Female prison inmate pregnant

Thank you. I've downloaded it and I'll read it at an early opportunity.

 

^ This should be entertaining...

 

Each inmate, “state & federal prison” is interviewed by correction staff, medical, and OMH staff to determine what the new inmate needs, various programs, security problems, health, mental health problems, the amount of time the inmate is interviewed is minimal.

Because a inmate identifies as or looks and act’s like a man or woman, does not mean that they will be housed in a prison with the gender they identify with, to put it bluntly, the prison systems do not care …..

If the inmate is a man that is in the process of getting a sex change, and still has a penis he is considered a man and will be housed in a male prison, regardless of what other modifications that have been made.

There is always a exception to the rule, male inmates have been housed with female inmates, from what I have been told the inmates genitalia is supposedly not developed/deformed.
The identity of the inmate is kept a secret or at least the attempt is made
“Note, there are no secrets in prison”

If a inmate is in danger from other inmates, P.C. “protective custody” is a option, the inmate makes a request for pc, the inmates record is reviewed and the inmate interviewed by corrections staff to determine if the inmate should be placed in pc for their own protection.

The request is not, automatic removal from the general inmate population.

Sometimes the physically and or mentally weak will become “friends” with stronger more dominant inmate or inmates as protection from the other predatory inmates in the prison.

Prison is not a pleasant place.

 

Sounds like there you have it from the horse's mouth, people.

 

I have lots of friends,

 

OK, I've read it. It basIcally addresses diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria, but it draws no distinction between a person's actual, objective gender identity and the person's subjective, reported gender identity. Therefore, it mentions nothing that might be evidence of objective rather than subjective gender identity, and it provides no support for the assertion that "trans women" are women, as distinct from the assertion that they believe and report themselves to be women. It appears that only ideology, not science, would demand agreement that "trans women" really are women.

Even leaving aside the question of delusion (e.g., a person might suffer from "Napoleonic dysphoria" because people failed to acknowledge him as really Napoleon), there's a big problem with relying on self-reporting to determine gender identity. This is that the self-reporting may be heavily influenced by reaction to cultural gender expectations, which themselves may be quite unrealistic. I remember reading about a case, arising decades ago before the growth in popularity of women's sports, in which a boy concluded that he must really be a girl because he didn't like sports. Had he recognized that real girls may like sports and real boys may not, his self-reported gender identity could well have been affected.

The bottom line is that an adequate alternate definition of what really constitutes a man or a woman, not dependent upon the possession of a penis or a vagina, does not appear to have been formulated.

 

[Duplicate post deleted]

 

What is the definition of "more feminine than masculine"? Is it defined in terms of conventional gender expectations, or in terms of something more realistic than conventional gender expectations--and, if so, what?

The identification of a person as male or female is made at birth, not by examining adults to see what they do or do not have inside their underwear. Later mutilation doesn't affect the identification.

Oh, I think it is, if you understand it correctly as not being affected by mutilation (see above). But even supposing that maybe it isn't, I'm still waiting to see an alternate definition that is logically supportable.

 

On staff, I hope

 

So, one's gender is the opinion of a psychologist paid to probe the inner depths of the mind...

Maybe they ultimately agree with the patient's own preference?

Or maybe the throw mathematical 3D visualization exercises at them?

 

And now, having allowed ample time to see if anything else was going to be said, let me sum up what I get out of this thread.

1.There appears to be no rational basis, founded in a realistic definition of what constitutes a man or a woman, for the assertion that "trans women" are really women. Self-conceived gender may differ from the biological sex identified at birth; objective gender does not.

2. If self-identified "trans women" with penises go to prison, they should go to men's prisons. Any need they may have for extra protection against male predators should be addressed by means of protective custody, not by putting them in women's prisons.

3. In the alleged incident that started this thread, no one appears to have ascertained that a "woman" prisoner with a penis caused the pregnancy, rather than a guard, the warden, or whoever. But it should not be necessary to wait until there is an ascertainable incident of impregnation, violent sexual assault, or even mere persistent and unwanted attention to a female prisoner from a biological male, to recognize the danger of putting biological males who claim to be women into women's prisons. This is particularly true when the classification of the males as women is based entirely on unverified self-reporting.

 

Word

 

Good summary, but the "problem" with your conclusions is that they're rooted in plain common sense and obvious to the practical-minded. That means they're going to be met with violent opposition and the result will likely be complicated and twisted in order to satisfy the "more creative" (I'm trying to be charitable) vocal minority (who apparently don't have enough to keep themselves busy productively). So, Lord help us.

I'll point out that it's pretty easy to ascertain who the father of a child is, especially within such a small pool of contenders. If that has not been done then it's only due to a decision not to.

 

Common sense may develop over time. I would hope that, in time, it will come to be recognized as common sense that some people just aren't cut out to conform to conventional gender expectations. But I think the development of common sense in this regard will be impeded, not promoted, by irrational claims such as that men who don't conform to conventional gender expectations are women. Those who insist on making such claims may try to silence those who don't agree with them, but sooner or later reason will prevail over irrational revolutionary fervor.

 

Hopefully. But the weird thing is how far they can get with wacky rhetoric so frequently.