about 2.2 times larger in men than in women and contains 2 times more cells. This large size depends on the amount of male sex hormones or androgens. The difference in this area is only apparent after a child is 4 years old. In girls at 4 years of age there is a decrease in the number of cells in this nucleus."

So could some of this development be due to the way the brain grows and develops and how it is affected, not all born with?

"The shape of the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus, involved with circadian rhythms and reproduction cycles is different in men and women. In males, this nucleus is shaped like a sphere whereas in females it is more elongated. The volume is similar. The difference in shape may be due to different connections."

I am not arguing men and women are the same in terms of reproduction, so it does not seem unusual that bits of the brain linked to reproduction be different.

"Males and females respond differently to ovarian steroids due to differences in estrogen receptor status."

I cannot pretend to know what all this means but it does seem very specific, not general.

"The differences bring about several functional differences between males and females. For instance, males in most of the species of animals prefer the odor and appearance of females over males. If the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the hypothalamus is damaged, this preference for females by males diminishes." This doesn't seem to relate to anything like working/thinking/leisure etc it is all to do with reproduction. Which no one is arguing with their being a difference.

www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2013/oct/06/male-brain-versus-female-brain

"One of these factors is biological sex, which is determined by chromosomes. Most people have either two X chromosomes, which makes them female, or one X and one Y chromosome, which makes them male. The other is gender, which is influenced largely by the socialization process. As we grow up, we learn society's norms about how males and females look and act; for most people, sex and gender are matched, and so they inadvertently conform to these norms."

Male brains are bigger but bigger isn't always better!

Anyway, must get to work!

PS so many things I wan to say but must go to work, but....

"The physicalness tends to be in favour of men in almost every way."

Only if we live in a violent, competitive, adversorial society... hey... hang on a minute....!

I'm in a rush. I want to answer though.

Ouriana

Ali you work in a school

yes

Presumably you have pupils who claim the pupil premium funding.

No. Attending our school from 2 - A Level would cost near enough 1/4 million.

Do you see those pupils as lesser, unequal or special fucking snowflakes?

Never met them. By them, I mean the individuals. I certainly wouldn't judge them on their economic background. There are plenty of "special fucking snowflakes" who will never know any form of financial hardship.

If you had a child in a wheelchair would you call them uequal for not climbing the stairs like everyone else?

Ah, we do have one of those. He's shit at stairs. Properly rubbish. I think he's destined for great things in the world of literature.

Yes. I think we're all different.

None of us are the same. We need different opportunities. That does not make us unequal.

Yes it does. We're all different or unequal. Unequal doesn't mean more or less valued or important. I think we're arguing about the meaning of the word though we have the same idea.

The pay gap. I different to a male worker or a black worker. Im different to a disbaled or gay worker. But if we all do the same job we deserve the same pay.

Yes. You deserve it and get it. The pay gap doesn't take into account things like maternity leave, the fact women are more likely to work in jobs which enable them to have time off to collect children, breast feed etc. They usually choose to. However, find me an hourly rate for the same job which pays differently and I will eat my words.

You say you compete on a level playing field yet work in a female dominated industry. I spent years working in a male dominated one, it is not a level playing field. I had to prove myself repeatedly to obtain the same respect men were automatically given.

But most heads are male. It's a strange mix of female and male dominated.

I worked in linguistic academia. The vast majority of my co-workers were men. I was never treated differently. Not even when I fell in love with them and cried.

When it come to child abusers I do almost agree with "fuck the lot of them" statement however we can not remove peoples human rights.

I think there should be a point you can.

I can think of many problems with combined sex prisons, but if we imprison female and male child abusers together we will have a lot of pregnancies to contend with. The funding simply isnt there to cope with that situation.

I don't know enough about forced chemical castration or birth control to have the answer. I don't think you would allow mixed cells though.

SpeakNoWords

What then is the point of talking in simplistic terms about "boys learn like this" and "girls learn like this" when in reality children learn in a variety of ways, and the sex of the child in front of you is no predictor of how they will learn.

