[woooooo]

How would you handle the prison situation?

Convicted formerly-male rapist, now identifies as female. Which prison do they go to?

Yes it's a cherry-picked example but it's also a test of absolute statements about bigotry. Maybe there's nuance.

[Zandikar]

It's prison. You don't want them fighting and fucking, you keep them separate, not based on sex, not orientation, not identity, not race, (they will largely self-sort along those lines anyway), but rather on the key thing that actually matters: their ability and prediliction for causing violence/problems/injury/the thing you're trying to avoid.

The person in question like to fight people of a certain skin color, gender, identity, orientation, favorite food, etc? Keep the INDIVIDUAL that's causing a problem separate, not whatever demographic they belong to.

Can't keep them separate? Sounds like you overcrowded your prisons, which is an entirely separate issue. Trying to blame gender or sort the problem through the lens of sex/identity/gender just means you know have 3 separate groups that are fighting and fucking amongst each other. Good job, just wasted a bunch of time and resources on some virtue signalling.

Additionally it would be better to try to actually reform and treat people instead of just punishing them then tossing them aside, then wondering why it's so hard to keep the peace in the prison. But yes, the Trans people are the problem /s.

> It's also a test of absolute statements about bigotry

No, it's a dog whistle based on a false premise. You don't call for nuance with an "absolute test". You do that to feign an air of tolerance while pushing forward the narrative.

[woooooo]

Its a binary question and I see zero answer despite a lot of words.

If you had to make that call, in that case, which is it?

(For the record, the narrative I'm pushing here is "shades of gray" rather than "red")

[Zandikar]

So I Answer with nuance about said shades of gray, and your response is that you don't want to read that much and "Its a binary question".

> For the record, the narrative I'm pushing here is "shades of gray

Fine. Let's assume that's true.

> Convicted formerly-male rapist, now identifies as female. Which prison do they go to

With information given, it doesn't matter, but generally default to male for violent criminals.

Reason: You prioritize protecting others from violent offenders over the offender themself when push comes to shove, which is what you're forcing by framing the question in such a way.

If we modify the question slightly to remove the implication and give enough actual information to make a determination, we'd specify who the male had raped. You send them to the opposite. Unless it's both/unclear, in which case, you refer back to my default.

It's not a hard question. But the way you frame it is straight out of a fascist handbook (Throw the "paradox" of tolerance in their face while strictly framing the question in a way that does not allow for nuance), especially while trying to advocate for "shades of gray" while insisting on reducing the discussion to a binary question. It's not productive discourse.

So no, the narrative here you're pushing is not "shades of gray", it's literally binary.

[woooooo]

Hang on, we agree on where the prisoner should go. Obvious slam dunk case.

Why am I a fascist for it and you're not?

Yes I am deliberately winding you up here but maybe you're overattached to some narrative points? It comes off just like the people raving about groomers.

[Zandikar]

> Why am I a fascist

You still haven't picked up on the fact that I'm addressing your choice of manner to engage as a troll, not on the merit of subject at hand because I knew this wasn't about that anyway.

I don't know if you're a fascist, but you're using textbook fascist tactics to very poorly try to "gotcha me" before I called you out for not engaging in this topic in good faith, which you've now admitted multiple times.

[jl6]

To be clear, nobody is “formerly-male”. Gender reassignment through hormones and surgery doesn’t actually change sex.

The answer here depends on what you think the purpose of segregated prisons is. If you think it’s to reduce the risk of females being attacked by males (because the overwhelming majority of sexual assault is done by males to females), then males (regardless of gender) must go to male prisons.

[woooooo]

Your second paragraph is a total dodge. I'm tempted to characterize it as lacking male-gendered terms.

[jl6]

Are you clear on the difference between sex and gender? Some people think prisons are supposed to be segregated by sex, with gender being less relevant to the purpose of protecting females.

[woooooo]

But if you had to make the choice, in exactly one case? Convicted rapist, currently identifying as female.

[jl6]

Doesn’t really matter what they identify as. If they’re male they should go in the male prison. Identifying as something doesn’t change the physical attributes that make males a potential threat to females.

[woooooo]

I agree, it's obvious common sense.

What's interesting is that it was so hard to get there. Despite the answer being obvious.

The article author suffers from the same problem, she keeps tacking on unnecessary attacks on what gender "is" that derail some legitimate concerns.