Jump to content

Menu

Viral Video: Nude man enters women's locker room.


KidsHappen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I do not think it is complex. People born male should be managed in the male estate. Particularly if they are serving a sentence for violent crime, are not transexual but self ID as 'a woman' despite all evidence to the contrary, and remain in possession of the penis they previously used to rape a woman. 

That this arises as a question for learned minds is - at a societal level - insane. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

It actually makes me feel sick to hear risk to females abstracted like this.

Again. This is a man. He raped, and then murdered a woman. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violent males are already incarcerated in women's prisons in Canada. 

I do not believe this case will see a change to that practice, regardless of the individual outcome, because the Canadian govt believes in the faith based position, that some men are women, and that violently raping a women with your penis can be a female crime. 

That you can't see how insane this is, that an entire legal process exists to seriously consider the idea that a violent male rapist and murderer may actually be a woman who serves 'her' sentence with 'other' women...I don't know what to say. 

To me, to be in the position of even considering it is a form of social madness. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bolt. said:

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/

from that article:

"Murillo’s attorneys requested that his jury not be informed of the transfer, and Murillo was referred to as a male and with masculine pronouns both during the trial and after the verdict at sentencing."

😲😲😲

but still, this male who sexually assaulted and beat a woman to death - in her own bedroom, with her children nearby - was "transferred to a women’s prison in the provincial system earlier this year, a few months before the trial began in July, in accordance with Ontario’s policy of placing female inmates in prisons corresponding to their gender identity, unless they choose otherwise."

 

I note a lot of handwringing over the male criminals' feelings, not a mention of the incarcerated womens' feelings 🤔 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

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.

what transfer request? He is already there. 

eta - I would have thought that a male person who used their male body to rape and murder a woman in her own bed would be identified as 'too much risk' but hey, its only women they're risking! the real travesty is males being at risk from other males!

Edited by LMD
  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LMD said:

what transfer request? He is already there. 

eta - I would have thought that a male person who used their male body to rape and murder a woman in her own bed would be identified as 'too much risk' but hey, its only women they're risking! the real travesty is males being at risk from other males!

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.

Edited by bolt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

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.

This indicates that it’s only those that they deem to be an extremely high risk that they keep out of women’s prisons. That remains highly problematic. If the answer is that they say they will implement safety procedures to keep the women safe, I still don’t see why that can’t be flipped around so that they implement safety procedures in the men’s prison to keep the at risk offender safe.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 8:40 PM, LMD said:

When the default response to women raising completely obvious and reasonable concerns, is shouts of bigot/terf and rape/death threats, I'm afraid the good will required for compromise is evaporated. As long as males insist on pushing the boundaries, then the boundaries must be buttressed.

This. 

I've avoided this thread all summer but read it all in the last 2 days. Grateful for the voices here.

The hardest thing for me is my young adult children and their well-intentioned but somewhat knee-jerk response to these reasonable concerns.  My outspoken beloved in the UK, whom I will not describe further for their safety, has had many such threats.  When I've told my kids about the threats it gives them pause in their righteousness, but it's still a topic we've all agreed to not discuss. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Let's insert the voices of criminalised Canadian women here. 

https://rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/open-letter-to-caefs-from-criminalized-women/

yes, thank you!

here's an article from last month about women, including former inmates, protesting:

"According to Mason, the former CSC deputy commissioner for women said in 2019 that 50% of the males who request to be transferred to a female prison are sex offenders. Mason says that many correctional guards she has spoken to are not a fan of the transfer policy, but they are not allowed to speak out. At the Fraser Valley Institution for Women, there have purportedly been STD scares, pregnancy rumours and sexual harassment allegations because of the biological males in residence.

“[Corrections Canada] let men basically rule the prison … women are scared to speak up because they think their paroles are going to get denied,” former Fraser Valley Institution inmate Alia Pierini told the crowd. “I’m sick and tired of the men, the rapists getting support over the women.”

https://tnc.news/2021/08/21/protesters-demand-removal-of-biological-male-inmates-from-womens-prisons/

  • Like 2
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LMD said:

yes, thank you!

here's an article from last month about women, including former inmates, protesting:

"According to Mason, the former CSC deputy commissioner for women said in 2019 that 50% of the males who request to be transferred to a female prison are sex offenders. Mason says that many correctional guards she has spoken to are not a fan of the transfer policy, but they are not allowed to speak out. At the Fraser Valley Institution for Women, there have purportedly been STD scares, pregnancy rumours and sexual harassment allegations because of the biological males in residence.

