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...

great - just what we need. Head teachers who aren't interested in the evidence gathered on the effect of the teacher's gender bias in education settings.

Well this is at least an unusual reason for me to have to walk away from a trans thread in despair.

Hopefully Italian can keep the flame of evidence based thinking alive.

Thanks AA I know we disagree about the 'cure' but as I said...I had hoped all people who had actually thought about it at least agreed on the problem, and I am happy to count you in that group!

Oh btw AA I did in fact watch the documentary as recommended on the last thread...it was indeed eye opening. It is horrifying that scientific research into the causative factors in people being trans is being shut down. There was plenty to be horrified by...but that hit me the most deeply.

In the brief reading, there were several obvious flaws. Assessing maths ability in pre-K? Really? I assume that there was some reciting of a number sequence and perhaps the beginning of one-to-one correspondence. Basic stuff. Then, within a year of formal education, boys were edging ahead. Does this not support my ideas?

How many times does a girl need to see that before she starts to develop more interest in clothes than car racing?

12?

What's the answer? Am I close?

*- 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.*

But ali, you yourself listed these as examples of "typical girl and typical boy behaviour" in page 12 of this thread.

*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.*

Have you ever looked at the toy section of an Argos catalogue? Been in a toy shop recently.

Pink/purple 'girl' craft stuff and hairdresser lego (yes, this is a thing: shop.lego.com/en-GB/Heartlake-Hair-Salon-41093)

Grey/blue/green 'boy' science kits and racing cars.

I know that my son has received a lot more science related toys for birthdays from friends and relatives than my daughter who loves science but tends to be given craft shit.

Head teachers who aren't interested in the evidence gathered on the effect of the teacher's gender bias in education settings.

Surely 'sex' bias.

I am interested. I've read about it, understand it and have a more balanced view as well as my own ideas.

Well this is at least an unusual reason for me to have to walk away from a trans thread in despair.

Hit peak trans? I've hit peak feminism but I'm the only bad one here?

Grey I suspect ail is doubting that's what they're taught not that it's what they're interested in.

ail no, I don't think the point you've picked out does support your ideas.

The question about adverts is rhetorical, but I suspect you know that. You don't think this has any effect at all on children?

Greypaw

I can't remember the exact examples I gave. I would absolutely say that girls understand and analyse relationships more.

I didn't say they'd been taught them. I said they were typically boy / girl things and I think they're down to differences in our brains.

It's chicken and egg. What's to say that the toys are not there due to demand?

Why can't we celebrate our differences instead of denying their existence?

We are all animals. Hunters and nest builders. Here to procreate and fight over limited resources. On the surface we're more intelligent than other animals but scratch below the surface and there's little difference. There are evolutionary benefits to our brains being the way they are and the same for men. It's arrogant to assume we're so different to other animals who do are suited to different roles and have differences in their behaviour depending on their sex.

You don't think this has any effect at all on children?

I'm sure it does but I spend a large proportion of my time helping children maximise their education not analysing the effects of television.

I would encourage any child to do whatever they want.

*I didn't say they'd been taught them. I said they were typically boy / girl things and I think they're down to differences in our brains.

It's chicken and egg. What's to say that the toys are not there due to demand? *

I get what you're saying here, but there are studies that show from as early as three months of age, adults will play differently with children based on what gender they think they are and the assumptions the adults make about what preferences are innate.

Morphene

"Hopefully Italian can keep the flame of evidence based thinking alive."

Good Lord M, thank you, no one has said of me before, I am usually all heart over head!

I get what you're saying here, but there are studies that show from as early as three months of age, adults will play differently with children based on what gender they think they are and the assumptions the adults make about what preferences are innate.

Yep.

But I think that on the whole (talking about massive generalisations and not studies of individuals), those preferences are innate.

ail

I've been reading your arguments with interest because I work in the criminal justice sector and have cause to visit male and female prisons regularly. Where you say 'I've advocated segregating based on crime. Therefore this wouldn't happen.', have you considered the fact that the assessment of offender risk is based upon not just their current conviction, but also their previous and/or unconvicted behaviour? For example, we could have a prisoner serving time for fraud but who is on the Sex Offender Register in relation to previous offending. That person might not pose a risk in terms of the behaviour which led to their current conviction but may very well still pose risks in relation to prior actions. Similarly, for example, vast numbers of men who are serious and regular perpetrators of domestic abuse, will be convicted of fraud, theft or criminal damage (linked to DV), before they receive a conviction for physical/sexual assault. Authorities very often know that the more serious offending is happening but for a number of reasons, the matters don't always get to court or take years to do so.

It's really not as simple as imprisoning according to crime. Under your scenario, we could be locking up extremely violent people with genuinely non-violent offenders. I have trouble with the argument that 'they shouldn't have done the crime then', because the punishment of being sent to prison is the loss of liberty - we don't tack on additional hardships just because people should have known better.

What do you think?

"Why can't we celebrate our differences instead of denying their existence?" Because evidence that these differences are hardwired/innate in brains in is no way certain. In fact, we are more similar than we are in any way different. Current understanding shows that brains are in fact a mosaic of features and there's no way of determining this based on sex.

