Jump to content

Menu

bolt.

Members
  • Posts

    5,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by bolt.

  1. That's fair about the group project, which you could work fairly hard at, once you understand it. Your group may be able to help you figure out how to contribute well. So if you try the semi-slacker approach and don't get your "B" in the end, then you don't get this course towards your certificate... which is exactly the same as if you withdraw now and don't get the course towards your certificate. The real questions are whether to ride out the class (with a relaxed attitude) for the info, the experience, and the possibility of a B in the end (if you can release your stress) or whether your stress would remain at a level that the experience would be more trouble than it's worth.
  2. Withdrawing is not a bad option... but have you considered just slacking off instead? It might be that your stress has its roots in your (perfectly normal) personal perspective on what it means to 'do well' and 'meet expectations'. In general, students can make a ton of mistakes in a messy course, and still get a B or C without hardly trying. What would happen if you gave yourself permission to be a different kind of student in response to the challenges of this class? (If you still want to transfer your credits to the other program later, a transferrable credit is a transferrable credit whether you earned it with an A performance or a C- performance.)
  3. This really doesn't sound like the place for you. Really, among all the "cons" the only "pro" you have listed is that your children enjoy the experience. Children enjoy most experiences where adults are making an effort to minister to them. They aren't rare. Keep looking. (And ask for a refund if you have already paid anything.)
  4. People are only in the system of provincial jails during trial. Once convicted, there is a federal system of prisons that takes over. The question of where they will spend their life sentence is the issue currently (as of the time of the article) being considered on a national level. The first article reads, "One of the assailants is allegedly being assessed for transfer to a women's federal institution after having already served his pre-sentencing holding period in a women's provincial jail." The articles (intentionally, I believe) withhold any details as to safety precautions that I consider very likely to have been sensibly ordered and taken while they were being held provincially: to keep them separate from other offenders who were at risk. Separation, even isolation, are easy and moderately humane to implement for a holding period during trial and sentencing. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the usual approach to situations like these. It's another question of how to do it for a life sentence, since solitary confinement for a life sentence is not at all humane or even feasible. That's why the question is being examined now (after sentencing for the federal system) and not before (during trial in the provincial system). The criminal has only now made the application for transfer. It has not yet been approved. That means the level of risk *is* being assessed. Given that, "Correctional Services of Canada has previously attempted to keep extremely high-risk male offenders out of women's institutions" and "CSC has defended the security exception in court, arguing that women’s prisons are designed to be less secure than men’s... therefore they are not able to house some trans women who have been classified as high risk." -- I fully expect this criminal to be identified as 'too much risk'. I'll be interested to see what (if any) new (or clarified) procedures come out of that result. (t's also not clear whether this person is being still held at a the provincial women's facility, or if they have been transferred to a federal men's prison already and are looking for a subsequent transfer to a federal women's prison.
  5. That's why the case of this person needs to be thoroughly considered in the process of creating policy for an entire justice system. If their transfer request is rejected (which it probably will be) there needs to be a basis by which that rejection is to be applied in the future. It is not Canada's policy that anyone born male will be treated the same way. On the other hand, it is Canada's policy not to put women in prison at undue risk. Therefore a process of identifying a person who is 'too much risk' has to be created. This person, in this case, with a current active application, is an excellent test case for our courts to continue to identify and create accept/decline criteria for transfer applications for self-identified transwomen. The particulars of this case will help create the abstract policy -- hopefully one that keeps women and other prisoners as safe as possible. Abstracting cases into laws (or legal procedures) is important.
  6. Yes, it brings up questions for learned minds. For one thing if, as you suggest, all "People born male should be managed in the male estate" -- why then is there any need for a "Particularly if" clause? -- it suggests that a thing that is always true is also "more than true" at particular times. On the other hand, if we focus on the "Particularly if..." clause we have a ton of procedural questions. That you yourself have raised... in the order that you raise them: (a) What constitutes a relevant "violent crime"? What are the characteristics of that kind of crime vs other kinds of crime? Are their already relevant statutes, or should they be crafted? (b) What if they have completed gender reassignment surgery? What things change? What remains the same? Is it relevant among transwomen only, or is it also relevant to transmen? (c) Other than self identification, are there reliable ways of differentiating between disingenuous claims and legitimate identities? What would "evidence to the contrary" of a self-identification be, and how could it be established? Is such a differentiation necessary, or should all claims be treated in the same way? Should transmen and transwomen the same -- or differently -- on this point? (d) Is rape (or other forms of sexual assault) a special case, or are all "violent crimes" equally relevant. All of these things (and more) are well worth thinking about by trained and capable legal minds in my opinion.