“[Corrections Canada] let men basically rule the prison … women are scared to speak up because they think their paroles are going to get denied,” former Fraser Valley Institution inmate Alia Pierini told the crowd. “I’m sick and tired of the men, the rapists getting support over the women.”

https://tnc.news/2021/08/21/protesters-demand-removal-of-biological-male-inmates-from-womens-prisons

It's not as if this is something in the realm of the hypothetical. It's happening. Right now, to incarcerated women. 

From the linked article:

 

 

 

IMG_20210927_144603.jpg

Edited by Melissa Louise
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Sorry, I mean it's happening to incarcerated bodies with vaginas, the brand new way to refer to the people formerly known as women, according to The Lancet. 

 

IMG_20210927_144908.jpg

Enfuriating.  

Do you remember the era of some females calling themselves wombin, wimmyn, wemoon, etc?  At the time I thought it was dorky.  Now it seems prescient.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Harpymom said:

Enfuriating.  

Do you remember the era of some females calling themselves wombin, wimmyn, wemoon, etc?  At the time I thought it was dorky.  Now it seems prescient.

The other infuriating thing is that this dehumanising language is never used for men. The Lancet, four days earlier, promoted an article about men's health. Not 'bodies with prostates'. 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my state, there have already been male prisoners transferred to women's prisons on the basis of self-id.  There have been news reports in conservative media of at least one rape.  Progressives tend to dismiss these reports because of the source but very few people in the mainstream outlets will address this issue with any nuance whatsoever.  

Nearly 9 in 10 women who are incarcerated have been victims of sexual violence in their lives.  I have worked with organizations that serve inmates pre and post release and I know several women who reported rapes while in prison from male staff members.  These are just not women who deserve any additional risk in their lives to validate the identity of other prisoners.  

Last summer, I was discussing this issue at length with a long time friend who was stunned that I'm not lockstep with the party line on these issues.  He was, in my view, incredibly dismissive of this issue around incarcerated women and women in shelters.  It dawned on me that it's just outside of his frame of reference both as a male and as a person who doesn't really *know anyone who has ever been to prison well enough to actually care about them on a visceral level*.  One of my grandmothers and both of my maternal aunts have been incarcerated.  I have cousins and an uncle who have recently been caught up in the criminal justice system as well.  I think one reason so many progressive people like my friend don't take this seriously is that they are living middle class lives with middle class families and the idea of themselves or someone in their family going to prison just doesn't compute for them.  

Males who are gender non-conforming, transwomen or really any one at all deserve to be safe in prison.  Prisoner safety is an issue I really care about.  But we can't make a tiny group safer at the expense of some of the most vulnerable women in the country.  And we can't suspend disbelief.  Sex offenders lie.  A lot.  If their mouths are moving, they are probably lying.  Self-ID in this case hurts women and it hurts trans people who get unfairly associated with lying liars who do something like *rape a child* and then say "oh, I'm now a woman" for whatever aim might induce them to make such a claim.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 15
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 3:42 AM, Melissa Louise said:

The other infuriating thing is that this dehumanising language is never used for men. The Lancet, four days earlier, promoted an article about men's health. Not 'bodies with prostates'. 

I recently saw an ad on Facebook for sanitary napkins that used the terms "for people who bleed from a vagina" and made "by menstruators for menstruators."

Not a parody.  Not shared for outrage- just a regular ad.  No thank you.  Woman is not a dirty word.  

