Page 9 | Women's jail campaigners demand transmen offenders should be kept in female prisons *Title edited at OP's request*

IwantToRetire · 2024-09-27T00:29:55+00:00

^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 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/womens-jail-campaigners-demand-trans-33750904]]

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 14/10/2025 00:31

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 00:16

Not really. Just that I do not for a moment believe that the question of who and what a woman is can ever be reduced to some sort of biological algorithm. And that the right to self-define, which feminists have fought for for as long as there have been feminists, is far to valuable to be handed over to some self-appointed clique of experts. Particularly when, as is the case here, those experts carry the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism.

Show quote history

I’m getting such flashbacks to 2016 and Boris Johnson and Michael gove dissing experts. 🙈

TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown · 14/10/2025 00:36

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 00:16

Not really. Just that I do not for a moment believe that the question of who and what a woman is can ever be reduced to some sort of biological algorithm. And that the right to self-define, which feminists have fought for for as long as there have been feminists, is far to valuable to be handed over to some self-appointed clique of experts. Particularly when, as is the case here, those experts carry the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism.

Show quote history

Lol.

DustyWindowsills · 14/10/2025 00:45

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 00:16

Not really. Just that I do not for a moment believe that the question of who and what a woman is can ever be reduced to some sort of biological algorithm. And that the right to self-define, which feminists have fought for for as long as there have been feminists, is far to valuable to be handed over to some self-appointed clique of experts. Particularly when, as is the case here, those experts carry the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism.

Show quote history

Are you quite sure about the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism? I'm getting notes of chocolate and marshmallow.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/10/2025 01:47

Cassandrazone · 13/10/2025 23:16

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.

Show quote history

It's dead simple. If you are a human and your body releases ova, you are a woman. If you are a human and your body creates sperm, you are a man.

You can't go from releasing ova to creating sperm or vice-versa. That's what "immutable" means.

There are only two relevant gametes: sperm and ova. That's what "binary" means in this context.

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 02:42

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/10/2025 01:47

It's dead simple. If you are a human and your body releases ova, you are a woman. If you are a human and your body creates sperm, you are a man.

You can't go from releasing ova to creating sperm or vice-versa. That's what "immutable" means.

There are only two relevant gametes: sperm and ova. That's what "binary" means in this context.

Show quote history

And this is why your ideology is circular. What objective reason is there for regarding external genitalia as a completely insignificant indicator of biological sex, but treating some notional past ability to produce sperm or ova as all-important? There is none, unless the sole point of the argument is to rationalize a belief system already decided upon.

There is only one thing I care about when it comes transsexuals, and that is, are they a threat to women or not? And that is purely a matter of evidence -- proper evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, not just anecdote or hearsay. Idiotic arguments about chromosomes or the size of gametes are of no relevance to that. Not even when in sports, where the only thing that matters is whether women and transsexuals come from a monomodal or bimodal performance distribution, which can easily be tested using a two sample t test. Only guess what? No one wants to do the science. Presumably because they're all scared stiff the results won't be the ones they want.

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 02:46

DustyWindowsills · 14/10/2025 00:45

Are you quite sure about the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism? I'm getting notes of chocolate and marshmallow.

Show quote history

At this time of night? Surely absinthe and old lace.

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:15

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 02:42

And this is why your ideology is circular. What objective reason is there for regarding external genitalia as a completely insignificant indicator of biological sex, but treating some notional past ability to produce sperm or ova as all-important? There is none, unless the sole point of the argument is to rationalize a belief system already decided upon.

There is only one thing I care about when it comes transsexuals, and that is, are they a threat to women or not? And that is purely a matter of evidence -- proper evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, not just anecdote or hearsay. Idiotic arguments about chromosomes or the size of gametes are of no relevance to that. Not even when in sports, where the only thing that matters is whether women and transsexuals come from a monomodal or bimodal performance distribution, which can easily be tested using a two sample t test. Only guess what? No one wants to do the science. Presumably because they're all scared stiff the results won't be the ones they want.

Show quote history

Evolution only cares about your gametes and if these result in viable and fertile babies, that might appear reductionist to you but it's also true. Evolution also doesn't care about if you like it or if that makes people unhappy.

