[flagged]
I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless, because the right they're arguing for already exists, and the people running shelters by-and-large aren't invoking it. If they want domestic violence shelters to refuse service to trans people (who are, btw, more often victims of domestic violence than their cisgender counterparts), they should be campaigning against the charities that run the shelters, not campaigning, protesting and petitioning to change laws that are already the way they want them.
If helping the vulnerable were causing actual problems, they'd be able to cite instances of those problems over the past three decades, rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations that might even have happened, once, somewhere in the world, but probably haven't.
> rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations
These aren't hypothetical situations. In some jurisdictions, prisoners are housed based on their self-declared "gender identity". So men who declare themselves as women are being incarcerated in the female prison estate. Women inmates have been raped, sexually assaulted, and even impregnated by some of these men.
This is what happens when this polite fiction becomes law and policy, abusive men take advantage of it - undermining the very reason why we have sex-separated spaces in the first place. Protecting women's spaces from men who call themselves women is very important for the safeguarding of vulnerable women.
It would be very interesting to see the actual official statistics on this, alongside the data on the number of women prisoners raped and impregnated by male guards.
My suspicion is that the former numbers are over exagerated in importance and the later numbers are sharply underr reported .. but I'd still be interested in your best link to back up your claim and put it in context.
This is why in the UK, women's prisons have a policy where at least 50% of prison officers must be female, and only female officers are allowed to conduct intimate searches where needed, to mitigate against the risk of sexual abuse by males.
That there is an existing, mitigated risk of male sexual predation from prison staff, does not justify further increasing this risk to female inmates by locking them up 24/7 with men, just because these men call themselves women.
We have sex-segregated prisons for good reason, this was the result of very well documented evidence, from prison reformers of the 19th century, of the harm and abuse of woman that is enabled by mixed-sex prisons.
That seems odd to say the least.
Here are some search terms for you, these are examples of men in women's prisons who have sexually assaulted or raped women inmates while incarcerated: Janiah Monroe, Karen White, Ramel Blount.
None of these men should have been there in the first place, of course.
I am asking how frequently this happens and, in hard risk terms, how does it compare to the risks faced by inmates of being raped by other women or by prison guards.
I assume you are not claiming these events do not happen.
So again I ask - do you have any relevant links re: comparative frequency, absolute occurrence, etc.
I would expect there to be more, given base rate – but if there were, I'd expect those cases to be yelled about, which they aren't. (That leaves open the possibility that trans people are significantly less likely to assault others… Given the correlation between being trans and autistic, and the tendency for autistic people to be highly moral, that's not a hugely far-fetched theory, but it wouldn't explain such a large discrepancy.)
That we have several documented cases already only supports this point further.
I absolutely agree that measures should be in place to eliminate such abuse and to uphold duty of care.
You have failed to demonstrate that trans people in prisons pose any additional risk over and above what already exists - measures put in place should stop same sex abuse and guard abuse equally as well as they stop trans abuse of others (or, indeed abuse of trans by others - which you have blindly overlooked).
That abuse does occur highlights a failure of protective measures overall - and the incidence of abuse by trans prisoners appears to be the very least of the actual incidents that actually occur.
Unless, of course, you can actually link to actual comparative numbers.
Otherwise you are just engaged in blinkered and selective pearl clutching.
Sex-segregation of prisons (and other spaces where women are vulnerable) exists for good reason: the safety and dignity of women. The need for this has been well-documented since the 19th century, when reformers campaigned for improvements to prison conditions, including making them separated by sex. Elizabeth Fry in particular kept extensive diaries of the horrors that women had to endure in mixed-sex prisons.
This isn't "pearl clutching", as you put it, it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Evidence that has since been added to with these cases I've cited, that resulted from prison authorities deciding to reintroduce mixed-sex environments.
On the flip side, you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. You appear to have simply assumed that this should be the case, and are basing your rhetoric upon this assumption.
This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way.
> it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women.
Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them.
> you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons.
I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison?
… Or do they not count?
California, Washington, Ireland, for example. All places where prisoners are being incarcerated based on their claims of "gender identity" rather than sex.
> Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them.
Sorry, but this isn't how this works. It is already well established that men present significant risk to women, particularly in spaces where women are vulnerable. If you want to claim that a subset of these men - that is, any man who calls himself a woman - poses a significantly lower risk to women, then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it.
> I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison?
I entirely agree that women who call themselves men must not be placed in men's prisons, just as men who call themselves women must not be incarcerated with women. As I argued above, this is the whole point of sex-segregated prisons, safeguarding women from male sexual abuse and violence.
You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you.
> then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it.
The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violence? You can't just weaponise the null hypothesis like that: how am I supposed to prove this point in the hypothetical world where it's correct?
If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't.
> I entirely agree that [thing I didn't say]
One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.² You know full well how I'm using words, here (just as I know how you're using them), and it should be clear what I was trying to say.
What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison?
Reactionary policies are rarely good ones, even where it would be better to go back to the way things were. Don't you know you can't go home again? Unless you address the flaws, not just the perceived benefits, of your proposals, I won't see them as thought-through.
Doing the right thing is hard. Working out what the right thing is is hard – and usually painful.³ Do you care more about believing yourself to be right already, or about ultimately doing the right thing? The specific details of this pointless internet argument aside, your strategy here is not one that will help you to learn and improve and become better at making things better.
---
¹: Personally, I place a large portion of the blame on patriarchy. Many men I know are decent people: violent macho behaviour doesn't seem to be inherent.
²: Unless what you seek to alter is the political landscape, of course – but this website is not an effective place to do that.
