[lesstenseflow]

I stopped giving to ACLU years ago when it became clear their mission to champion a grab-bag of lefty causes had superseded their free-speech defending goal. This pivot has lead them, at times, to actually defend the government against citizen requests for public records! I never thought I'd see the ACLU fighting on the government's behalf against FOIA/open records type requests but here it is: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re...

In the above case, some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons. The state didn't want to share that information (even in aggregate) and the ACLU defended the state's assertion that this information should be kept secret from the public, including from the imprisoned women whom this policy impacted directly.

Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question, but the main point here is: did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy? How the mighty have fallen.

[Clubber]

>Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question

It's because if the public found out, it would be either be considered illegal or unethical or ultimately make them look bad. That's the general rule of why anyone in government keeps an action secret. Now consider how much stuff the government wants to keep secret.

[bko]

I guess the follow up question would be why the government transferred biological men to a women's prison, especially if it could be illegal, unethical and make them look bad?

[pessimizer]

Not a follow-up for the ACLU, who should be concentrating solely on records release (on the opposite side than they took.)

The modern disease is that everyone seems to be running a keynesian beauty contest, trying to figure out what side the truth is better for, and pretending it's a lie if it's against their side. Principles aren't a means, they're an end.

It's a world of propagandists (public relations professionals.)

[lr4444lr]

IIRC, FOIA does not grant you a right to personal information collected on citizens. The agencies have the right to redact that in whole or in part from the records sought. I don't deny your main concern about left wing issues potentially derailing the ACLU's chief mission, but that isn't the example I'd cite.

[giantg2]

You are correct. However, the request did not request personal information and only aggregate counts.

[joshuamorton]

These are citizens private healthcare information. You shouldn't be able to foia this anymore than my medicare records. Citizens don't lose their right to privacy because they're in prison. Goodness.

[prepend]

Aggregate counts are not private healthcare information when released in a way that limits reidentification. The Privacy Act (and HIPAA) allows for deidentified data to be shared broadly.

Anyway, prisoner gender is not healthcare data, it’s administrative data that describes prisoner population demographics.

I would agree with you if the request was for individual medical information on treatment or procedures or something.

[joshuamorton]

> Aggregate counts are not private healthcare information when released in a way that limits reidentification. The Privacy Act (and HIPAA) allows for deidentified data to be shared broadly.

Possibly, but you're almost assuredly looking at a sample of N=10 or fewer, so the answer would be "*" anyway.

[prepend]

Not if it’s just a count. Because, even with a low count it wouldn’t be used to identify someone.

Let’s say there were 3 transgender people in the state, or even a facility. If they reveal that number it doesn’t identify an individual or divulge any confidential information.

The low counts have to be suppressed when coupled with other data or linked to other data.

If you included count by age group, then you would need to change from a low count to a suppressed marker.

For example 3 transgenders in the 80+ age group might reveal their identity because there aren’t many 80+ inmates.

But just having a small count with no other info is not really a cause to remove the value.

[deathanatos]

It sounded like aggregate numbers were being requested, not names. (Though, the link is only one side of the story.) Assuming that is correct (that it is merely an aggregate count), does that not maintain medical privacy, while allowing public access to the information on how the state is running prisons?

[lesstenseflow]

I don't think your sex is "private healthcare information." How would sharing the total number of males in various facilities violate an individuals privacy rights? (sidebar: if you think you retain your right to privacy in prison... all I can say is you've clearly never been to prison :)

Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

[nemothekid]

>I don't think your sex is "private healthcare information."

Your sex is private information under GDPR. Why would the GDPR be stricter than than HIPAA in this case?

>Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

"But what about the children?" is never a good argument for taking the away the rights of others.

[lesstenseflow]

You're assuming male prisoners have a "right" to be housed with female prisoners, and that female prisoners have no right to sex-segregated facilities. Whether the former "right" exists is far from a settled question.

Assuming the former right does exist, then there is a conflict of rights (between the wishes of males who want to be housed with females, and females who want to be housed without males). Rights conflicts like this are not solved by simply telling one group (in this case, women) to shut up and stop complaining.

Where the ACLU comes in here I have no idea.

[pessimizer]

> Rights conflicts like this are not solved by simply telling one group (in this case, women) to shut up and stop complaining.

I'm pretty sure that's how conflicts with women have been historically resolved.

[PuppyTailWags]

Caveat: We don't actually sex-segregate prisons. We segregate based off of primary and secondary sex characteristics.

