Female prison inmate pregnant

Did you watch the experiment scientists did with monkeys? They put dolls and trucks in a monkey enclosure. Despite both sexes examining both kinds of toy, the female monkeys were way more interested in the dolls and the males were way more interested in turning the wheels on the truck, round and round… lol, that sounded (unintentionally) like a popular nursery toon.

 

Among human beings also, I don't doubt that more men than women are interested in stereotypically male things like trucks, fast cars, and so on, and more women than men are interested in stereotypically female things like dolls, babies, and such like. But the point is that interest in stereotypically male things (for example) doesn't actually make an individual somehow "more male" than he or she would otherwise be. If the individual is a female, it merely makes the individual less stereotypically female and (if you wish) more stereotypically male than otherwise. Stereotypes are often derived from experience by over-generalization (e.g., boys like trucks, girls like dolls), but the over-generalizations can't be relied on to describe any individual accurately.

 

I can agree with that

 

No offspring from trans men + trans women housed together?

The goods may be odd, but the odds are good.

 

Maybe I should rephrase that… Transwomen deserve their own category, as do Transmen, just as we have separate prisons for Men and Women.

 

Thank you for the clarification, but it seems to me that the important point is not exactly whether a female prison inmate got pregnant; it's whether biological males should be permitted to invade situations reserved for women by claiming that they themselves, penises and all, are women. Have you anything to say on that point?

 

I would like to know how you ascertain (if you do) that a person with a penis is a woman (rather than a man with qualities deemed to be feminine), without resorting to unverified self-declaration.

 

Did they stop making prisoners undress for inspection prior to admission?

Should be elementary to distinguish to which side of the reproduction role a person would potentially belong by simple inspection.

 

I didn't ask who ascertains it, to which the answer might be "a trained psychologist." I asked how you ascertain it. The answer would involve an explanation of the standards applied to determine whether a person with a penis is really a woman rather than a man with qualities deemed feminine.

It might appear from your statements that whether a person is or is not a woman depends entirely on what the person sincerely believes and acts in accordance with. I don't doubt that a trained psychologist could ascertain that. Presumably a trained psychologist could also ascertain whether a person sincerely believes he's Napoleon Bonaparte and acts in accordance with that belief. There might be plenty of evidence in support of the belief: the person's looks, clothing, masterful command of the French language, formulation of a plan to conquer the world, and so on. But these facts would not add up to proof that the person is, in reality, Napoleon Bonaparte.

I gather that it's supposed to be different if one believes one is a woman rather than Napoleon. What I don't gather is why it's supposed to be different. Any light you can shed on this question would be appreciated.

 

To the extent that being transgender may be a biological matter, it's difficult to see how the biological condition could be accurately revealed in psychological interviews rather than physical tests. To the extent that the psychological interviews are indeed relevant . . . the problems with failing to reveal the standards to be applied, on the supposition that more people would fake conformity to the standards if you did, appear to be these. (1) An intelligent bullshit artist could easily infer what the standards are by being interviewed, and could then communicate them to others. (You may wish to watch for the appearance of literature and videos on "How to Be a Trans Woman," designed for bullshit artists who wish to try to outwit psychologists.) (2) More importantly, by failing to say what the standards are, you leave the public entirely in the dark about whether you have any actual ability to discern that a person who appears to be a man is, in reality, a woman. The public is thus left with a choice between (1) having faith in what psychologists say, even if it's contrary to observable fact, or else (2) disbelieving what the psychologists say.

A psychologist knows before the interview starts that the interviewee isn't Napoleon, but it might equally well be thought that the psychologist can know up front that a person with a penis isn't a woman. If that isn't true, it's necessary to provide some explanation of why it isn't true, even at the risk of assisting fakers.

But I don't mean to undervalue the importance of psychology and biology in weeding out fakers. I would imagine that the number of biological males in women's prisons, women's sports teams, women's restrooms, and other women's situations would be greatly reduced if they were required to pass psychological and biological tests.

 

A person can be mentally deranged to various degrees, but it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If a person thinks he or she is a bird, and "identifies" as such, that won't allow them to fly.

Back to the point. I certainly can guarantee that I can tell by physical inspection which genitalia can be coupled to potentially create another person. And guess what, that condition is irrelevant to what neural activity is occurring between the ears of the connected head.

Also irrelevant to the discussion, but may be worth learning as an aside, a DNA analysis can prove whether a body is a male or female, independent of any mutilations.

 

No, Transwomen are Transwomen. Women are Women. Why are some Trans so Transphobic that they refuse to claim who/what they are? It’s deceptive at best and Misogynistic/Transphobic at worst.

 

Think about the tactics, though... If the tests can be made costly enough then perhaps they think they would be circumvented. At this point we might as well just change to coed prisons and make no attempt to separate the two genders!

Or just do away with prisons, tell the convicted to take their medicine daily, hope for the best, and let the population wane until we're taken over by a society unafraid to be men and women.

But these arguments of who's really what are all a big smoke screen. The discussion is about inmates impregnating each other. That's sperm to egg. We don't need psychologists or MRIs or anything more than a look-see to send cock and balls one way, pussy the other way. It's irrelevant to the matter under consideration, reproduction, what people believe they are, what they were born as, or whether they like dogs and ponies.