  7. I don't think male rapists and murderers should be able to simply self identify into female prisons. What makes you think I thought that? I didn't say anything like that. Not even remotely. I really don't know who you think you are arguing with, or what you think the topic of argument is. It's you who quoted me. But now I'm confused. Where is all the extra information coming from? I view incarceration of transmen and transwomen as a complex issue, a "tough question" for society. I'm in favour of it being considered by qualified individuals. That's my whole point. It's the only point I have made, and it's the only point I intend to defend. Unless you think procedures of imprisonment for transgender people (a) are not complex, or (b) that qualified individuals should not be spending time looking into them -- I really don't think we need to continue. I don't know why you are quoting me or assigning weird positions or motives to me.
  8. I think that situation *is* one of the nuances in creating an overall policy or systematic approach to all incarcerated transwomen and transmen. It's an extremely relevant and important case to examine. I think it's fantastic that it has come up, and that it is currently being examined. 1. It is not "credulous in the extreme" to believe that this person exists, that their application and situation are currently before courts, and that the decisions made about them will impact future policy as it applies to future - violent and non-violent - transmen and transwomen - both the genuine and the disingenuous. I can't see why one would need to be "credulous in the extreme" to follow the case as it has been reported and be curious about the outcome. 2. No, I am not "happy" to increase the risk of any prisoners. In what universe does contemplating legal nuances create "happiness" at the prospect of danger and pain for others? Do you think I'm a psychopathy? A masochist? These are very strong words coming from you. I don't know why we are on the level of personal attacks.
  9. If you don't think it's a tough question, I suppose there's not much I can do to discuss the nuances and the conflicting needs and expectations of the individuals on all sides of this issue. As it happens, I don't think the "right" you have invented exists in the legal sense, nor does the "right" to be imprisoned according to gender identity. These are cutting edge legal issues currently before courts and being worked out in case law. That's practically the definition of a tough question in my opinion. I quite like the idea of separated facilities (or subdivisions of existing facilities) for transwomen and transmen specifically. I'm suspicious that, in many cases, that might be happening through unofficial isolation and similar practices.
  10. That article buries very few facts about the Canadian prison system under a ton of sensationalism and speculation. Here's a better article with some nuance and balance: https://thecanadian.news/2021/09/16/a-nightmare-murder-trial-in-toronto-has-ended-what-follows-highlights-one-of-the-toughest-questions-facing-canadian-prisons/
  11. It seems to me that most people know the difference between PTSD/depression and a raving lunatic. It's all over TV: sympathetic stories of cops and soldiers suffering panic attacks and taking leave because of "seeing too much" or whatever. I don't mean to make light of the true story that is devastating your family -- I'm trying to say that there is a very handy narrative out there for you to play to. There is a steriotype that won't be so painful or have the same practical impacts. I suggest that you (and your kids) become super vocal, using all the right buzz words. Teach them to say "PTSD" (if it's relevant/accurate) and/or a really specific technical and medical term for whatever diagnosis he actually has. Put it all over your facebook: memes in support of heroes suffering after-effects, support groups, fundraisers -- you name it. Say it in casual conversation: "Because of my husband's (diagnosis) from being a dedicated cop in difficult situations, I need to (do xyz) instead of (abc)." // "Yes, he's on paid leave. His presinct has been so supportive. His co-workers call all the time to make sure he doesn't feel left out." Shape the narrative to fit the *other* thing they are familiar with... they will get it. I'm so sorry this is happening to you all.
  12. I would not buy any of that stuff. Some people love crafts, and I hope you do, because as a *combination* of recreation/creativity plus a little profit on the side to spend on new materials... it might work. As a business where you might expect a significant monetary outcome: I'd say don't get your hopes too high. And don't "invest" too much at the start-up. Manage your expectations and you will probably love it, though.
  13. Why is the joke thread now the creepy pictures of insects thread???!!!!????!!!!!