[lesstenseflow]

This is nonsense that serves only to obfuscate. Normally this sort of stuff is put forward by people trying to confuse and befuddle the reader.

We segregate prisons by sex. Primary and secondary sex characteristics are observable characteristics that indicate one's sex.

Your argument is like saying "You don't buy a Mazda. You go to the Mazda dealership and buy a car that says Mazda on the back, interior, and on the manual. You don't actually know the car is a Mazda."

[tsimionescu]

Using "males" and "females" here is irrelevant and actively seeking to confuse.

People typically consider that women (cis or trans) have a right to be housed together, and separately from cismen.

If anything, the biggest problem of policy are trans-men, who would likely feel much more concerned by being housed with cis-man prisoners, but who would also make women uncomfortable.

[ryan93]

The desire of women not to be housed with men has nothing to do with the interior gender experience of the male in question.

[colpabar]

It's so odd to me that liberals, who seem to care a lot about women's rights, just flat out dismiss women who are genuinely concerned about being raped in prison by males who were secretly transferred to female prisons.

>"But what about the children?" is never a good argument for taking the away the rights of others.

I also hope that you don't point to school shootings to argue against the second amendment then.

[tsimionescu]

Why is that surprising? There is no proof that transwomen are any more likely to rape ciswomen than other ciswomen are.

On the other hand, it is well known that transwomen are much more often the victims of rape by cismen, if living in men's prisons.

If anything, I would think the biggest problem here is the fate of transmen. I doubt a ciswoman would feel very comfortable sharing a cell with a transman, but a transman also has much higher chances of being abused if sharing a cell with a cisman.

[colpabar]

This is extremely un-PC, but cis women fear being raped by humans with penises much more than they do humans without them.

[pessimizer]

> There is no proof that transwomen are any more likely to rape ciswomen than other ciswomen are.

Are you just making this up, or do you have some statistics on female on female rape?

[grasbo]

> Why is that surprising? There is no proof that transwomen are any more likely to rape ciswomen than other ciswomen are.

Here's an analysis of data from the Ministry of Justice in the UK, demonstrating that trans-identifying males have similar patterns of criminality to other males, including sexual assault: https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-se...

[lesstenseflow]

> There is no proof that transwomen are any more likely to rape ciswomen than other ciswomen are.

There is no proof males who identify as trans (transwomen) are any less likely to commit rape than males who do not identify as trans. The rape risk of being housed with a male is real regardless of how the male identifies with regards to gender. If you have data to the contrary (data indicating that trans identifying males are less likely to commit rape than other males) please share.

[Khaine]

And yet, in the short time its been happening this has occurred https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/14/two-inmates...

[nemothekid]

>It's so odd to me that liberals, who seem to care a lot about women's rights, just flat out dismiss women who are genuinely concerned about being raped in prison by males who were secretly transferred to female prisons.

Really? Are there actual women who are genuinely concerned about this or is this a strawman invented by other people? You see this same issue with transwomen in sports. There is massive concern-trolling for women "who want a level playing field", but when you actually _ask_ women who compete with them (like in the case of Lia Thomas), they don't have a problem with it.

You are masking your transphobia in coddling for women who aren't even complaining about these issues. Women in prison are far more likely to be raped by law enforcement; but somehow the 3 or so transwomen who might sleep in the same cell as a woman is a bigger mark for the ACLU.

>I also hope that you don't point to school shootings to argue against the second amendment then.

That's actually pretty simple for me, I don't think gun rights are inalienable rights, no more than I think I have a right to own a playstation.

[munificent]

> what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

Keeping penises out of the same room with vaginas will not magically eliminate sexual assault because sexual assault is based on power and willingness to harm another, not whether not tab A physically fits into slot B.

If you think keeping penises away from vaginas will eliminate prison rape then clearly you don't know much about rape in mens' prisons.

[lesstenseflow]

I am having trouble following your line of thinking. You're saying that because rape is common in mens' prisons* we should not be concerned about putting males in women's prisons? Wouldn't it make more sense to say "men rape in mens prisons, so women's concerns about being housed with males is reasonable"?

In any event, I still don't see how any of this justifies keeping this whole topic in the shadows and making public discourse impossible by keeping the scope of the question secret from the public.

* I'm taking your word for this, haven't looked it up.

[munificent]

Let me lay it out more abstractly:

The goal (I assume! You haven't spelled this out.) is to reduce the rate of sexual assault between cellmates in prison.

The system has to determine who can end up in the same cell. Prison wardens have access to some data about prisoners. The question is which data is used to partition prisoners.

