>

I didn't say anything that was inconsistent you asked me in reference to my question:
​

Do you think a man should just be able to say he's a woman and participate in women's sports too?

​
And I answered yes that is the way it SHOULD be if things were consistent. 
It also doesn't seem fair to put someone who abused a kid in a jail with a murderers but it happens. The safety issue is not a one of gender but rather jail security.
/u/VeryCleverUsername4 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >



Why do you think we house male and female inmates separately?


If we allow self-id to change prisons, what exactly is stopping every male from choosing to move to a female prison? >


Why do you think we house male and female inmates separately?

Because prisons have been around for a very long time and that's just the way it's been.

If we allow self-id to change prisons, what exactly is stopping every male from choosing to move to a female prison?

Because not every male is just going to decide to be a woman >


Because prisons have been around for a very long time and that's just the way it's been.

It's also because the type who go to prisons do not follow the rules well. If prisons were co-ed, rape would increase and female prisoners would get pregnant, some against their will. Then taxpayers would also get to pay for either abortions or babies. Prisons are chronically understaffed and it's impossible to prevent all sexual assaults. But housing males with females is a recipe for disaster.

Because not every male is just going to decide to be a woman

But you agree some will? Some men who just want to move to the women's prison for nefarious reasons will do so. And women will suffer for it.
Like it or not, males commit sex crimes at a much higher rate than females. I would feel so sorry for any female inmates forced to be housed with males. You can't leave and you could possibly be raped and impregnated. Vs with female only prisons, yes you can be raped but you can't be impregnated and statistically those rapes will occur less frequently due to only housing females. >


And women will suffer for it.

Do you care about trans women suffering from being around cis men in an enviroment where not enough is being done to protect anyone from rape? 
Say for example we had a policy that saved 11 trans women for every 10 cis women it hurt, would that be a net positive, or do you value the suffering of cis and trans women differently?

Like it or not, males commit sex crimes at a much higher rate than females. 

The fact two groups are different, doesn't mean any sub groups of those two will be different in the same way. 
Do you have reason to believe that the same things that are true for males overall must also be true for trans women? >


Do you care about trans women suffering from being around cis men in an enviroment where not enough is being done to protect anyone from rape? 

I think there's a middle ground here that you're not seeing. I'm saying: pure self-id for prisons is bad. Not: Trans women should be housed with cis men.


Middle ground 1: Trans women can be housed in a separate wing in male OR female prisons. Only trans women would be in these wings. There would be a few wings throughout some prisons in each state so that there would never just be ONE trans women in isolation there.


Middle ground 2: There could be gatekeeping and not just relying on self-id- no deciding you're a woman when you've just been arrested or convicted of a crime. Those who want to change their gender marker would need to go through some kind of process to be able to do so. Not my expertise to say what exactly. But something that prevents Mr. Joe Rapist from deciding he wants to transfer to the women's prison because he wants a show and to sexually harass women all day.


And as for "amount of hurt," letting males just freely transfer to female prisons would be the worst outcome no matter what. >

The difficulty I'd have here is that you'd be justifying the exclusion of transwomen from women's spaces on the grounds they pose a risk to cis women that statistically they don't at any greater rate than cis women. >

Statistically if we were talking about the general population maybe. But with no gatekeeping we're also talking about convicted felon men just wanting to sexually assault and/or harass women or ones who just don't want to go to the men's prison.
I think some gatekeeping in this situation is required. Not that trans women should never be housed with cis women.
My whole problem with this is self ID for any male who wants to be housed with females. >

Sexual predators should be housed away from other inmates full stop. That's what should have happened in this case and the prison dropped the ball there. >

I think that's an acceptable compromise. !delta
based on the comments this is what ultimately happened. She was placed in a women prison away from gen pop >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SkullBearer5 (4∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


But what makes someone trans or not trans because as far as I am aware self identification alone is what makes it so.