Always brand removed the Venus sign from their packaging to be inclusive but left the hashtag #likeagirl all over the wrappers.  I use a particular pad of theirs and when they removed the Venus symbol, the next wave of wrappers had all of these circles and half circles that were reminiscent of the symbol.  It was an odd design choice, especially paired with the decision to still use the girl hashtag.  It's like, ok, I'm a perimenopausal 40 something using your nearly diaper sized pads but go ahead and provide motivation by putting Run#likeagirl and Strong#likeagirl on the size pad I could have used as an actual towel when I was actually young enough to be #likeagirl  Somehow I doubt they will be putting #grownasswoman on their wrappers but that would be more accurate.  

 

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Progressives tend to dismiss these reports because of the source but very few people in the mainstream outlets will address this issue with any nuance whatsoever.  

 

This is very much the case. There were protests at women's prisons across Canada last months about males being incarcerated with women. Almost no one who identifies as progressive knows about it because it was buried by the media. You have to make an effort to find out.

And as an aside, but I believe an important one, this is where people start to mistrust the mainstream media. 

Edited by SlowRiver
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

If men who rape women shouldn't be housed with women, where do you house men who rape men?

 

Men convicted of rape of another man should be housed in the male estate. 

I'd like to believe that risk to other men could be managed within the male estate, but it probably isn't. Prisons need major reform.

That still doesn't mean the risk should be transferred to female prisoners. 

Edited by Melissa Louise
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ktgrok said:

If men who rape women shouldn't be housed with women, where do you house men who rape men?

 

I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting that since some men rape men, there’s no reason to keep men who rape women from being housed with women? That doesn’t seem a reasonable question though, so I’m wondering if I’m missing your meaning. People in prison need to be kept safe from other prisoners. If someone isn’t safe with other people, then they’re not, and they shouldn’t be inflicted on other people. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting that since some men rape men, there’s no reason to keep men who rape women from being housed with women? That doesn’t seem a reasonable question though, so I’m wondering if I’m missing your meaning. People in prison need to be kept safe from other prisoners. If someone isn’t safe with other people, then they’re not, and they shouldn’t be inflicted on other people. 

I think the argument is that if they are going to have to be managed in the male estate, they can equally be managed in the female estate. In other words, keep them separate from the general pop but in the place aligning with their 'gender'. 

I don't think this takes into account one substantial difference in populations, which is that raped females also risk pregnancy. So if management of the violent transwoman isn't well managed, they face an additional risk to physical and psychological health. 

I think it also fails to take into account how many women in prison are already DV victims, largely at the hands of males. It seems cruel and unusual to punish them further with the presence of violent males. 

Further, it doesn't take account of the fact that violent sexual assault is a largely male phenomenon. By adding males to female prisons, the background risk of of violent sexual assault rises exponentially. Not from zero, of course, but from relatively lower to relatively higher. 

Some people do make the 'rapist is gonna rape' argument, but I'm sure that's not what's being said here. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2021 at 3:21 PM, LucyStoner said:

 

 

Last summer, I was discussing this issue at length with a long time friend who was stunned that I'm not lockstep with the party line on these issues.  He was, in my view, incredibly dismissive of this issue around incarcerated women and women in shelters.  It dawned on me that it's just outside of his frame of reference both as a male and as a person who doesn't really *know anyone who has ever been to prison well enough to actually care about them on a visceral level*.  One of my grandmothers and both of my maternal aunts have been incarcerated.  I have cousins and an uncle who have recently been caught up in the criminal justice system as well.  I think one reason so many progressive people like my friend don't take this seriously is that they are living middle class lives with middle class families and the idea of themselves or someone in their family going to prison just doesn't compute for them.  

 

This kind of doesn't make sense to me, though. A m/c progressive should be able to apply some intersectionality here, and understand that incarcerated women have identities, experiences and needs of their own. 

In fact, none of it makes sense to me. Anyone 'progressive' ought to understand that sex is one axis of oppression already, and that where it intersects with imprisonment ( via race, class, disability, addiction) that doesn't disappear but becomes even more urgent. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think the argument is that if they are going to have to be managed in the male estate, they can equally be managed in the female estate. In other words, keep them separate from the general pop but in the place aligning with their 'gender'. 

I don't think this takes into account one substantial difference in populations, which is that raped females also risk pregnancy. So if management of the violent transwoman isn't well managed, they face an additional risk to physical and psychological health. 