Namelessnelly · 14/10/2025 05:15

Cassandrazone · 13/10/2025 21:31

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.

no human can change sex. There are two sexes, two types of gametes
. One of each sex is required for reproduction. Sex is binary and immutable. If humans could change sex there would be papers written and prizes given out. We have had other posters posting this gubbins. It didn’t go well for them.
Are you saying humans can grow a vagina or penis? Really? How? Or are you referring to the surgical horrors that pass for “gender reassignment surgery”?

everyone uses these definitions because that’s what society has decided.

Males cannot become females, females cannot become males, however much it upsets them.

Namelessnelly · 14/10/2025 05:16

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:15

Evolution only cares about your gametes and if these result in viable and fertile babies, that might appear reductionist to you but it's also true. Evolution also doesn't care about if you like it or if that makes people unhappy.

Show quote history

Now where have e heard these arguments before…..

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:22

Namelessnelly · 14/10/2025 05:16

Now where have e heard these arguments before…..

Show quote history

We've heard these arguments from every TRA on these boards for more than 10 years, you'd think they'd catch up eventually, the tedious nitwits.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/10/2025 05:23

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 00:16

Not really. Just that I do not for a moment believe that the question of who and what a woman is can ever be reduced to some sort of biological algorithm. And that the right to self-define, which feminists have fought for for as long as there have been feminists, is far to valuable to be handed over to some self-appointed clique of experts. Particularly when, as is the case here, those experts carry the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism.

Show quote history

What you believe is irrelevant. In the real world, biological sex is real and words have meaning.

If you don't believe that humans can be categorised by biological sex, how exactly are you categorising them instead?

What do you believe a woman is, if not an adult female human?

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:25

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/10/2025 05:23

What you believe is irrelevant. In the real world, biological sex is real and words have meaning.

If you don't believe that humans can be categorised by biological sex, how exactly are you categorising them instead?

What do you believe a woman is, if not an adult female human?

Show quote history

And if it can't be categorized why are transwomen so obsessed with belonging to this non-existent category?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/10/2025 05:28

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 02:42

And this is why your ideology is circular. What objective reason is there for regarding external genitalia as a completely insignificant indicator of biological sex, but treating some notional past ability to produce sperm or ova as all-important? There is none, unless the sole point of the argument is to rationalize a belief system already decided upon.

There is only one thing I care about when it comes transsexuals, and that is, are they a threat to women or not? And that is purely a matter of evidence -- proper evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, not just anecdote or hearsay. Idiotic arguments about chromosomes or the size of gametes are of no relevance to that. Not even when in sports, where the only thing that matters is whether women and transsexuals come from a monomodal or bimodal performance distribution, which can easily be tested using a two sample t test. Only guess what? No one wants to do the science. Presumably because they're all scared stiff the results won't be the ones they want.

Show quote history

What objective reason is there for regarding external genitalia as a completely insignificant indicator of biological sex, but treating some notional past ability to produce sperm or ova as all-important?

Ahh. I see what's happening here. You're making the mistake of thinking that a post op transsexual has female genitalia. They don't.

They have changed into a male person without a penis, not a female person. They have not changed sex.

There is only one thing I care about when it comes transsexuals, and that is, are they a threat to women or not?

Yes they are. They pose exactly the same threat as they did before, the same threat as any other man.

No one wants to do the science. Presumably because they're all scared stiff the results won't be the ones they want.

Hon, the science has been "done", and reality deniers like you are denying it because the results aren't what you want.

EmmyFr · 14/10/2025 05:39

I'm looking forward with glee to the moment when Cassandra, after haughtily decrying a perfectly square definition of sex based on gametes as "circular" (in what way, pray, was it circular @Cassandrazone ?) will utter this absolutely non-circular definition: "A woman is SWIAA woman*.

borntobequiet · 14/10/2025 06:02

I see that our visitor (presumably from the US, by their turn of phrase) has been diligently making our case for us for many hours, as is usual.

Sad times.

FortheloveofPetethePlumber · 14/10/2025 07:57

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:25

And if it can't be categorized why are transwomen so obsessed with belonging to this non-existent category?

Show quote history

Quite. If there's no such thing as a woman then how is there any such thing as a transwoman? What is anyone transitioning from and to?