Your claim appears to be that one prisoner having a penis and the other having a vagina is a strong predictor of an increased odds of sexual assault.

My point is that that claim requires some level of supporting evidence since the widespread accounts of prison rape in same-sex prisons implies that simply avoiding penises and vaginas in the same cell does not appear to be sufficient to lower the chances of rape.

Implicit in your comment is only looking at this from the perspective of the woman in the cell who doesn't have a penis. But the other cellmate has to end up somewhere and the overall goal should be to reduce the rate of sexual assault for all prisoners, not just cis ones.

So, if you don't allow trans women into women's cells, where do you put them? And do you really think putting a trans woman in a cell with a male prisoner is going to lead to a lower incidence of assault?

[hackinthebochs]

The "penis and vagina" characterization is too reductive. What's at issue is that males are generally bigger, stronger, and more sexually aggressive than females. These factors in aggregate create increased risk when forcing proximity between men and women while in vulnerable contexts. But none of this needs extra demonstration, this is all common knowledge.

[robotresearcher]

> Your claim appears to be that one prisoner having a penis and the other having a vagina is a strong predictor of an increased odds of sexual assault.

> My point is that that claim requires some level of supporting evidence.

The DOJ says 99% of rape and sexual assaults are by males, and that 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male [1].

This is generic data, not trans specific or prison specific. But in the absence of specific data, it seems pretty relevant.

[1] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Violence Against Women Report, 2002. via https://stoprape.humboldt.edu/statistics

[TimPC]

I’d argue if prisons have significant rates of sexual assault that prisons are doing little to prevent then prisoner’s should have a right to a private cell. You don’t get to engage in huge rights violations against people who can’t defend themselves for budgetary reasons.

[lesstenseflow]

> Your claim appears to be that one prisoner having a penis and the other having a vagina is a strong predictor of an increased odds of sexual assault.

If you don't think this is an issue, can you explain why we should have any sex segregation in prisons at all?

It sounds like you're arguing for mixed sex prisons, even within individual cells.

[fzeroracer]

Ironically, a lot of the arguments I've seen could be construed as misandrist because they're operating under the presumption that men are rapists and thus transgender people in women's prisons must be rapists. That's why the argument always focuses around transgender women while failing to address that their same argument would send transgender men to the far less safe male prison.

The actual problem is that prisons are unsafe for everyone and there's little done to make them safer. But they'd rather use transgender people in their culture war because they don't care about the actual violence problems.

[pessimizer]

You mean they'd rather fix the problem that is entirely an own goal than tackle the problem of reorganizing the entire penal system in a deeply unpopular and expensive way?

Once prison is organized like a summer camp with a 2:1 guard to prisoner ratio, we can do them co-ed.

[at_a_remove]

Let's do that power bit.

Okay, so ... statistically, would your average transwoman be taller than your average biowoman? Stronger? There's your power.

[Karunamon]

It will, however, eliminate pregnancy.

[tsimionescu]

Transwomen are not normally fertile, since the hormone treatments seriously impede the working of their testicles (if they still have them).

[lesstenseflow]

One would assume surgery or hormones are required to change your gender designation in Washington State, but in fact this is not the case (neither is required). Here's the form to change gender designation on your driver's license in WA, anyone living in washington state can do it today: https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/520043.pdf

[cluedos]

It's all about 'gender identity' these days, not hormones and surgery.

Indeed, in trans circles, expecting the latter as a required factor is often considered highly offensive. This, and the notion that a person needs to experience gender dysphoria to be trans, is now derisively known as the 'truscum' point of view.

[hackinthebochs]

Strawman. It's not about elimination, but a very predictable increase in rapes due to this policy change.

[joshuamorton]

> Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

Any argument here about privacy is entirely independent of sex and gender. Prison is dehumanizing, address that. Don't be a transphobe.

Edit: There's a bunch of mistaken comments here assuming that this will protect women prisoners in some capacity. That's totally wrong! Women in prison are sexually assaulted, raped, and even impregnated by men all the time and have been for years. Those men are guards[0]. And this happens at a vastly higher rate per capita and overall than any assault by trans inmates. Anyone here with a legitimate interest in protecting women in prison would be attempting to address that harm, because it is far more dire for numerous reasons.

[0]: https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/the-rape-club-womens-priso...

[lesstenseflow]

Is a woman a transphobe for not wanting to share a jail cell with a person who has a penis? I think most people would consider safeguarding female prisoners from males common sense.

I think you should take a moment to consider the (female) women in this situation. Imagine you're a woman 100% at the mercy of the state, and the state locks you in a cell with a male person. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to extend some empathy to them.