"I've hit peak feminism"

And yet here you are, hanging out on the feminism boards.

Rochelle - I've clearly been commenting from a layman's point of view and answering / asking mostly rhetoric questions.

have you considered the fact that the assessment of offender risk is based upon not just their current conviction, but also their previous and/or unconvicted behaviour?

No. It hadn't occurred to me.

That person might not pose a risk in terms of the behaviour which led to their current conviction but may very well still pose risks in relation to prior actions.

Nor this. Perhaps segregating based on "assessment of offender risk" makes more sense.

we don't tack on additional hardships just because people should have known better

Yes we do. Well, not if you read the Daily Mail, but loss of mobile phones, internet access, lights out 'time' etc. These are a form of hardship. I do understand what you're saying but there's surely more to prison than simply loss of liberty.

What is your knowledgeable opinion in general about "Males in female prison". Not Huntly who I'd throw into the general population and wait for CCTV to have a glitch, but a more 'normal' trans person.

Always segregate on sex?

If they had transitioned years and years before their crime , would you have a different opinion?

If they're post op?

And yet here you are, hanging out on the feminism boards.

I thought this was AIBU?

But I think that on the whole (talking about massive generalisations and not studies of individuals), those preferences are innate.

If they were innate the preferences would be constant over time and across continents which they are not. Take your STEM example. Many of the first computer programmers were women (Grace Hopper, Ada Lovelace) and programming was seen as a 'female job' until the 60's. Did women's innate preferences suddenly change.

Or was it something else?

But I think that on the whole (talking about massive generalisations and not studies of individuals), those preferences are innate.

jeez. I hope whatever you teach it isn't science. The evidence shows the vast majority is taught. There may or may not be a tiny minority innate/biological effect. But yeah, you go with your beliefs....and while teachers like you are ignoring the evidence and going with their beliefs, I'll be going with home education.

My DD used to wear a batman swimming costume. She got SO many questions from adults and children along the lines of 'are you a girl or a boy?' 'why are you wearing that then?' 'wouldn't you like a nice pink costume like mine?' and she didn't get ANY questions from lifeguards about whether or not she should be swimming out of her depth.

When it wore out, we went shopping and it turned out she mysteriously suddenly preferred a pink and orange flowery costume.

So now we get no comments querying her gender, and every single bloody week a life guard would be over asking if she was okay to swim our of her depth.

A month ago in the shower, an adult came over and said 'Ah, I thought it was you....what happened to your lovely batman costume? I loved seeing you play in that'. And guess what....now she wants to go back to super heros when her current costume wears out.

So....do you think her preference for super heros versus flowers is A) innate, biological and there since birth, B) imposed by what people around her tell her they think she should prefer?

And would you care to guess what all that querying her ability has done to her actually ability, let alone her confidence, in swimming? Yes, that's right, we are now about 3 months back from where we were when the batman costume died, all because of people assuming girls must be less able and less confident than boys.

That is exactly how adults (and other children) impose gender difference on children, where none existed.

jelly yeah...there is also the fact that boys used to love pink when it was considered a colour for boys, and now they wouldn't be seen dead in it.

Still I am sure there absolutely definitely really is a blue button in boys heads and a pink button in girls....

Yes we do. Well, not if you read the Daily Mail, but loss of mobile phones, internet access, lights out 'time' etc. These are a form of hardship. I do understand what you're saying but there's surely more to prison than simply loss of liberty.

ailPartout putting people with male bodies in women's prisons is like taking a handful of the tallest, strongest, most confident prisoners you can find, the ones with the most serious crimes (bearing in mind that most women in prison are there for nonviolent crimes) and handing them each a knife, releasing them back into the general prison population, and then expecting it all to go well.

The handful of tall strong prisoners who have knives will be fine, and in fact will be better off than before, and have a cushier prison life, because they will have been handed power. The rest of the prisoners will not be fine at all.

Is that really a road to the fair and equitable treatment of prisoners?

AA would you be okay with it if the TW was in for a white collar crime...like fraud or something, and had absolutely no history whatsoever of violence or sex crimes then? I suspect you wouldn't.....in which case the 'violent crime' part of your argument is disingenuous.

If you would be fine with a non-violent TW prisoner in a female prison, then I apologise for doubting you!

I'll be going with home education.

Should've guessed.

I hope whatever you teach it isn't science. The evidence shows the vast majority is taught.

It was IT and maths. I'm not a class teacher anymore. The evidence is in no way clear.

My DD used to wear a batman swimming costume

I'm sure she did. I'm equally sure you'd have been proudly telling us your DS wanted a Barbie for Christmas and got one or decided to wear a tutu, wellies, carry an Action Man and wear a tea cosy on his head. This is fine and I hope they like them, but parents like you (are coming across) like to smash gender stereotypes by going the other way and influencing your children to prove a point.

I think you're confusing preference for spiderman / flowers with important neurological differences (on the whole, not individually) and the effect this can have on a propensity to do well in a subject or aspect of education.

I agree that children are easily persuaded or influenced.

" The evidence is in no way clear." And yet you're certain it's innate.