The sex is a predictor though. Not a fact or absolte but a predictor. We usually begin talking in generalities before moving on to specifics. For example, my teachers plan a lesson for the whole class. They then differentiate for certain streams within the class. They then differentiate for individuals who vary a lot from the majority of the class.

Girls were behind boys in educational terms for years because the style of learn, revise, cram, sit a single exam as the only assessment didn't suit them. This was recognised and adjusted. By understanding generalities, a positive shift occurred.

We start smear tests at a certain age based on generalities.

"There are no barriers to them achieving whatever they want besides their intellect, aptitude and drive." I disagree. In my opinion and experience there are plenty of social barriers to accessing STEM fields, and plenty of casual sexism experienced by girls. Of course direct discrimination is illegal, but that is not the only barrier to girls accessing STEM subjects/careers.

Mine experience is different and I entered it when sexism was more acceptable.

ail, we have different experiences then. Would you say yours outweighs mine? There are plenty of other people who accept that there are more barriers than just direct discrimination. Would you say that those people and organisations are wrong and have no evidence that this is the case?

I'm interested in your description of planning: "my teachers plan a lesson for the whole class. They then differentiate for certain streams within the class. They then differentiate for individuals who vary a lot from the majority of the class." At what point do they consider the sex of the children in front of them in their planning?

ali and Italian on the topic of male and female brains being different:

I think it would be fool hardy to imagine male and female brains are identical on average....though I believe it isn't currently possibly to identify the sex of a baby from a brain scan. But that is a totally different order of magnitude to the differences very deliberately imposed on male and female brains from birth (or before). Every day there is more evidence showing the way in which external stimuli (eg. CBT discussed on the radio today) not only change the way you think, but actually physically alter the structure of your brain.

The simple fact that parents are less likely to let a female toddler climb than a male toddler (which has been proven in a study) leads directly to female toddlers being more risk averse than male toddlers.

Our brains are programmed to learn, and if you supply them with sexist stimuli then they are going to differentiate on gender lines, to a massively greater extent than would occur if you allowed them to develop in a gender free environment, where they would only express any minor true intrinsic sex based differences.

But then this is the logic that leads me to believe that in the case of young children who identify as the opposite gender to their biological sex, it is a case of them having picked up on the cues aimed at the other sex all their life. I don't know what causes a child to self-identify with either the male or female role models in life, TV, advertising etc. but given genitals aren't usually shown, so it doesn't have to be all about biological sex.

Once you identify with one or the other, you are then subject to all the stereotyping bullshit that comes with modern media and society, so this will embed you further and further in your identity, as your brain is altered to conform by repeated exposure.

But how a child, presumably being treated by its parents in the stereotype due its biological sex can end up identifying as the opposite in the first place, I don't know.

Sadly it is increasing hard to scientifically investigate the phenomenon due to TRA shutting down any line of enquiry that suggests there may be any reason other than 'we were born in the wrong body'.

I have just come to this thread and to all the posters who said at the beginning "not this again" - well, I will stop posting about this issue when people with male bodies stop forcing themselves into women's space. I don't want to talk about this, think about this, write about this - it's a colossal waste of my time, but it's necessary if women aren't to lose every gain towards equality that they've made in the last 50 years. I should imagine the other women I know who talk about this feel the same: we'd much rather be doing other things.

"Girls were behind boys in educational terms for years because the style of learn, revise, cram, sit a single exam as the only assessment didn't suit them. This was recognised and adjusted." Was that the reason that exams were changed to include large amounts of coursework?

"Girls were behind boys in educational terms for years because the style of learn, revise, cram, sit a single exam as the only assessment didn't suit them. This was recognised and adjusted." Was that the reason that exams were changed to include large amounts of coursework?

And is this related to why the exam system is being changed right back to no coursework and sudden-death exams?

ali the reason behind the lack of women in STEM is an area I am actually more expert on....you are dead wrong if you think there aren't additional barriers for women to succeed than for men.

The most important one is that women are being taught from birth onwards that they aren't interested in how things work unless the things in question are personal relationships. Then at school they are told they aren't as good as the boys at science (even when they actually get the same marks). Then when they put in a CV for a job in academia they are rated 10-20% less good than their CV would've been rated if it had had a male name at the top.

