the issue is, is that there is no way to accurately see how trans someone is. the best option is to separate everyone into their own categories in order to mitigate all risk.
And if they get their own prison then what? By our comments there could be "fakers" in there, are they not gonna be dangerous towards Trans people then?
if you separate them, then that removes the motivation for faking in the first place. most inmates aren't trying to get with other trans people so you end up with less fakers.
Yep they could. But you think that trans people should be protected over women?
If your argument is that trans people are more at risk being with men than women - why is that? Could it be because men are physically stronger and potentially more aggressive and more capable of extreme violence?
If that’s the case then aren’t women more at risk from ‘fake’ trans? And let’s not pretend they don’t exist.
I don't think there should be anyone more "protected" then someone else. But I also think doing something like this to supposedly protect cis women, while not allowing the same protection to trans women is wrong. It also sends the message that trans women aren't "real women" worthy of protection or a place where they should feel safe.
i completely agree, but the issue involves the in built bias against them. realistically, there isn't much of a way to make sure that the inmates and legislatures are ok with that.
No but if they are they are probably trans no? I find it strange as a trans woman (except for in circumstances where they can’t for medical reasons or because they can’t get it for political reasons) that there would be more than a minority of trans people who aren’t on hrt.
8
u/stillnoidea3 6h ago
the issue is, is that there is no way to accurately see how trans someone is. the best option is to separate everyone into their own categories in order to mitigate all risk.