³: I shy too much from that pain to be confident in making policy decisions myself. I can often, however, spot flaws in bad policy.
Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise. Could you enlighten me please?
I mentioned those three regions because they have self-identification policies for "gender identity" that extend to prisons, and men who call themselves women are currently incarcerated in women's prisons there.
> If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't.
Okay then, please share your evidence? Keeping in mind that any man can call himself a woman.
> One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.
Agreed, so please refrain from implying that these men are female, as you did with your mention of "male-on-female violence". I'm sure you know they are male.
> What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison?
You are presumably referring to men with self-induced gynecomastia. This will likely be a subset of, or at least have a significant intersection with, men who call themselves women.
The same argument I made in other comments applies to these men too - their safety is an issue for the male prison estate to deal with. Men's prisons have plenty of experience handling at-risk prisoners, for example paedophiles, ex-police officers, ex-gang members. If men with breast tissue are at elevated risk, they can be handled in the same way. There is no reason to place these men in women's prisons.
Well, I did say earlier:
> > and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed.
> This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about.
You misunderstand what "self-identification policies" are – or, at least, what current implementations look like. They don't "just believe" people: the processes for getting recognition can be quite convoluted.
> Okay then, please share your evidence?
I can't share the sum total of my relevant life experience, I'm afraid. You'll just have to make do with what I've already provided: the evidence from your own comments. As somebody who has researched this, and – presumably – is motivated to portray trans people in a bad light, you are not in possession of the statistical data I would expect to exist if trans women were statistically like men.
People like you pick at every single case you can to paint $insert_group_here in a bad light, but in this case, you can't even get enough data points to make a statistically-plausible argument – and neither can anybody else who argues the same as you. (I have absolutely no idea why you can't: I would expect you to be able to. Apparently, reality is even more biased than I am!)
> I'm sure you know they are male.
:eyeroll: I'm sure you can't even define "male" coherently, consistently, in a way that lines up with your ideological beliefs about what it is and isn't.
You know how I'm using words. I'm extending you the courtesy of accepting your language use: please return it.
> The same argument I made in other comments applies to these […] too
And by this argument, why have segregated prisons at all? Your original argument was about reducing harm… so why are you suddenly switching to a different argument, now that I've brought up the increased harm your proposal would cause?
You've got two different criteria now. Please weigh both situations (thing you're complaining about, and your alternative proposal) according to both criteria. Don't just pick and choose, otherwise I'll have to assume you're arguing in bad faith.
The full expression this term is taken from is: "a few bad apples rot the whole barrel".
Women don't know in advance who the bad apples are amongst men, so in contexts where women are particularly vulnerable to predation from such men, the whole barrel must be considered as being rotten. This is why we have sex-segregated spaces.
Treating someone who seems like a woman, acts like a woman, is at risk from the gender-based violence inflicted upon women… as a man… is making people safer, how exactly?
How would you even determine which women to exclude? If someone's saying "hey, I'm trans, I'll leave if my existence makes you uncomfortable", they're clearly not one of the Evil™ Ones… so are you proposing to check everyone who enters these spaces? Oh, but wait, the state of medical treatment is actually pretty good, these days. Better make that a thorough check. (No. Just, no.)
And how is it a good idea to put trans men in with women victims of (usually male-perpetrated) domestic violence? Isn't the whole point of the "women's spaces" thing to avoid that? (Or do you propose to just ban all trans people from support services entirely?)
To be fair to the OP, I don't think there exists a history of abuse of females from trans men, which strengthens their allegation that the underlying sex might be an important factor to consider in these scenarios. The sex hormones alone maybe just aren't a factor.
It's likely not safe to place trans women into male prisons either though, so I think there ought to another axis than just male/female along which we can segregate, such as violent/non-violent criminal history/tendencies. Come to think of it, that seems almost obvious in retrospect. Put violent offenders together, and non-violent ones together, and then non-violent offenders are far less likely to become harder criminals upon release.
Male-on-male violence is a problem for the male prison estate to solve within its walls. It doesn't make any sense to put women at increased risk of male violence to protect men from male violence. Women don't exist as some sort of violence shield to protect men from each other.
Men's prisons already have safeguards in place for vulnerable male prisoners, such as paedophiles, ex-police officers, ex-gang members and so on - putting them on separate wings of the prison, moving them to a different category of male prison (which is in practice similar to your suggestion of violent/non-violent separation). If men who call themselves women are at elevated risk from other men, the same safeguards can be applied to them. There is no reason whatsoever to house them in a women's prison.
"Underlying sex" isn't a particularly coherent concept to begin with. By what potential mechanism could "underlying sex" influence behaviour, other than hormonally?
Lacking an answer to this question doesn't mean we should rule out the possibility while investigating, but we shouldn't take too much heed of the possibility until we have a reason to believe it. «"Excess male violence in prisons" problem is a consequence of the patriarchy» is a concise explanation, introducing no additional entities or mechanisms, consistent with the observations mentioned in this thread, and… well, as far as I'm aware, it's the mainstream feminist position on this matter.
> Come to think of it, that seems almost obvious in retrospect.
I've had thoughts like that, on occasion. Unfortunately, segregationist policies are a much more politically feasible approach than anything like what you're proposing, and I don't think that will change any time soon. How to segregate is the question: whether to segregate is a pretty radical question to be asking.
I don't think your proposal is quite perfect, but it's a start.
By that argument, trans people shouldn't exist because they have the hormonal profile of their birth sex, therefore they shouldn't exhibit observable behavioural differences.