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

Sad times.

Gender doesn't exist.

It's made up misogynistic nonsense that only idiots believe in.

Sex is real, binary and immutable. Not one single human in the history of the species has ever changed sex. Not one. The existence of people with DSDs does not change that.

Exactly. We’re gender atheists, not gender police. I don’t give “gender” any importance, just sex.

In the vast majority of cases, there is no controversy at all about biological sex. The controversy is always about boundary cases by definition. So it doesn't matter how rare they are. The only thing that's important is that they exist.

And I regard your remarks about leveraging DSDs to be just such a form of leveraging, and hence reprehensible. Unless you are yourself an IS activist or survivor, I'm not interested in your views on DSDs.

DSDs are indeed completely irrelevant to the discussion about trans people.

You're the one who brought it up and won't stop talking about it.

And as far as I'm concerned, what you call sex is not sex at all, but gender. You have still not explained how you can say that sex is immutable and binary, without relying on circular reasoning. But it's obvious you aren't going to, and most probably aren't able to.

I don’t think you understand what circular reasoning is. 🙈

No, it's definitely sex.

I don't know what kind of explanation you're looking for.

How am I supposed to prove that humans can't change sex, if the fact that no human ever has changed sex isn't good enough evidence for you?

The list of things @Cassandrazone doesn't understand is clearly very long.

Hey it's a free country. Just about.

Plenty of people have answered you.

the definition of sex is consistent across all species. Females have reproductive systems intended to produce large gametes, males have reproductive systems intended to produce small gametes.

that some have faulty reproductive systems or that some take a bit more investigation to classify them does not invalidate the categories. HTH.

And they have all displayed exactly the same circular reasoning. Assume X, and then use X to prove X.

A woman, or human female, is a member of the biological sex class which, in the absence of a disorder of sexual development or other infertility, has the potential to gestate, birth and breastfeed children between the menarche and the menopause.

A man, or human male, is a member of the biological sex class which, in the absence of a disorder of sexual development or other infertility, produces sperm when sexually mature.

It takes more than "a little more investigation" to classify them. It often requires active surgical mutilation to create a facsimile of a socially acceptable sexual phenotype.

😂😂😂😂 which decade are you living in exactly?!?! 😂😂😂💀💀💀

So a post-surgical male to female transsexual, who does not produce sperm and is not fertile, and possibly never has been, would not be male according to this definition?

Oh dear, you are very confused, aren't you?

No, the classification is purely diagnostic. If a child has ambiguous genitalia or there is any reason to doubt whether they are actually the sex they were identified to be at birth, doctors will carry out a series of tests, including physical examination of genitalia, pelvic ultrasound to check for internal reproductive organs, and blood tests to check the genetic karyotype. The results of all these tests put together will enable the medical team to identify precisely which DSD the person has, and therefore whether they are male or female.

Surgical interventions to make the person resemble one sex or the other are no longer considered to be best practice, unless the patient is a competent adult who has given informed consent.

Zooooooommmbbbiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee.

Zombie threads are Zombies.

Evidence Please.

Castrating a dog doesn’t make it a bitch FFS. 🙈🙈

They would still be male. They still have a reproductive system organised around the production of sperm, not eggs. Chopping your gonads off is pretty much guaranteed to result in infertility, but an infertile male is not a female.

Yet again you are treating male and female as metaphysical categories which unambiguously exist independently of the process of sex assignment. That is arbitrary at best. It makes all sorts of assumptions about the nature of observation and the scientific process which are, at best, ad-hoc. As I've said, it's a free country and you're entitled to believe this if you wish. But that does not make it indisputable fact. You are taking a theoretical dogma a and trying to pass it off as objective fact, which it is not.

And by the way, in the real world, all sorts of things happen which are not properly considered best practice.

There is no process of sex assignment.

Sex is not assigned. It just is.

In the animal kingdom, chimpanzees deliver their babies in the wild. They do not have doctors or midwives there to cut the umbilical cord, deliver the placenta, weigh the baby and write down its sex, weight and apgar scores on a piece of paper. And, can you believe it, despite the fact that no sex assignment ever takes place, every single chimpanzee that is born is either male or female, and every single chimpanzee knows what sex every other chimpanzee is.

I have no idea why you think humans are any different to chimpanzees in this respect.

So on what grounds do you assert that such a person is male? After all, according to your ideology, everyone must be male or female, right?

And coming up with endless lists of properties which attribute to males and females still does not address the question of why we should accept your particular choice of qualities as definitive for biological sex. Which is why your argument is still, in the end, circular.