Law Don't let your kids chemically transition

They can’t be housed separately probably because that would be seen as discriminatory. Also because where would they be housed? Prisons are already overcrowded like 15 percent over max capacity here. it seems they want to protect these trans people from violence while also only transferring appropriate people. I think it’s a lot like the bathroom thing. Your knee jerk reaction is that it’s scary and will lead to bad outcomes. In reality, data doesn’t show widespread rape of women by biological men feigning trans.

If there's already overcrowding, it really shouldn't cost more (or not much more) to house them separately. We aren't adding more people to the system, we're just moving some. And whether it's "widespread rape" or not, the goal should be to make it work best. Not just to avoid "widespread rape". Trans women are rape targets in men's prisons. But women who were traumatized by men on the outside are freaking out about moving biological males in with them. The logical solution is to house trans women separately. You also go a long way in eliminating scammers who try to transfer to gain access to biological women.

IDK about "discriminatory"...it's just the best solution out of what we have. None are perfect.
 
But women who were traumatized by men on the outside are freaking out about moving biological males in with them.

I've heard it's been tolerated well overall by the female inmates. I don't have any stats on that.

IDK about "discriminatory"...it's just the best solution out of what we have. None are perfect.
There are state laws here in California prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Here is a faq page about a bill passed last year regarding the housing of prisoners, if you're interested.
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/prea/sb-132-faqs/
 
Men do not get housed with females "based only on their request . . . the inmate's word determines what happens." This is just more dumb misinformation. There's a CDCR chief psychiatrist who seeks me out almost weekly. I can ask how many approved transfer requests they've granted. I guarantee it's tiny, probably less than 5%. It's obviously not based only on the inmate's preference. There's a lengthy evaluation process involving many people.

There's a rape allegations against one ... ok? What's the significance? Is it rare for rape to happen in prison? Do you know transgender inmates housed with men are much more likely to be victims of rape than anyone else? A 2007 study by CDCR found 59% of transgender women in their prisons experienced sexual abuse, a rate thirteen times higher than the general prison population.

I was aware of that.

And that is another reason why they should be housed separately from other inmates.
 
Ah you’re the kind of man who uses the terms “receipts”.

That kind of explains a lot.
Know your Sherdog slang, brosef.

But what does it explain, precisely?
 
I'm going to explain this one last time.

The post I made was to illustrate how through force-teaming TRA's use the struggle of other groups to advance their own.

The information I used comes from the Transgender Law Centres Lake Research Partners which is an actual handbook for TRA's.

This relates to the my position that intersectionality is poison to black aspiration. This potion that I have been consistent on.

An example of this poisonous advocacy would be every time @Loiosh opens mouth about black people. But here's another example from the Transgender thread:




Now here's @Bald1 with an excellent response to that garbage:



-You admitted you didn't know what "TRA's" were when I first unsuccessfully tried to clarify my post. I had to tell you what the acronyms meant.

-You admitted you didn't know what the terms "force-teaming" meant when I explained my motive for making the post. I had to tell you what the term meant.

-You admitted you weren't clear on the term "intersectionality". Again I had tell you what the the word meant.

Those three elements form the basis of my argument and are elements which you admit to being entirely ignorant on...yet are somehow convinced of some sort of evil intent on my part.

I consider trans people to be the same as any other person in that they get the same amount of respect any other human in the world gets. They are not inherently bad or good, and any judgement as to their character and actions must be made on a case by case basis instead of collectively. This isn't just a mere mindset but rather a spiritual imperative for me, that while not perfect, it informs my conduct when going forth by day.

Trans rights as a movement is essentially a religion. It has it's own commandments and methods of excommunication. It has heresies and heretics, eternal antagonists, it requires purity tests and constant affirmation of it's social and moral primacy, it has it's star chambers, demands ideology conformity and brooks no dissent or deviation from their belief system that requires an individual to suspend their belief in objective reality.

Religion is fair game for criticism. I criticize mine all the time.
We alive in a world where Christians are expected to be silent in the face of things like piss Christ or when bigoted hypocrites like @Loiosh start with the vampire jokes.

This means I'm perfectly within my right to give this religion of AGP Men and dysphoric women the same amount of "respect" that mine gets here. That excerpt of the handbook I posted through the link is for what are essentially ideological missionaries. Missionaries who have threatened, harassed, defamed, deplatformed and slandered women like Julie Bindle. J.K Rowling, Buck Angel, Lindsay Shepard, Kiera Bell, Maya Forstater, Gina Carano...now i know the common default setting would be to figure out which ones are right wing and which ones are leftwing before you decide on the validity of their opinions, but the commonality of that these women share is tha they are women. Women who have been persecuted by this religion you are so strenuously whiteknighting.

Ok, I hope that explains everything because I'm absolutely done explaining my post to you. If you don't understand what I was trying to say, then you never will.

Hopefully you use this same relentless single-minded energy to tone-police leftists posters who actually do what you seem to be accusing me of. However that may require me to suspend my belief in objective reality.

I mean, one can only pray...
There's a lot to dissect here and just after drunk o'clock is not the time for that but you're gonna have to take my word when I say I am only seeing this post just now for the first time. But for the record, if you feel anything I ever post on Sherdog is strenuous, you know very little about me or how my brain works, and more's the pity.
 
I'd guess the percentage of priests molesting kids is also quite small. Should we use your metric then there's nothing to get outraged about. And that doesn't cut it, especially when the risks are entirely avoidable.
Do you really need me to point out the false equivalency here? Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Church's practice of repeatedly reassigning accused priests to other parishes with no other action being taken against them, are you?
 
Do you really need me to point out the false equivalency here? Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Church's practice of repeatedly reassigning accused priests to other parishes with no other action being taken against them, are you?
You seem to be ignoring my earlier point that we're entirely in control whether or not intact men are allowed into women's spaces. The comparison you're focused on is incomplete and only a part of the case I was making.
 
I've heard it's been tolerated well overall by the female inmates. I don't have any stats on that.


There are state laws here in California prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Here is a faq page about a bill passed last year regarding the housing of prisoners, if you're interested.
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/prea/sb-132-faqs/

I'm sure some female inmates are fine with it, many others not. Which is what the LA Times article seems to echo.

Cali law is messed up if it means that a biological female should be forced to bunk and shower with a trans woman who still has a penis. Maybe that sounds crude but there's no eloquent way to put it.
 

This is what liberals want.

charlie-murphy.gif
 
I'm sure some female inmates are fine with it, many others not. Which is what the LA Times article seems to echo.

Cali law is messed up if it means that a biological female should be forced to bunk and shower with a trans woman who still has a penis. Maybe that sounds crude but there's no eloquent way to put it.
Probably better than a trans woman with tits being forced to bunk and shower with men.
 
Back
Top