[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.

[jl6]

What a lot of people don’t understand about this flavor of feminism is that it isn’t about gender, or directly about trans people. It’s about the primacy of sex in defining and defending women as a class.

Social roles, gender, clothes, appearance, identification, personality… none of these things are what makes a woman a woman.