> 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.
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.
> You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you.
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.
> Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise.
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.
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.