[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.

[vmception]

from what I can tell, consensus hasn't been made and there is a lot of regional consensus. For example, I see US English honing in on "man/woman refers to gender, male/female refers to sex" while some Commonwealth English not having that exact distinction. On the internet, this makes things very confusing because its not clear where consensus is, and its not clear if someone is saying something exclusionary when they're critiquing the nomenclature. obviously, if you are fearing something that doesn't make sense, this ambiguous regional discourse masquerading as consensus only will validate your suspicions.

[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!