And on top of all of that, if you end up reverting to a female gender identity, there's the entire collapse of your understanding of yourself to deal with. While detransitioning is different from transitioning, they share the feature of reckoning with the nature of your life and identity. What's your new name? Who are you after all this? What does it mean to be yourself, now? To a large extent, you have to find your own way out of the wilderness.

The thing is, all that was true even before the surgery. And if things like this don't leave you feeling sad, you're not paying attention.

I'll admit I know very little about the subject, but after the costumes, drugs, and surgical mutilation, how much about the person really changed? Did someone really go from XX to XY, or XY to XX?

For someone who thinks about herself a great deal, she makes remarkably poor choices.

In a bleak way, it was fascinating - I had discovered a whole new range of bad feelings I had never felt before.

I don't even know what to say about that. I've never found bad feelings "fascinating," but I bet she does all the time.

When the pain and discontent reside inside your head, it doesn’t matter how many body parts get cut away (or added). The source of the discomfort will always be there and will continue to generate misery.

Meanwhile the Wi Spa guy turned out to be a registered sex offender who absolutely was there to flash people.

Meanwhile the Wi Spa guy turned out to be a registered sex offender who absolutely was there to flash people. ~ NicoleK at September 3, 2021 12:08 PM

Haven't you heard, NicoleK? That can't happen and any stories about that happening are false. Anyone saying that could happen and advocating for guardrails around the transgender issue is transphobic.

Of course! Just like women getting raped and/or impregnated by their cellmate is normal because that is totes female interaction.

Careful NicoleK. We may have to censor you to protect your free speech.

"Anyone saying that could happen and advocating for guardrails around the transgender issue is transphobic."

Hey... if folks advocating for guardrails to prevent school shootings can be accused of being against the second amendment then I would say this is perfectly fair.

If children do not need "guardrails" in place to prevent being murdered then you are not in a good position to argue for "guardrails" for pretty much anything.

The point being, this entire "guardrail" argument is empty until you are ready and willing to apply it across the board... otherwise it is just a meaningless rhetorical device.

You're assuming that the people who want nude/intimate space guardrails and gun control guardrails have no overlap. But they do.

If children do not need "guardrails" in place to prevent being murdered then you are not in a good position to argue for "guardrails" for pretty much anything. ~ Artemis at September 4, 2021 9:29 AM

Carrying guns on school grounds is currently illegal in most states; with a few exceptions - e.g., law enforcement, permitted school employees, and concealed carry holders - but those exceptions vary by state. Shooting people with guns is illegal in all states with only a few exceptions, namely self-defense or defense of others, even for police officers.

In addition, government is specifically forbidden by the Constitution from unduly infringing upon individual citizens' rights to bear arms. There is nothing in the Constitution about individual citizens' rights to use the locker room of their chosen gender; nor anything restricting the government from infringing on that, if it even exists. Legally, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Thus, anyone not advocating for gun control is still in a good position to argue for guardrails in locker rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms, etc.

On the other hand, someone arguing that laws are an insufficient guardrail to protect children in schools is not really in a position to argue that laws limiting access to locker rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms, etc. are oppressively burdensome.

NicoleK,

I am not actually assuming that at all.

What I am saying is that Conan specifically does not fall into both camps on the basis of conversations we have had on both topics and as a result his rhetoric is not convincing because it lacks philosophical consistency.

That being said, if someone supported robust guardrails for the following items and in addition also wanted guardrails to address their concerns about trans folks in prison settings then and only then would I call their position philosophically consistent:

1 - Robust guardrails regarding gun control that impacts school shootings.

2 - Robust guardrails regarding prison sexual assault and other violence impacting people in men's prisons.

3 - Robust guardrails regarding prison sexual assault and other violence impacting people in women's prisons... particularly that which is perpetrated by prison guards (both male and female).

The fundamental point is that it is not rational to focus so much attention on a small minority population while completely ignoring and excusing away these far more prominent issues.

If someone thinks there is an overwhelming risk of trans folks abusing women in prisons while also turning a blind eye to women being raped by male prison guards... then it is very difficult to imagine how their belief isn't irrational and bigoted.