I think it also fails to take into account how many women in prison are already DV victims, largely at the hands of males. It seems cruel and unusual to punish them further with the presence of violent males. 

Further, it doesn't take account of the fact that violent sexual assault is a largely male phenomenon. By adding males to female prisons, the background risk of of violent sexual assault rises exponentially. Not from zero, of course, but from relatively lower to relatively higher. 

Some people do make the 'rapist is gonna rape' argument, but I'm sure that's not what's being said here. 

also, the male estate is vastly larger and has much more experience with extremely dangerous inmates. The female estate is much smaller, a few males will have a disproportionate effect on women's prisons.

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/prevalence-ii-on-prison-placement/

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

This kind of doesn't make sense to me, though. A m/c progressive should be able to apply some intersectionality here, and understand that incarcerated women have identities, experiences and needs of their own. 

In fact, none of it makes sense to me. Anyone 'progressive' ought to understand that sex is one axis of oppression already, and that where it intersects with imprisonment ( via race, class, disability, addiction) that doesn't disappear but becomes even more urgent. 

 

There was a time when I would have agreed with you that anyone of reasonable intelligence and good will could understand that. But if these covid times have brought any definitive conclusion to me it’s that tribalism is very real and very dangerous and that it will overshadow everything else - including the most basic of reasoning and empathy.

Stuff like this really does send the message that women are inferior legally and in social standing still.

It also sends the clear message that justice for women still can’t be found in the state or current society.

So where does this leave women?  After all these years and generations it feels like we are sliding backward rather than forward with women’s rights. And the slide seems to be picking up speed. 

  • Like 12
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

There was a time when I would have agreed with you that anyone of reasonable intelligence and good will could understand that. But if these covid times have brought any definitive conclusion to me it’s that tribalism is very real and very dangerous and that it will overshadow everything else - including the most basic of reasoning and empathy.

Stuff like this really does send the message that women are inferior legally and in social standing still.

It also sends the clear message that justice for women still can’t be found in the state or current society.

So where does this leave women?  After all these years and generations it feels like we are sliding backward rather than forward with women’s rights. And the slide seems to be picking up speed. 

I'm a conservative woman.  However, I believe men and women have equal value before God. 

 

THIS, what's been happening - feels like women are being, not just diminished, but erased.   

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I'm a conservative woman.  However, I believe men and women have equal value before God. 

 

THIS, what's been happening - feels like women are being, not just diminished, but erased.   

Absolutely.  I don’t know what I am.  Half says I’m crazy conservative. Half says I’m a liberal nut.  But I think that’s all intended to be a distraction from this - the erasing of women.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something positive happens, though, when organisations can admit there are sometimes inherent conflicts in these issues, which need resolving. 

For example, sport.

This is a UK article but it's a good example of looking at data, and balancing rights, including those of females. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/29/new-guidelines-for-transgender-participation-unveiled-by-uk-sports-councils

We need more of this fact-based consideration which balances fairness and safety, with and sometimes against, inclusion. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KSera said:

I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting that since some men rape men, there’s no reason to keep men who rape women from being housed with women? That doesn’t seem a reasonable question though, so I’m wondering if I’m missing your meaning. People in prison need to be kept safe from other prisoners. If someone isn’t safe with other people, then they’re not, and they shouldn’t be inflicted on other people. 

I was trying to point out that the argument as to who is housed where shouldn't be, and can't be, based on not housing them around the same sex as those they were violent toward. 

There are plenty of other arguments to be made, but that one doesn't make sense. 

And opens up other questions about the way we house prisoners in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Absolutely.  I don’t know what I am.  Half says I’m crazy conservative. Half says I’m a liberal nut.  But I think that’s all intended to be a distraction from this - the erasing of women.