As usual it's just endless word snowstorms meaning nothing and changing reality not one jot.

Women are part of the women's estate, they are the responsibility of the women's estate, and the estate needs to be inclusive of the full diversity of women as a sex class. If significant numbers of those women wish to identify as trans and are presenting with particular needs through this, particularly medication based ones and ones that present risk, then the women's estate will need to start setting up and funding specialised units to take women prisoners needing those facilities.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 14/10/2025 08:00

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 02:42

And this is why your ideology is circular. What objective reason is there for regarding external genitalia as a completely insignificant indicator of biological sex, but treating some notional past ability to produce sperm or ova as all-important? There is none, unless the sole point of the argument is to rationalize a belief system already decided upon.

There is only one thing I care about when it comes transsexuals, and that is, are they a threat to women or not? And that is purely a matter of evidence -- proper evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, not just anecdote or hearsay. Idiotic arguments about chromosomes or the size of gametes are of no relevance to that. Not even when in sports, where the only thing that matters is whether women and transsexuals come from a monomodal or bimodal performance distribution, which can easily be tested using a two sample t test. Only guess what? No one wants to do the science. Presumably because they're all scared stiff the results won't be the ones they want.

Show quote history

Again showing you don’t know what a circular argument is.

The objective reason that secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes are not relevant is because sex is a concept that has been observed across all species where the female produces large gametes and the male produces small gametes. It’s not a concept specific to humans. HTH

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 14/10/2025 08:01

EmmyFr · 14/10/2025 05:39

I'm looking forward with glee to the moment when Cassandra, after haughtily decrying a perfectly square definition of sex based on gametes as "circular" (in what way, pray, was it circular @Cassandrazone ?) will utter this absolutely non-circular definition: "A woman is SWIAA woman*.

It’s coming. We all know it.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 14/10/2025 08:02

we don’t know what a woman is, but we definitely know Transwomen are women, right?

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

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2025 08:18

Cassandrazone · 14/10/2025 00:16

Not really. Just that I do not for a moment believe that the question of who and what a woman is can ever be reduced to some sort of biological algorithm. And that the right to self-define, which feminists have fought for for as long as there have been feminists, is far to valuable to be handed over to some self-appointed clique of experts. Particularly when, as is the case here, those experts carry the unmistakable whiff of far-right Christian authoritarianism.

Show quote history

Get a grip.

Sex is a biological binary code, not an algorithm.

Have you swallowed a dictionary and forgotten to learn what the words mean?

FortheloveofPetethePlumber · 14/10/2025 09:15

Gravity is far liberal Buddhist agrophobia.
Reality is extremist vegetarian Teletubby Inquisition.

You can say anything on the internet. Eppur si muove.

Women not wanting to take their clothes off for men can't be stuffed hopefully in a random box of 'this is smelly stuff you wouldn't want to be associated would you' to make them drop their boundaries for the enablement of men with issues, while calling it 'feminism'. Not with any sanity anyway.

Haulage · 14/10/2025 09:58

RedToothBrush · 14/10/2025 08:18

Get a grip.

Sex is a biological binary code, not an algorithm.

Have you swallowed a dictionary and forgotten to learn what the words mean?

Show quote history

They are unable.

FranticFrankie · 14/10/2025 10:20

That poster has a very familiar posting style...
IYKWIM......

NotAtMyAge · 14/10/2025 11:05

Cassandrazone · 13/10/2025 21:49

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

Show quote history

We don't assign anything. We observe the sex of newborns because genitalia are an accurate guide in all but a miniscule proportion of births. Those need further investigation, but eventually the sex is confirmed and it is always either male or female. As I say your sex is coded in every cell of your body which is why you really can't change sex, only the appearance of sex.

TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown · 14/10/2025 13:19

Igneococcus · 14/10/2025 05:15

Evolution only cares about your gametes and if these result in viable and fertile babies, that might appear reductionist to you but it's also true. Evolution also doesn't care about if you like it or if that makes people unhappy.

Show quote history

I’m always amused by how anti Darwin transgenderists are.

it’s like they’ve completely forgotten how mammals reproduce, which obviously can’t be real, so they must be pretending to have forgotten how mammals reproduce.

Which is proper batshit behaviour.