The fact that if they do somehow get the job they will get the same pay for it as a man (until the man gets promoted earlier than they will, on the same CV) isn't much consolation.

Do you honestly think it makes no difference if you tell a child repeatedly that they aren't as good at Maths and they are better at English, that it won't eventually convince the majority of them to study something other than Maths or Physics at university?

Dammit. I really need to work.... but...

ail, we have different experiences then. Would you say yours outweighs mine?

No idea. From the women I met at the time, my experience wasn't unusual. I've felt, as I've met people in life, that more intelligent people tend (there's that word again) to be less prejudiced.

There are plenty of other people who accept that there are more barriers than just direct discrimination. Would you say that those people and organisations are wrong and have no evidence that this is the case?

I'd say those organisations tend to have an interest in proving their assertions.

At what point do they consider the sex of the children in front of them in their planning?

They probably won't. See my comment below.

Was that the reason that exams were changed to include large amounts of coursework?

Largely. Well, it was certainly a consideration. It also seems to be fairer to remove the pressure and the fact people have 'off days'.

It was necessary to understand how girls learn and how boys learn and how they can be assessed and it is at this level that typical learning styles for the sexes were used. The same when writing a curriculum of any importance. By the time you're talking about a class of 12 boys and 12 girls, the numbers are too small for generalisations on sex to be applicable.

Ok, very quickly as my 'lunch break' is almost over.

I'm bothering to write all this not because I am desperate for you to change your mind, but because who know who is reading.

Agree completely with Speknowords and Ouriana

You said "We are either the same / equal or not."

My friends dd's is in a wheelchair, she is the equal to my able bodied children. Asking her to scale a slight of steps would be an impossibility, but with suitable lift in place she will get to the top. As as society we need those lifts for all who need them.

We are not the same. We are equal.

Females only need some safe spaces for safety and privacy, because men are physically not always safe to be around. AND I am happy for males to have their privacy too.

I am glad you are not making prison decisions. I'd hate to think of all the women locked up for non-violent crimes being incarcerated with violent men who feel like women. You really do want to throw women to the wolves, think about why that is. I do have theories about why some women are unsympathetic to other women's safety concerns and it may surprise you, or may not!

"Would you agree that there's less or no need for a very low risk trans to be kept away from women prisoners? Imprisoned for tax evasion and until then had been an exemplary person. I would."

No, because hey are male. I'd like to see special trans wings. It is not too much to ask. It is too much to expect women to accept males in prison.

I'd also say your mild mannered trans tax evader might be in danger in a female only prison (you see I do not actually hate all males and I do care about trans people!)

"...viewing a man as bad, simply for being a man, is a terrible and bigoted view."

I am not sure anyone here has said that. I certainly would not support that view. I have a husband and son, good male friends and my late father was a lovely man.

Not wanting males in the toilets, showers, girls guides, or prisons or hostels for vulnerable women is not hating all men. Honestly. I don't expect any other woman to want my lovely husband in the showers with her either!

"The reason women are under-represented is due to the working conditions and the fact that it is suited to a typically boy brain."

I thought we'd just established the different bit of boys brains is more about reproduction than anything else.

I am sure you know if you tell girls before they do into a maths exam that girls are bad at maths they do worse. How can that be a brain difference!

i am sure you have seen his but for those who have not

www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/06/14/stem_gender_gap_research_on_telling_girls_they_re_bad_at_math_.html

Really must go, will check back later.

Please just think, if you would not deny a lift/elevator to a child in a wheel chair why would you not want to do all you can make women and girls feel safe in places they have little or no choice about being!

Ourina

Why do we need that change?

Because transism (word?) is a new thing, or is at least newly acceptable and therefore is being openly discussed.

I am actually pretty shocked and saddened to read a head teacher thinks "This is why I believe it's futile using positive discrimination to lure girls into STEM subjects. There are no barriers to them achieving whatever they want besides their intellect, aptitude and drive. The same for boys. If they are discriminated against because of their sex then that is illegal. In my experience, it is very rare for it to happen. The reason women are under-represented is due to the working conditions and the fact that it is suited to a typically boy brain."