I don't think this is actually quite right. I think what you're referring to is that in general, someone's self ID should be good enough for you. In day to day life, trans folks don't owe you any kind of rigorous evidence. But like, in principle, there is an underlying phenomenon there that is either present or not, and the truth of this may or may not align with someone's self ID. But for most cases, we have neither the means nor the motivation to try to test anything to affirm that a given person is trans. So we just listen to them and treat them the way they want to be treated. But that's not the same thing as their trans-ness actually being entirely a self-ID'd concept.
But in other cases, it seems reasonable to at least put some kind of criteria to prevent bad actors. In sports, there's usually testosterone / hormone requirements, so a trans woman needs to have advanced to a certain stage of her transition for eligibility. I think it makes sense for prisons to have some similar affordance, even if it's just some evidence of prior social transition.
That said, what a lot of your points are getting at is that prison conditions are quite bad and dangerous across the board, and these are major problems but are somewhat independent of trans issues. >

But what should that affordance be? because in sports that level of test/hormone isn't to dicated that the person is or isn't their gender but in the effort to create a fair competition.
And yes you'd be correct in regards to your last paragraph >

I think the affordance could just be basically any prior documentation that the person was trans or at least thinking they might be trans. Or possibly an independent psychological assessment. I dunno, maybe testosterone type tests would make sense, but that's not where I'd go first at least. But again, none of this should ever be something we should ask for in day to day life. But I think it's reasonable to expect some evidence that they're not just making it up on the spot. >

As long as they're willing to do the penis removal surgery and get castrated, I agree with you. Transwomen should be sent to women's only prisons. >

But penis or not doesn't dictate gender so that wouldn't make sense >

Oh. I should have added. Some people are worried that transwomen who haven't removed their penis will go into women's only prisons, and rape and impregnate the women there. Making sure they did the penis removal surgery and got castrated removes that concern entirely. 
It's not about gender, it's about safety. >

If your concern is safety, this is why we pay taxes for corrections departments, to oversee prisoners and maintain safety and order, not sterilize people unwilling to be emasculated. It’s an application process. Sometimes I wonder why we even pay cops and throw them parades yet still hoard weapons and cut off penises if we’re so fearful they can’t do their jobs whatsoever, which as seen at Parkland and Uvalde and Rikers Island, is a reasonable question to ask. >

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to have their penis chopped off and/or be forcefully castrated I am only suggesting that males who voluntarily have their penis cut off and get castrated can go to women's only prisons. >

Why not suggest funding corrections departments and sheriffs offices properly with oversight to ensure they’re doing the jobs you’re paying them to do: review applications for transfers, evaluate prisoner risk, and enforce order. Instead of taking it to the next broken level, you could insist that a functioning prison will enforce safety and order regardless of administrative tasks. Women work in men’s units, men in women’s, we don’t demand an exchange for dicks but that capable officers do their only job: run the prison with minimal disruption to inmate order and prevent violence and escape so their sentences are properly served. >

Because I already support those things. Like you  I definitely want more money to go to law enforcement. But, in the interim, I also support this thing. Why does it have to be one of the other? >

I don’t want more money to go to law enforcement. I want the prison staff to do their jobs, which are to follow corrections department instructions and provide a safe and secure environment while keeping prisoners imprisoned. Your suggestion doesn’t offer anything of value to this proposition: a prison is intended to hold prisoners and release them as functional members of society upon sentencing, not to make a Byzantine system for transfers as a social experiment. They have a job they do routinely, but you’ve added a strange unrelated demand that is unrelated to the profession of corrections or the prison system. >

Then I'm very confused by your choice of words. You said, why not suggest funding sheriffs offices, did you not? 
But look, you still don't realize that some people are concerned about the decades long problem of rape in prison and don't want to make changes that will make it worse. It's all well and good for a person on the internet to claim they can 100% reduce rape in prisons with their plan they came up that... does or does not mean paying law enforcement more money. But, I support multiple proposals, each of which will reduce rape in prisons, which again, is a desirable outcome. >