If such folks didn't want trans folks in women's prisons and *also* only wanted female prison guards, then we might be a smidge closer to philosophical consistency... but they fully understand that we shouldn't simply presume that male prison guards are going to rape and assault women in prison... similarly we shouldn't make such presumptions about trans folks.

Either we presume all people with a penis are potential rapists of women in prison or we don't.

To only presume such things about trans folks is the fundamental philosophical problem here.

Not to mention many people do not seem all that concerned about the sexual violence that trans folks will suffer in male prisons at the hands of the other inmates... that can have a blind eye turned to it as well it seems.

All I'm looking for here is philosophical consistency. Unfortunately when it comes to this subject that is a very rare thing to find.

Conan Says:

"Carrying guns on school grounds is currently illegal in most states; with a few exceptions..."

Raping people in prison is also illegal.

You are arguing for a barrier above and beyond legality here.

You are presuming guilt before a crime has been committed that necessitates action in advance of any crime.

It would be no different than prohibiting white folks from purchasing guns because they are implicated in most mass shootings.

Conan Says:

"There is nothing in the Constitution about individual citizens' rights to use the locker room of their chosen gender; nor anything restricting the government from infringing on that, if it even exists. Legally, you're comparing apples and oranges."

There was a time in the not too recent past that folks made very similar arguments with regard to segregating folks on the basis of the color of their skin into different bathrooms... different drinking fountains... different public swimming pools, etc...

Those arguments of course are now considered to be abhorrent and racist.

You are on the wrong side of history on this one Conan.

You are on the wrong side of history on this one Conan. ~ Artemis at September 4, 2021 2:22 PM

The argument here Artie is not about skin color or race. It's about "woke" nonsense creating a fear of common sense that allows men who lie and say they're women into women's private spaces, and the damage that can cause when those men turn out to be perverts. It is about the need to protect women from such men; or at least not turn a blind eye when they stalk their victims.

The idiotic "woke" fear of being labelled transphobic would have women's locker rooms open to all who simply claim to be women and would have society stand idly by, facilitating sexual assault.

You are equating safety considerations with racism because your argument against those safety concerns is specious. If it weren't you wouldn't have gone full Godwin in the first post.

Let's play a game you like to play, the gotcha question. How do you propose allowing trans women into locker rooms and other private spaces for women, but still protecting those spaces from perverts lying and scheming to get in and commit mayhem?

Either we presume all people with a penis are potential rapists of women in prison or we don't. ~ Artemis at September 4, 2021 2:15 PM

No one is arguing that "all people with a penis are potential rapists." Anything but is being argued here.

The argument is not about potential rapists getting into women's private spaces, but actual rapists getting into them - simply by claiming to be trans-women.

A simple claim should not be sufficient to let a biological male enter women's spaces. Yet, in too many cases, it is.

That's the argument I've been making, Artie, not that strawman you made up to argue against.

Now, what in addition to that claim should be sufficient is a matter for public debate, and should be debated. Simply yelling "transphobic" or "racist" at anyone who disagrees with you is nonsense and does nothing to advance the cause.

Conan Says:

"The argument is not about potential rapists getting into women's private spaces, but actual rapists getting into them - simply by claiming to be trans-women."

Exactly how have you concluded that these folks are "actual rapists" in advance?

Look, if the only think you are asking for is that folks who have been convicted of raping women and are currently in prison for that offense not being transferred to a prison predominantly comprised of women... then I have no issue with this.

On the other hand... if you want to prohibit a trans person who has been found guilty of a non-violent drug offense of being transferred into a women's prison... then you have gone off the rails because you are presuming guilt without evidence.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Because female inmates are typically far less violent than male ones [emphasis mine], women’s prisons like Chowchilla don’t separate inmates based on the severity of their crimes. “We’re all mixed together,” Ms. Ichikawa said. “The people who’ve murdered their children are in the same room as the people who’ve stolen boxers from Walmart.”

