Women's jail campaigners demand transmen offenders should be kept in female prisons *Title edited at OP's request*

[IwantToRetire]

Women's jail campaigners are demanding that the growing number of trans male offenders should be kept in female jails.

Dr Kate Coleman, of Keep Prisons Single Sex, said that the instances of women identifying as men mid-sentence is a “growing problem”.

But she believes that such prisoners should be treated as women - and that moving them to men’s prisons or a special “trans unit” would be misguided and dangerous.

“Whilst the focus, rightly in my view, has been on the risks that males who identify as transgender pose to women in prison, the challenges of adequately and appropriately meeting the needs of females who identify as transgender must be addressed.

“These needs must be met within the female estate.

“I understand that females who identify as men are difficult to manage.

“But there is no quandary about where to house her. She is female and belongs in the female estate. She must be managed in a way that is continuous with the way in which all other female prisoners are managed. Housing her in the male estate is not even a question that should be asked.

“This is for her own safety and for her own benefit as it is in the female estate that she will be able to access the services and programmes that are necessary for her to progress.”

NB Only extracts, NOT the whole article which can be read in full at https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/womens-jail-campaigners-demand-trans-33750904

Errr…… cos mammals can’t change sex. If they could, there’d be evidence.

Nope. You first.

Sex is coded in every cell of the human body. if you were born male you will die male and your skeleton will be recognisable as male by future archaeologists. All that anyone can attempt to change are secondary sexual characteristics - in other words cosmetic changes.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel there, pet. 😉 All humans can do is sit in a machine which will carry them through the air, rather than along the ground or across the sea. It's not flying as seen in the wonder of avian or insect flight, it's merely transportation.

Here's the problem. There are all kinds of ways of defining sex biologically but they are not all consistent with each other. Some, like karyotype, are unchangeable. Others, such as external genitalia, are clearly changeable. (And by the way, children are assigned sex on the basis of external genitalia. Yes, I know that's another concept the gender police want to censor, but all observations are assignments to some set,)

And none of these criteria are universal. So if you want to say biological sex is immutable according to your favourite definition,, you're welcome to do that. It's a free country. What I'm asking and which no-one seems able to answer is why everyone else should be required to use the same definition.

Why should anybody be required to use words according to their actual definition?

Why can't we all just use words to mean whatever we want them to mean?

It's not like we need to be able to communicate with each other or anything.

Because there are multiple definitions and they are all inconsistent. But you really don't want to understand that, do you?

We assign the sex of children on the basis of exactly these secondary sexual characteristics. And no others.

No, we don't assign it, we observe it.

No, there really aren't.

In almost 100% of the population all the signs are utterly consistent with each other, and the vanishingly rare cases where it's more complicated than that have got fuck all to do with trans people.

No we don’t. My children had a sex from the moment of conception. This sex was observed both from scans and a chromosome test. Nobody ‘assigned’ anything.

You have got very very confused. Our genitalia is a result of our sex, it does not define our sex.

In the same way that putting bleach on my hair does not make me a natural blonde, cutting off a man’s penis does not make him a woman. Think John Wayne Bobbitt- he did not become a woman for the short time that Loretta had possession of his penis.

Biological sex is not immutable by any definition unless you have started making up incorrect definitions.

It’s not a tricky concept really.

More gender fundamentalist absurdity. Observation is assignment. Observation assigns the child to a class.

Another Zombie thread bumped by a brand new poster spewing nonsense. Worth checking those things on any old thread.

To assign implies that there is an element of discretion. There isn't. No doctor or midwife has ever delivered a baby with a penis and said, "I think this one looks like a girl, don't you?"

It's almost as if the entire medical profession and all sane lay people agree that born with a penis = male = boy.

So how do you define biological sex? And on what basis do you claim that everyone else ought to agree with your definition?

Still no-one seems to be able to answer this question.

So how do you determine what is the correct definition?

It's about whether you have the kind of reproductive system for (a) bearing or (b) begetting, offspring.

The same as in all other mammal species.

By eliminating all definitions which have anything to do with gender feels.

All those remaining, i.e. the ones based in actual science, are consistent with each other.

I find this argument very offensive on behalf of the very small number of people who are actually born with a DSD that leaves them in a pool of uncertainty. Can we agree that it unbelievable to even consider exploiting them to advance any argument about whether people can or cannot change sex?

This is just playing with words. All sex determination requires a decision to be made by the attending physician -- whether you like it or not, that's the way it is.

Unless a baby has a very rare DSD, they're not making a decision. They're simply saying what they see.

Then it doesn't sound nd like you know much about intersex conditions, because it is not the uncertainty which creates problems, but the social need to create confirmative sex categories. Which is why an enlarged clitoris is in danger of being surgically mutilated to prevent it looking too much like a penis.

It afraid I think your taking offense is just political posturing.

I know this is the current orthodoxy, but it makes no sense. At the very least, it raises the question of how one can know when the assignment is just an observation, and when it is something more intrusive.

Is there any particular reason why you're talking about this on a thread which is about which jail trans prisoners should be housed in?