[joshuamorton]

I never made any comment about women in prison. I have empathy to anyone in prison. Like I said, its deeply inhumane.

I think people in prison should be protected from other people in prison if they are dangerous, and I think prisons fail to do that today. I don't accept your presumption that having a penis makes someone inherently more dangerous.

Again: if your goal is to protect women in prison, the best way to do that is to advocate for reform that makes prisons safer for everyone. Not by being transphobic, which you're doing instead.

[denton-scratch]

> people in prison should be protected from other people in prison

I strongly agree; if you deprive someone of their liberty, then you take on the responsibility of protecting them - because you've deprived them of the ability to protect themselves.

I'm not aware of any prison regime that takes the safety of prisoners as a key objective. [Edit] Nor do I know of a state that handles the deliberate negligence of prisoner welfare as a criminal offence.

[jibe]

I don't accept your presumption that having a penis makes someone inherently more dangerous

The data really really doesn't support your view. Men are objectively more dangerous.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251886/murder-offenders-...

https://stoprape.humboldt.edu/statistics

An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male

[BitwiseFool]

>"Again: if your goal is to protect women in prison, the best way to do that is to advocate for reform that makes prisons safer for everyone. Not by being transphobic, which you're doing instead. "

Perfect is the enemy of good and while it's hard to disagree with the sentiment of "reform that makes prisons safer for everyone ", we have no idea what that actually entails and that's so much of a monumental task that it's basically a non-starter. I feel like the sentiment here is "this wouldn't be a problem if we changed everything, so why don't we?"

[cluedos]

> Women in prison are sexually assaulted, raped, and even impregnated by men all the time and have been for years. Those men are guards.

Indeed and this is why feminist organizations, and others with an interest in women's rights and safety, push for policies of only employing female prison guards in women's prisons.

It's no stretch to see why they don't want male prisoners to be incarcerated there too, no matter how such males identity.

If the male guards can't be trusted not to sexually abuse women, how can you expect the same from cohabiting males?

[Clubber]

If you read his link, it states the request is for counts, not individual names.

  1. A complete and accurate count of inmates who identify as transgender (gender identity differs from sex identified at birth) in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections [please break this information down by location]

  2. Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021

  3. Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a women’s facility

  4. Number of inmates who have transferred from a women’s facility to a men’s facility from January 01, 2021 to March 18, 2021

  5. Number of female persons who identify as male, non-binary or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a men’s facility

[barelysapient]

For some the issue so sensitive that even a broad and impersonal question is hugely offensive. And negative intent is immediately assumed of the questioner.

[joshuamorton]

Yes, and in the case of small N (which, like, is the case here), those are problematic to disclose!

[giantg2]

How so? You'd have to figure out the N in a population of hundreds of thousands (the state's prison population) without any other variables to go on.

[PuppyTailWags]

It breaks down the N by location, which... what defines a location here? Is it a state? Is it a single prison? For a small N, narrow location is definitely a de-anonymization factor.

[giantg2]

There's no mention of any narrow locations. The numbers are at the state level per the request in the article.

[tsimionescu]

How would knowing "1 Transwoman is currently housed in a female prison on the territory of Washington state" in any way risk causing harm to that transwoman, or help you identify her in any way?

[prepend]

It doesn’t. I think GP is confusing small cell counts in micro data (a real problem) with small numbers in aggregate data (sometimes a problem).

In this case, just a count and prison is not a privacy issue as someone would have to already know the individual is trans to identify them. And that’s the only information contained in the data release.

[vmception]

this FOIA request arbitrarily mixes sex and gender, which actually does show a lack of understanding towards trans and non-binary people (as well as willingness to understand, materialized as fear. fear is the phobia part of transphobia)

so even though GP tried to be accurate and progressive-enough in their admonishment of the ACLU to find a way to have a rational way of expressing and discussing their fear, the people involved have made a malformed FOIA request and are expressing their calcified opinion conflating sex and gender identity.

[Clubber]

What does that have to do with denying a FOIA request? Sorry, you used the wrong pronouns, you are denied FOIA? Intent of the FOIA request is irrelevant, otherwise the government could deny FOIA for people who want to make the government look bad, which honestly is probably the case here.

[vmception]

its not about a pronoun, so looks like you're also conflating concepts

no pronouns need to be added or used to correct the malformed FOIA request

it conflates sex and gender, I said what I said, its accurate that it is doing that.

> Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity

The request would be "Total number of male persons that identify as women". The sex doesn't change, the gender does. The FOIA request would say invalid, or zero, and be accurate, regarding the ones identifying as "female". The "other gender identify" may cover it, but not necessarily. Males identifying as men wouldn't have been transferred. So "other than what"? "Female" is not a gender, unless we are accepting that any arbitrary identification is valid, but would that be grounds for transfer?

But yes that can just say "males transferred", because they remain male.

Its a conditional argument because legal circumstances follow conditional logic. So if it seems obtuse, oh well, thats how it works.

[tsimionescu]

But that's not what happened. Instead, the state refused to fill the FOIA request at all, and the ACLU sued to help them.

If this had been maliciously complied with, the whole discussion would have been different.

[womensrights]

> The request would be "Total number of male persons that identify as women". The sex doesn't change, the gender does. The FOIA request would say invalid, or zero, and be accurate, regarding the ones identifying as "female".

Actually a lot of them now do identity as female, and claim to have literally changed their sex from male to female.

The old idea of "man/woman refers to gender, male/female refers to sex" no longer applies these days.

Not content with colonizing the word "woman", they've now done the same to "female".

This is contemporary trans discourse for you, erasing women and trampling all over women's rights.

[fzeroracer]

It should be incredibly obvious that this information would make it very easy to identify the individuals in question (especially with #1).

[Clubber]

I would think you could identify them by looking at their booking photos as well.

Here's a link to a public inmate search for Washington state.

https://www.doc.wa.gov/information/search.htm

[colpabar]

quick somebody call the ACLU!

[giantg2]

They're asking for aggregate data, not personal data.

[cluedos]

No, these are important questions regarding policy around sex-based rights.

The FOIA requestor did not ask for any private information, merely for the number of the people.

[giantg2]

"Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question"

That's an easy one - they always hide anything that could be controversial. This is definitely a hot topic in recent years.

"did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy?"

Due to the scope of the ACLU's actions and the variability of its members personal beliefs, it's almost guaranteed that they engage in things that some member disagree with.

Edit: why disagree?

[thrwy_ywrht]

> some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons

This is such an incredibly bad-faith and transphobic representation of the case that I can only conclude you are intentionally trolling. Even if you believe that trans women should not be housed in prisons with cis women, it is beyond bad faith choose the words you chose to use.

[lesstenseflow]

I'm not following you at all. From the text of the request, the petitioners want to know: "Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021" This is almost identical to what I wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would explain to me and others what part of my argument you disagree with rather than simply saying "incredibly bad-faith" "transphobic" "you are trolling" "beyond bad faith" without any explanation of what you think I did wrong or would prefer I do differently.

For what it's worth, I think you are acting in bad faith by calling me names and speculating unkindly about my motives without actually explaining what assertion or argument you object to and why. What you're doing is just bullying.

[pessimizer]

It's wrong to say "male." You're supposed to come up with some euphemism, like "bedicked." Literally nothing to do with the content of the argument; you're supposed to concede the ground before you step onto it.

[prepend]

While I really prefer the term “bedicked,” what is the term for people with penises regardless of gender? Is there a term that won’t result in someone being called a transphobe?

I’ve heard the term “sex assigned at birth” but that’s not accurate in this situation because I’m interested in people with penises and if someone was born male and had their penis removed surgically I wouldn’t want them included in my population of interest.

[lesstenseflow]

> what is the term for people with penises regardless of gender? Is there a term that won’t result in someone being called a transphobe?

No, there is no universally accepted term that won't get you called a transphobe by anyone (correct me if I'm wrong). If terms of the discussion are set by the most extreme genderist views, it's becomes literally impossible to discuss things like male violence against women or sexism in the workplace, because there's no permissible language to describe the groups involved.

I just go with "male" and "female" which are objective, observable facts. If people object to these terms, they are really objecting to having a discussion at all.

> “sex assigned at birth”

Sex is not "assigned" at birth it is observed, frequently well before birth via ultrasound or some other technology. Midwives and doctors don't go round flipping coins that say "boy" on one side and "girl" on the other, this whole concept of "assigned" sex is silly.

[baobabKoodaa]

Most of the time gender is observed at birth, but some times it is ambiguous and the medical staff has to assign it.

[cluedos]

Exactly this. Even using the phrase 'trans woman' is a concession, implying that these men are a subcategory of women, rather than of men. And that it's possible to 'trans' into this category.

(This is why in radical feminist circles, they are typically referred to as 'trans-identifying males' instead.)

[cluedos]

How so? 'Trans women' are male, by definition.