I spend a lot of time working on this issue, and I had thought we were all tackling a difficult situation from a position of at least being vaguely informed about the nature of the problem. I was living in the hope that schools were on the case with understanding unconscious bias and how to make sure they weren't underestimating the skills of girls in maths and boys in reading. That hope has been dashed to pieces.

"they have little or no choice about being!" I mean by that public toilets etc, swimming pool showers, because the alternative for some women would be to not go swimming every or maybe to not go out.

Plus hostels for vulnerable/homeless women, hospital wards etc.

And although we all feel like we have choices whether or not to break the law for some women it is perhaps much harder, think of women wrongly convicted of killing their own child (through SIDS - so called cot death), later released...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Cannings

or convicted of killing a violent partner etc...

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/26/women-kill-violent-partners-law

"During her relationship with her husband, Malcolm, Sara Thornton endured repeated beatings. She sought help from numerous agencies, called the police repeatedly and her husband was eventually charged with assault. But he died before his court appearance. As he lay drunk on the sofa one night in June 1989, she stabbed him to death. The following year she was convicted of murder and given a life sentence by a judge who said she could have simply "walked out or gone upstairs".

Thornton became a cause célèbre for feminists campaigning against domestic violence. At the time, as the judge's comments made clear, little was known about what drives a battered woman to kill her abuser. Thornton appealed against her conviction, arguing that she killed as a result of "slow burn" provocation. She lost.

Two days later, Joseph McGrail killed his common-law wife, as she lay drunk, by kicking her repeatedly in the stomach. He was given a two-year suspended sentence for manslaughter and walked free. The judge expressed "every sympathy" for McGrail, adding "this lady would have tried the patience of a saint"."

I am glad you are not making prison decisions. I'd hate to think of all the women locked up for non-violent crimes being incarcerated with violent men who feel like women.

I've advocated segregating based on crime. Therefore this wouldn't happen.

I do have theories about why some women are unsympathetic to other women's safety concerns and it may surprise you, or may not!

Because of men?

That was a low blow / joke. I'd like to know the theory though.

I thought we'd just established the different bit of boys brains is more about reproduction than anything else.

That's the area I sued as an example. The differences are many and are observable and nothing to do with reproduction: EQ, language, processing of direction.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

I use my personal experience to girls who I feel have an aptitude for a 'boy' field or are even a little nervous about the exam or whatever else. I point out I'm a woman who's terrible at lots of girl stuff but is a very logical, black and white thinking, STEM studier.

The most important one is that women are being taught from birth onwards that they aren't interested in how things work unless the things in question are personal relationships.

Are they? ''I'm not so sure.

Then at school they are told they aren't as good as the boys at science (even when they actually get the same marks).

Even less sure.

The fact that if they do somehow get the job they will get the same pay for it as a man (until the man gets promoted earlier than they will, on the same CV) isn't much consolation.

Even less, less sure.

Do you honestly think it makes no difference if you tell a child repeatedly that they aren't as good at Maths and they are better at English, that it won't eventually convince the majority of them to study something other than Maths or Physics at university?

No. I think this would have a lasting and damaging effect. Children should be made aware of their strengths and, in a roundabout way, their weaknesses.

There is straight up evidence for everything I said in my post.

see this and the research linked within - it is far from the only work that shows this.

blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2016/11/teachers_underestimate_girls_math_abilities_report_suggests.html

If the only time you show girls on TV, they are engaged in friendship building, baking and sewing, while you happily show boys taking things apart and racing each other etc. then you ARE telling girls they should be interested in some things and not others.

In between kids programmes on TV you typically get two adverts. One with boys in it, shooting nerf guns, chasing around, building stuff or competing, and one with girls in it, sitting around a plastic castle wearing princess outfits and telling each other they need to look good for the ball. How many times does a girl need to see that before she starts to develop more interest in clothes than car racing?

allPartout just so you know, Morphene's right about what she says about women in STEM.

There's also the issue of "what you can't see, you can't be", ie lack of role models of women in STEM. There's a lot of work that's been done to rectify this in recent years, so things are improving, but it's still an ongoing issue.