  14. I work as an adjunct and have never been asked to do this in any formal way. Of course I do post everything to the student access system, so I guess they are still there for anyone from admin to look at if they want to. Now I'm wondering if I should be taking those down to tidy up after myself digitally. I have, from time to time, been asked to email a copy of something I've done well (like a rubric) which I assume is used somehow to guide newer/other instructors. And the syllabus of each course is on record at the school too.
  15. That's totally fair. I think the 'among friends, no crime implied' end of the semantic range for stalking covers a common hyperbolic use expressing something like, "Showing undue or unhealthy interest in someone, looking them up online more frequently or thoroughly than would be reasonable given one's relationship with that person." People are apologizing for perhaps visiting the profile pages of other users unintentionally frequently. Once or twice would not be 'stalking' even by this hyperbolic use. Maybe we need another better word. I also hate it when serious things are made trivial like this. Real stalking is terrifying.
  16. Nowhere near worth it for me. There's not much I order that I can't wait for a week to receive. If I was ever in a big hurry, I could just pay for faster shipping on one or two things per year -- which would be much less. Paying monthly for fast shipping on 'everything' whether I order anything or not seems like nonsense to me.
  17. First: remember that even by being there, you couldn't make her better. Germs are gonna do what germs are gonna do. They don't behave themselves differently based on spectators. Second: remind her to ask for extensions before things are due -- not give excuses after she has already missed something. Profs should be very understanding about sickness, and it's very early in the semester. Extensions should not be difficult to secure. A quick email will take a lot of weight off her mind.
  18. At these levels of transmission I would only be willing to gather with unvaccinated folks outside, with masks (for everyone), and distance. (I'd be okay with individuals popping inside, alone, for bathroom use.) I *might* be okay with no masks if I could be *very* confident about people keeping their distance. With little kids, if I could keep mine masked, and rely on other families to do the same, I would still want a more controlled environment where parents help the kids keep their distance. Something shorter and less bouncy would be my preference. Circles of well-spaced lawn chairs would be okay. With masks. This doesn't sound possible for your sister's family. Things like this might have to wait.
  19. Ideally, you would shut yourselves down for now, until you can get tested. (I don't know what day is currently most recommended.) Once you are tested, if you are each/all negative and also asymptomatic, you can carry on mostly normally if that's what you need to do -- but avoid things that are particularly risky (places with the elderly, places with the unvaccinated, crowded gatherings) if possible. You can't do much for a grown adult making his own decisions, but the kids you do have the ability to put your foot down. Try to be clear on the values you are communicating in your limits: that being a silent carrier is unlikely with no symptoms and a negative test -- so most things are fine -- but a few things are too risky to do even though you are almost sure they are fine. For myself, I would limit myself as much as I reasonably could after an exposure. I wouldn't put that on kids/teens or a spouse, but I would be living that value myself. I'm committed to not being a link in anybody's transmission chain if I can possibly do so.
  20. We don't. If functioning on less sleep were biologically or neurologically possible, it would be an incredible evolutionary advantage. If it existed, the 'needs less sleep' version of human DNA would have taken over our species long ago.
  21. This is going to be hard for you. Let us know how we can help -- and vent away. Writing is a great way to process your emotions and reactions. Remember to try not to let yourself 'hope for' any outcome in particular (other than generally hoping for things to go as well as possible, given the circumstances). Try to trust the people in the situation to make the important decisions. Hold your own perspective and opinions as lightly as you are able to. Keep yourself on the edges of things as much as possible.
  22. I don't. It seems likely to increase one's 'hatred' for church services (and religion in general) to be forced into performative religion. I let the good memories of younger years stand for themselves, without adding teenage years of unwilling attendance to overshadow the good memories.
  23. That's all good info! (I don't think it's Canadian. We don't use the word "refuge" or have an "RSPCA" and I don't know what some of the other terms refer to. I'm guessing maybe UK, or Australia / New Zealand might be the source.)
  24. I don't think modern Americans really have an equivalent hate group with to match the intensity of Jewish rejection of Samaritans. The priest and Levite also have implicit motives that their avoidance was out of concern for holiness and an intent to obey the Torah as they understood it. I don't know any role in society where a person would risk becoming unclean through compassion to someone near death. That's not really a thing any more for the statistical majority of folks, and I'm not even sure how modern Jewish people think about it. The cultures really are wildly different. I don't think we can draw direct lines.
×
×
  • Create New...