Men and women commingle in prisons everyday. Inmates, civilians and officers. What’s missing in the picture you’ve painted is it’s like the army: regimented and administrative. Women and men trans already serve in each others’ facilities in 2023. There is a process to evaluate safety risk, but safety is secondary to order. Demanding unwanted surgery for an approved application has Nazi vibes because it discounts prisoner rights, human rights, rights they maintain after conviction like the right to consent to surgery, to petition their warden and the courts for accommodations, to be safe from harm by others. 
Prisoner rape is indeed a terrible problem, but that’s why president bush signed the 2003 rape elimination act to regulate prison rape prevention and reporting. Part of that is reasonable accommodations for inmates to preserve order, different than implement hardship like segregation or penalties. 
Disability protections also must be enforced by law in prisons: that means we build handicap cells and showers because we know they can’t change their situation but are required to be in prison regardless. That process is the same as this paperwork: they apply for accommodations with the warden, doctors, counselors, and courts if needed. We don’t demand a felon in a wheelchair to undergo surgery to approve the handicap paperwork, and we expect prison staff to properly evaluate and implement rules like disability and safety in all decisions. 
This doesn’t require extra money: it requires more procedures and oversight to accomplish our objectives, which could be commingling men and women inmates or commingling handicapped inmates and able inmates, or commingling races and protected custody inmates. We expect the officers and professionals to perform the tasks assigned of them, in part because we implemented a voluntary system to petition wardens and courts for accommodations like paperwork. 
We don’t demand unrelated surgery if the inmate is expressing a legal right to expression and safety, because that’s immoral and unethical and in the past like psychiatric and medical punishment deemed unconstitutional and wrong. I don’t see why your addition actually adds anything to the practice of corrections apart from a comical jibe at the idea men and women shouldn’t be trusted under supervision to commingle, despite it being extremely common in all sorts of facilities and required by law in every state of the union. >

I agree with trans women in women's prisons, if we're not just going to abolish prisons. One thing I think it would be worth clarifying is whether you'd want the same policy to push trans men into prisons with cis men and if so at what point this would happen. >

Yes. If someone ids as a transman they would go to a men's prison at the time they are charge and sentenced >

I'd worry that this forces some trans men into the closet for their own saftey. 
Just as an example, if someone identifies as a man and uses he/him pronouns, but 'looks like a woman' to most people and hasn't transitioned medically at all. Then I'd say putting him in a prison surrounded by cis men, puts him in danger to an extent that putting a few trans women into a prison with cis women doesn't put either the cis or trans women in danger. >

So something like this is done in many mental hospitals with trans patients. Many trans people are put in private rooms. Whether this is in the correct wing for their self identified gender depends on how good the hospital is and available rooms. Sometimes a trans male will be put in a private room in the female wing.
If the hospital was not discriminatory, this would be for his safety rather than for the women's. He is him and will be referred to as such, but he just stays in a different wing for his safety.
I'm not saying this still isn't an issue. There's a bigger problem here but if we're talking strictly this issue, maybe something like this could work.
I'm non binary, assigned female at birth, and present mainly androgynous. I would feel very unsafe in a men's prison though. I would go to the women's, just ask that they refer to me correctly and mark my gender is all documents correctly. >

So to be clear, you think that a transwoman should go to a women's prison, meaning a man who says he is a woman, regardless of whether or not he's lying, should be able to go to a prison for women?
Do you think a man should just be able to say he's a woman and participate in women's sports too? >

If we are to stay true and promote consistency regarding the rights and treatment of trans people then yes to both questions >

That's not consistent. That's not how sports works. Athletes generally have to show that they're transitioning or have transitioned. A male college athlete can't just decide to compete with women by claiming to be female. There is a process.
So if you want consistency, you would want some sort of indication that the convict is transitioning, likely either surgery or hormone therapy. >

You asked me what I think should happen not what currently is happening. But also sports measure the gender to create a fairer competition. Prison is for punishment/reform. You'll have 5ft 100lb guys with 6'5ft 300lb because it doesn't matter when you're there to serve time for a crime >

You said you wanted consistency but then described something that was not consistent.
As for competition, yes, there's not that kind of competition in prison, but putting a convicted male rapist in a cell with a woman doesn't seem fair, even if he says he's a woman now.