bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
FFS, please remember you're talking about real people, not just debating points.
Why do some feminists hate transgender people?
- Thread starter D'wards
- Start date
Vintage Paw,
In my opinion, folks in this thread have been more concerned with Tara's well-being than that of her victims.
What if Tara was a guy who assaulted women : would you or anyone else here feel so worried about his well-being during his time in prison?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
What if Santa Claus was a real person who came down chimneys into children's bedrooms? eh? eh?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
It's not a question of being more concerned with the perp than the victims. It's a question of whether the perp will be humanely treated in prison. Unsubstantiated assumptions about the perp's likely behaviour don't help in the slightest.
I'll level with you: I'm a law-abiding person.
It's not a difficult life. It mostly revolves around treating others how you want to be treated.
Since when has the "perp's" feelings been more important than their victims?
How about this thought: If the "perp" hadn't "perpetrated" their crime, you wouldn't have to worry about their well-being...
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Are you possibly a religious American person?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Or possibly a regular contributor below the DM line?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Oh well, that gives you free pass to the Daily Mail comments section. Except, not. Not all Romfordians will share your views.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
don't talk such tosh
Athos
Well-Known Member
The prison issue is a good example of much of the wider trans discussion. It quickly descends into polarisation and false dichotomies (as if it's impossible to care for the victim and perpetrator), and then name calling, with little attempt by either side to see things from the other perspective. Of course, it's ridiculous to say that the fact she has a dick means she should go to a male prison. But it's also ridiculous to say that any woman who has concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter who has boasted online about the ability to maintain an erection is a bigoted TERF.
You've just done what you said others are doing. Presented the argument about 'any woman having concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter' when she'll almost certainly be segregated.
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
There are lots of women in women's prisons with female genitalia who are 'violent nutters'. What is the point of this?
Which would you prefer to be locked up in?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Quite possibly, but that's not to say that some women might have concerns about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, until such time as her segregation is confirmed.
Is that what happens? You get put in a shared cell while the governor decides what to do with you?
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
So it would be OK to put a man with a history of violence in a women's prison, assuming he had no history of sexual violence?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Women in prison are extremely vulnerable. Many have suffered horrific sexual abuse. And in the overwhelming majority of those cases, the perpetrator has had (and often used) a dick. To find themselves trapped in a room with someone with a dick (who is also a violent nutter) is likely to be very upsetting to some of those women.
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
No, but we aren't discussing putting a man into a women's prison. We're discussing putting a woman into a women's prison.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No. But, on learning that she's coming to the prison, the women already there might not know the Governer's plans for her, and so might be concerned about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, on her arrival.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
In this specific case, yes. But a lost of the discussion hinges on the issue of at what point someone transitions. Not all cases will be as clear cut as this one.
So you're saying the problem lies with the possibility of unfounded fears?
Athos
Well-Known Member
The problem lies with the fears of vulnerable women. Whether or not they're unfounded or not depends upon how convinced one is of your assertion that she'll "almost certainly be segregated."
She's in the news. What governor isn't going to take every precaution plus some to ensure the story doesn't explode further?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
It's lucky that it's a short sentence really. Difficult to belive that segregation is ever 100% effective or achieveable, but it might be managed for just four weeks. One pragmatic suggestion would be that HMPS establishes a dedicated unit attached to a women's nick to handle transitioning prisoners from all over the country. Imprisoning people close to their family is a good thing, but outweighed by the benefits of having a facility for cases like Hudson's - and as emanymton suggests, other cases where the transition is less advanced. That would also mean that the medical staff would be au fait with hormone provision and so on.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Prison Governors take decisions for many different reasons. And, whilst I agree with you that it's likely she will be segregated (albeit that under rule 45 she's unlikely to have no contact with other prisoners), it's by no means certain (as you acknowledged). As such, it's quite possible that other vulnerable women could be fearful of the prospect of sharing a cell with her. In my opinion, they ought not to be dismissed as bigots for those fears. Do you disagree?
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
its doable, it regularly fails in the case of particularly heinous nonces because of complicity.
the suggestion of an attatched unit is a worthwhile one. Realistically its not going to be handling vast numbers is it
Thora
Differently Ethical
Most women in women's prisons aren't there for violent offences though, are often very vulnerable and have female bodies. So I think the question of whether people with male bodies and violent convictions are housed in women's prisons is a legitimate one.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Well they usually would because you'd normally need your birth certificate amended (through a GRC) to go to the prison of your gender, which requires not only transitioning but a lot more besides. This case has really only come about because of that issue.
Whether, as some rad fems I read last night were suggesting, this would now set a precedent for that to change I don't know.
Last edited:
Similar threads