AND

According to the women I spoke to, the female guards at Chowchilla are as upset as the inmates by the law, recognizing that men are far more violent [emphasis mine]. The Corrections Department confirmed that unlike some men’s prisons, Chowchilla—California’s highest-security women’s prison—doesn’t have “gun coverage,” meaning officers overseeing the general population are armed only with batons and pepper spray. “They could get a gun, but they would have to go all the way to the front,” Ms. Johnson said.

And, if it's just a matter of gender identity, why isn't the pipeline flowing the other way as well?

She also confirmed that although there are many female prisoners in California’s women’s prisons who identify as men, only seven have requested transfer to the men’s prison. Why so few? I asked Ms. Ichikawa, who answered: “They would get killed.” [emphasis mine]

According to the article, California law allows transgender-identified male state prison inmates to transfer into women’s prisons based on "individual preference"—no hormones, surgery or time spent living as the opposite sex required.

As a result, ...many of the men who are transferring there aren’t even on hormonal medication. "They’re getting a full erection," she said. "So you’re locked in this room, 24/7, with a man and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Men and women are different, Artie. This is not about a presumption of innocence or guilt beforehand. It's about biology, something you "woke" Lefties like to pretend is merely a cultural construct.

Your concern about presuming guilt beforehand is valid, but we're not talking about locking up every man as a potential rapist. We're talking about people who have been incarcerated for crimes being allowed to transfer within the prison system and change their environment with a mere claim of being transgendered. Once in a women's prison, you evince a belief that these folks for whom obedience to the law and compliance with social mores has not been in evidence will magically behave.

You still don't get it - deliberately or not, I don't care. It's not the transfer of men claiming to be women that is the issue. It's that the transfer is being allowed with a mere claim having no evidence or history to back it up and no precautions taken afterward. That such claims could be nothing more than opportunism to moderate a sentence or gain access to a target-rich environment is ignored by "woke" Lefties like you, Artie, in your zeal to mock anyone who disagrees with you.

So, the question asked earlier remains, what do you propose in place of a blanket and no-questions-asked transfer policy?

Conan,

You haven't established your case for why any specific individual needs to be treated differently.

Your entire argument hinges upon the proposition that men by virtue of their biology are in some sense inherently violent.

If you can demonstrate that a particular person is violent then you have an argument... if your entire position is predicated upon the notion that men in general are too dangerous to have anywhere near women then you are discriminating by making decisions based on a group you associate someone with as opposed the individual at hand.

I think it is reasonable to sequester folks found guilty of sexual violence against a particular group from that group in prison. For example, if someone is guilty of raping men, maybe it isn't a good idea to keep them in a cell with another man who might be a victim.

The same goes for protecting women.

Absent evidence of the violence of a specific individual with a particular group as a target all you are engaging in is discrimination on the basis of some physical feature.

"As a result, ...many of the men who are transferring there aren’t even on hormonal medication. "They’re getting a full erection," she said. "So you’re locked in this room, 24/7, with a man and there’s nothing you can do about it."

Since when does the capability of getting a full erection make someone a rapist?

"We're talking about people who have been incarcerated for crimes being allowed to transfer within the prison system and change their environment with a mere claim of being transgendered."

That isn't true... the request goes before a review board Conan. Part of that review could involve looking into that persons history for evidence of violence toward women (i.e., domestic violence, sexual assault, etc...)

Absent any such findings there is no reason to prevent a specific individual from being transferred.

Resting your argument on some claim that men are inherently dangerous to women by virtue of their biology would put you in the same philosophical category as radical feminism.

"Lefties like you, Artie, in your zeal to mock anyone who disagrees with you."

Nonsense Conan... if I was as "lefty" as you say I am I would be all over the notion that men are inherently dangerous and unfit to be around women... radical feminist thought isn't a right wing ideology.

The fundamental problem for you in this discussion is that I am actually in the center, I am a moderate.

You on the other hand are so very far to the right that you've suddenly aligned with the extreme left... this aligns well with the horseshoe theory of politics.