This is me, too.  I do not agree with either party and feel like it's all just a bunch of hype to distract us from what's really going on.  The entire trans movement is misogynistic from where I'm looking- the flip side of the coin of barefoot and pregnant,  scene and not heard- its erased and ignored, told you're a bigot if you don't want naked men in changing rooms, and ignoring my own safety for a males "feelings" while disregarding my own.  Its also extremely sexist- assigning behaviors,  hobbies, dress to your sex.  I spent my entire parenting life telling my girls they could like "boy things" and it didn't matter.  Now a boy liking dress up at age 4 makes him trans?  A girl preferring "boy clothes" and super heros makes her trans?  As if a persons preferences in clothes and toys are more defining than BIOLOGY??  And at unbelievably young ages!  What happened to the side supposedly believing in science?  

When this thread first started my oldest DD was doing a college English class that had assignments about pretty much every controversial topic, including trans rights.  This thread was very helpful for me to read and open up more discussions with her about having her own opinion and that its okay to not go with the flow.  Since then she has been following this story, the one about the male weightlifter switching to female in his 30s and competing in the Olympics (she could clearly see this was unfair), and other trans-stories in the news lately.  We've talked a lot about how articles are phrased and censored around this topic, and if you are looking, its plain to see.  This is the world my girls are going to live in, and im ready to fight back. 

Does anyone have any ideas for things we can do to be heard?  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Something positive happens, though, when organisations can admit there are sometimes inherent conflicts in these issues, which need resolving. 

For example, sport.

This is a UK article but it's a good example of looking at data, and balancing rights, including those of females. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/29/new-guidelines-for-transgender-participation-unveiled-by-uk-sports-councils

We need more of this fact-based consideration which balances fairness and safety, with and sometimes against, inclusion. 

 

 

Very refreshing to see somewhere looking at this issue with nuance and acknowledging some of the inherent conflicts. The article even seemed to treat the issue fairly, which I haven’t usually seen with this in the Guardian. I wonder if the sport discussion will be taken up in the US any time soon. I don’t sense the will is even close to there yet to admit there might be some problems with the way we are currently handling it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wondered if part of the reason so many don't get this issue with prisons is television shows about women's prisons. They don't seem to have a lot in common with most real women's prisons. That's not to say that there aren't very troubled women in prison, it's a population with a high proportion of psychiatric disorders and personality disorders, and the latter in particular can make for a very difficult environment.

But women's prisons are not like men's prisons. Max security female offenders are rare. Violent female offenders are rare. Most women are incarcerated for much shorter periods, they tend to be there for fraud type crimes, or drugs. Women's prisons are often quite open in design because they tend not to have the kinds of problems with violence many higher security men's prisons do.

Even the numbers are vastly different. Canada now has about 6000 women in prison in provincial institutions, so less serious with sentences of under 2 years, and about 600 in federal institutions.  For men's prisons, it's just about 13,400 in federal prisons. 

Women's prisons also use different tools for assessing prisoners, because the profile of female prisoners is very different. A male who is held in the women's estate is being assessed using those same tools, not the ones appropriate for his actual offender profile.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Very refreshing to see somewhere looking at this issue with nuance and acknowledging some of the inherent conflicts. The article even seemed to treat the issue fairly, which I haven’t usually seen with this in the Guardian. I wonder if the sport discussion will be taken up in the US any time soon. I don’t sense the will is even close to there yet to admit there might be some problems with the way we are currently handling it. 

In The Guardian the sports section is where you typically see the most sophisticated thinking on this topic. Which is interesting in itself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I was trying to point out that the argument as to who is housed where shouldn't be, and can't be, based on not housing them around the same sex as those they were violent toward. 

There are plenty of other arguments to be made, but that one doesn't make sense. 

And opens up other questions about the way we house prisoners in general. 

I understand the failure of logic you mention, but there is a huge difference in physical vulnerability between men and women.  Having been attacked by an old guy I thought I could fight off - but couldn't even come close - forgive me if I am stuck on that.

Others have made good arguments also.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I understand the failure of logic you mention, but there is a huge difference in physical vulnerability between men and women.  Having been attacked by an old guy I thought I could fight off - but couldn't even come close - forgive me if I am stuck on that.

Others have made good arguments also.

