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

No, they aren't. That is a straightforward untruth.

What part are you struggling with, exactly?

They see a penis, they observe that the baby is a boy. It's not complicated. There is no decision to be made.

The number of babies with ambiguous genitalia is so small that most obstetricians and midwives will never see one in their career.

Do I really need to explain that? Or is this just another red herring?

I think I'll make my own decision on that one.

No, you don't need to explain.

We all know why you're doing it.

It's very boring and very offensive to people who actually have DSDs.

Cassandra, how do humans reproduce?

The fact that there are any ambiguous cases at all shows that any definition involves ambiguous boundary cases.

A lot of humans don't. Or are you suggesting sex is determined wholly by fertility?

What does this have to do with trans people, who aren't ambiguous at all?

It is determined wholly by what type of reproductive system you have.

I agree. But I don't think it's me who is being offensive.

No, trans activists never do give any thought to how many people they might be offending with their dreadful ideology.

Here we go. The same circular reasoning again. Sex is immutable because it is, because it's impossible that it isn't. because the gender police keep saying so, yada yada.

It’s not playing with words - I’m telling you what happens. I doubt you have any children otherwise you might understand the process a bit better.

Incidentally, are you saying that if there is no attending physician, the baby remains without a sex?

I bet you’re too young to have heard about John Wayne Bobbitt as well. Was he a woman while his penis was detached from his body?

How can I be the gender police when I don't believe in gender?

And you would know this how?

Is that a serious question?

Because a definition of sex that is exactly binary, perfectly decidable, and unambiguously immutable, has no basis in science, but only in politics. Which means it is itself a form of gender.

Yes.

Of course it's based in science. Chopping off and reshaping bits of your genitalia doesn't mean you have changed sex, any more than chopping off a monkey's tail makes the monkey a human.

The amount of utter nonsense we have to listen to on this board 🙄

And you obviously don't understand the difference between dogma and evidence.

The irony 😂

Says the person who believes humans can change sex.

@Cassandrazone I understand that you need to project the idea that sex is a flexible thing that cannot be defined with any certainty. Sadly, that isn't how it works. 99.9% of mammals, including humans, can be easily classified as being either male - produces small, mobile gametes or female - produces large, immobile gametes and has a reproductive system to carry any progeny to gestation and then provide bodily nutrition until weaning.

I understand that not all men produce small gametes and that not all women produce large gametes or can carry a baby through to delivery or even breast feed. But those do not remove them from their sex classes.

I reiterate that trying to leverage the tiny number of people with a DSD to try and make your point is reprehensible.

And here we go again with the circular reasoning.

Ok, it's clear that no-one is going to accept any challenge to the gender fundamentalist orthodoxy. Not that I ever thought they would. Evidently the response of the gender police when asked a difficult question they can't answer is exactly the same as every other religious dogmatist. First, ignore the question; second, ignore the question.