The extreme left and the extreme right actually agree on their nonsense... one just comes at it from a traditionalist perspective while the other comes at it from an isolationist perspective.

Neither belief is justified by facts or evidence.

Again, Artie, you're misreading the argument and, in the process, creating a strawman argument against which you're arguing. At this point, I think you're doing it intentionally.

I'm not arguing trans-women should not be housed in women's prisons. I'm arguing that moving male inmates who have done nothing more than claim to be trans-women into women's prisons is dangerous. There should be some sort of safeguard or procedure that ensures the claimants are actual trans-women - hormone treatment, surgery, a history of being trans-gendered, etc. - that a simple claim by itself, one made only after incarceration, is an insufficient safeguard that endangers female inmates and, as the article points out, corrections officers.

Such a lax process is susceptible to fraudsters and predators making such claims to gain access to victims or ease their own prison sentences by getting transferred to a looser-security facility.

The WSJ article cited gave cases in which such transfers are dangerous or outright stupid, including one in which a serial killer of women was transferred to a women's prison simply because he claimed to be transgendered.

My position is philosophically consistent with the one I've made about admitting into women's private spaces men who have done nothing more than claim to be trans-women. In athletics, there is the additional consideration that a post-puberty trans-woman has benefitted from the physical development of male puberty, even if currently on hormone blockers.

This sort of sounds like my friend from before I moved (still facebook friends).

He had surgery to become a woman and after ~6 month painful healing period was liking the transition. Then after about another 6 months she realized the weird feeling was really that she is a spirit that space aliens had put in a human body...she was trying to figure what her mission was.

I remember a couple of her friends who went the other way changed back before having surgeries. Or one I clearly remembered was a man at work and a woman otherwise. I did notice that in her friend group, all those that changed to women stayed that way and all that changed to men decided to switch back.

The question of trans men in women's prison is not just about rape. You have physical males (ie, not had surgery) who claim to be female in a prison cell with a woman and in the showers with the women. The women have a right to be upset and scared. Imagine your wife or daughter was in prison for something and had to share a cell with a XY person--would you be ok with that? How about a physically male person sharing locker rooms with your girl children at the YMCA? Ok with that? If we insist women must be ok with persons with a penis in their locker rooms, women's shelters, etc., then what is the limiting principle? Why do we require anyone to wear clothes?

As to the original post: to me as a male and to most men, the psychology of women is and will ever remain a mystery. Freud famously said "what do women want?" How then can a XY person be so sure they are really a woman? How did they get the insight into what it is like to be a woman? I maintain that they do NOT in fact know what it is like to be female--it is a fantasy. As such it is a caricature of being female. No surgery will give the feeling of being female, even female hormones.

"Resting your argument on some claim that men are inherently dangerous to women by virtue of their biology would put you in the same philosophical category as radical feminism." - Artemis

More to the point, I actually think men are inherently more dangerous. Bigger, stronger, more likely to resort to violence. Testosterone is a powerful drug. We're speaking statistically here, of course.

None of that results in the conclusion you reached, that that would make men "unfit to be around women."

Life is not about achieving perfect safety and comfort. Everything has risks. To what extremes we are willing to go to mitigate those risks, and what are we willing to trade off to achieve those mitigations, is always the issue.

Treating XY criminals as unworthy of prima facie belief that they are transgendered and ineligible for mixing with XX inmates seems a rather minimal "guardrail" to take. Particularly if they haven't gotten the surgery. It inconveniences very few people, and those that it does inconvenience are arguably unworthy of any accomodations.

Your gun control analogy and using race and sex to discriminate is clearly just meant to throw gasoline on the fire. Offered in bad faith, it is just too silly and stupid to discuss further.

"None of that results in the conclusion you reached, that that would make men "unfit to be around women."

Life is not about achieving perfect safety and comfort. Everything has risks." ~Ruralcounsel

Also most of us aren't criminals. Just by being incarcerated you've significantly separated yourself from the general population (both statistically and physically). It shouldn't be shocking that criminals commit crimes.

It's not even just rape. Consensual sex between male and female inmates is extra undesirable because of the pregnancy risk.