Every woman wants to think she is tougher than a man she perceives as weak in some way. Slight of build. Older. Whatever.  But statistically few women are going to win a prolonged physical encounter with any type of man.  And by prolonged I mean more than a few minutes. Most men instinctively know this.  Those who don’t will compensate by making sure they have the upper hand in some way more than just physique. That’s one reason why the first and best defense for any woman in such an encounter is to do whatever it takes to just get the hell away ASAP.  Now matter how much martial arts or body building she does or how weak the man might be - that’s still the smartest and most likely way she will survive.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know what women can do. We need men to fight with us. Other than doing my best with my husband, sons and friends to make sure they see this erasure? Other than voting yes or no for things I think are good or bad? What else is there to do but endure and pray for a better outcome?

I’m not happy about it. I mean I guess there’s the American solidarity party, they’re fairly close to my social policy sentiments, closer than the current PTB but they need a LOT more power to make a difference.

So I don’t know what else to do. 🤷‍♀️

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t know what women can do. We need men to fight with us.

This shouldn't hurt, but I think there may be just as much erasure happening from other women as well. The young adult females in my life are all far more passionate about trans rights than women's rights. It would be one thing if they were equally passionate about both, but there's an outright, plainly spoken view that transgender people are more marginalized than women, so transwomen concerns trump women's concerns. They would be among the first actively fighting for transwomen in traditionally sex-segregated women's spaces. I honestly don't know anything other than time that is going to change that. I'd like to think there was something else, but I feel like this began as a cultural change rather than one based on any new understanding of science, and it will only be as the result of a shift in that culture that it changes again. I'm of the belief that we're at an unfortunately high risk of having a rather large population of detransitioned women in the future who may lead the changes. It will be hard for them though, as they tend to be shunned from the larger LGBTQ+ community, and this would make it more so. Supporting those women would be one thing to do, I guess.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t know what women can do. We need men to fight with us. Other than doing my best with my husband, sons and friends to make sure they see this erasure? Other than voting yes or no for things I think are good or bad? What else is there to do but endure and pray for a better outcome?

I’m not happy about it. I mean I guess there’s the American solidarity party, they’re fairly close to my social policy sentiments, closer than the current PTB but they need a LOT more power to make a difference.

So I don’t know what else to do. 🤷‍♀️

Me either. 

Other than the usual things - petitions, letters to political reps, donating for legal cases, speaking up, sharing info.

It's not enough, but I'm not sure what else there is to do. 

 

Edited by Melissa Louise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Me either. 

Other than the usual things - petitions, letters to political reps, donating for legal cases, speaking up, sharing info.

It's not enough, but I'm not sure what else there is to do. 

 

I agree, we keep speaking! Remember how this conversation was a few years ago? We keep speaking up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

It would be one thing if they were equally passionate about both, but there's an outright, plainly spoken view that transgender people are more marginalized than women, so transwomen concerns trump women's concerns.

 

There are two things going on it that statement that both require questioning.

The obvious one being, who is most marginalized, but also, how can you even determine that and  does it is a meaningful scale or hierarchy?

How valid is the idea that there should be some sort of hierarchical preferring or judging based on marginalization? And what does that mean, or not mean?

Then, what about truth? Do we really believe that the more marginalized always have the truth? If we do, how limited is that? What if the members of the group have significant disagreements, does it come down to numbers.

Personally I think the whole construct is a bit of a crock, but as an assumed operating system without any constraints it's always going to return pretty crappy results.

Edited by SlowRiver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 11:13 AM, Murphy101 said:

Every woman wants to think she is tougher than a man she perceives as weak in some way. Slight of build. Older. Whatever.  But statistically few women are going to win a prolonged physical encounter with any type of man.  And by prolonged I mean more than a few minutes. Most men instinctively know this.  Those who don’t will compensate by making sure they have the upper hand in some way more than just physique. That’s one reason why the first and best defense for any woman in such an encounter is to do whatever it takes to just get the hell away ASAP.  Now matter how much martial arts or body building she does or how weak the man might be - that’s still the smartest and most likely way she will survive.

Yes. My daughter who is at college now has done martial arts for years. She is a big girl and she could kill someone (physically but I am not sure about being able to actually take a life) with the titanium tipped pen she carries, but always, always, always the first defense steps are be aware of your surroundings and get away if there is trouble. Don't fight; run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...