I wonder if a female prisoner can say no if she gets choosen by a trans inmate to be their cell mate…somehow I doubt it. So, a trans inmate, who may or may not have “lived as a woman” (whatever that means) prior to being found guilty, takes a liking to a female inmate, requests to live with her, and whether the female inmate wants to or not, she’s locked in a cell with this criminal person who has a penis. That sounds fine…totally fine. I’m sure there won’t be a single problem.
I hope that any woman who finds herself choosen by a trans inmate to be their cell mate immediately decides to identify as trans and therefore becomes entitled to a private cell.
So just like I said. There are no downsides to lying about trans identity. If you’re a male, that is.
I suspect transmen will decide to “detransition” upon arrest going forward. I wonder if this means they will be entitled to trans privileges if they have a GRC showing them as male?
The being able to request a cell mate of their choice or a single cell thing is the most ridiculous I’ve ever heard. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, IMnon-lawyerlyO.
No consideration is given for a female prisoner who doesn’t want to share a cell with a transwoman. The people who wrote and passed this law probably think the only reason she would object is transphobia, and therefore she’s a BIGOT who doesn’t deserve any consideration.
But it doesn’t say the prison has to allow these requests for single cells or for/against particular cell mates, only that they have to consider them. If sensibly administered then the chosen cellmate’s objection should be reason enough to refuse. Of course, if the people in charge of the prisons actually cared then they’d be paying some attention to who they housed together in the first place and this horrible case wouldn’t have happened:
This is almost certainly the inspiration for the section about housing, but the result depends totally on how it is administered. Unfortunately you can’t legislate for either empathy or common sense.
The California law allows transmen to choose to do their time in the women’s prison, so they wouldn’t have to pretend to detransition. I can’t imagine too many would choose the men’s jail; probably the ones who have completely transitioned physically, including phalloplasty would, but AIUI that’s rare.
But it’s a good question what would happen in Ireland, where a transman who has undergone neither hormone therapy nor surgery can get a GRC and be legally male, and would be sent to a men’s jail by default. Probably the authorities would find some way to make an exception in that case.
See the case I linked above for the likely inspiration. But IMO this clause is much more likely to encourage abuse of the law by non-trans people than the one that allows changing prisons.
What I want to know is whether nonbinary, agender, or genderfluid ciswomen will have the same privileges as transwomen? Seems only fair, right? If one gender identity minority is allowed special accommodation, why not all of them?
I’m talking to a transwoman right now that I met on Reddit. She thinks gender segregated bathrooms have always operated along the lines of gender identity but we normies have been too clueless to notice them. She honestly thinks that masculine women aren’t accepted in women’s restrooms–that masculine are kicked out of these places because “normal” women (feminine women?) don’t see them as women. I had to inform this very naive person that she’s mistaken. Just because she has seen couple of videos of masculine women being questioned does not mean women in general don’t see these individuals as women. (To be fair to this person, I think the fact that she has been able to pee/poop in women’s restrooms undetected has led her to believe that her feminine clothing/behavior is what has gotten her in the door, which is true but also a gross oversimplification of what’s actually going on.)
So gender ideology is leading people to bullshit notions, IMHO. And my thing is, if the rest of us are supposed to buy into this bullshit, at the bare minimum we need to be logically consistent with it. If I’m supposed to believe that masculine women are in a separate gender than feminine women, then we need to grant these two “genders” the right to have their gender affirmed in the same way that transwomen are entitled. Yet the “gender affirmation is a human right!” cultists aren’t talking this kind of game. They aren’t proposing solutions that would allow everyone to have their gender affirmed. They are only writing laws that entitle some folks to having their gender affirmed while everyone else is expected to conform to the old school robot “sex is real” dichotomy. Since feminine guys are the great pink unicorn but masculine women aren’t, it is inevitable we’re going to be granting more privileges to the first group than the second if we start treating any signs of gender non-conformity as indicators of trans-dom.
IMHO, it is highly bizarre and politically insensitive to have a law that makes transwomen a more protected group than ciswomen. By prioritizing transwomen for single occupancy cells, that’s exactly what California has codified. Transwomen are a more vulnerable population than ciswomen, even when men aren’t even in the picture.
This is nonsense. Every single feminist should be outraged over this. But I expect most to double-down. As they say, in for a penny, in for a pound…
Can I propose a moratorium on calling women “ciswomen” going forward? It’s just adding to unnecessary cognitive overload on this Monday morning. My brain doesn’t know what to do with the concept of a “non-binary ciswoman”. Is this a real thing or is this a typo?
Note that those cis women with beards that BB dug up are actually intersex according to the California Legislature. PCOS causes abnormal hormone levels, hence the beard.
TBH it makes sense to prioritise trans people for single cells unless they can share with another trans person of the same gender, for privacy reasons. But other prisoners could equally have privacy issues and they aren’t given the option to request a different cell assignment. And what about practical concerns like pregnancy? As for transwomen being a more vulnerable population even in a women’s jail, I think it’s black and white thinking. Discriminated minority vs the majority. Wasn’t intersectionality meant to deal with cases like this?
As long as trans people exist, then it seems reasonable to have a term for people who aren’t trans. I guess “non-trans” is a possibility, but why is that better than cis?
And until sometime last century, many or most people would have found “gay” or “homosexual” (and “straight” or “heterosexual”) confusing. Does that mean it was wrong to use those terms?
OK. I’m trying to be PC over here, but I admit it is confusing.
But nonbinary ciswomen are a thing, though. Nonbinary transwomen exist, ergo their ciswoman counterparts also exist. I’m just putting out there what Reddit has revealed to me.
We have a Doper who is an agender transwoman. If I had to take a guess at what this means, it would be someone who doesn’t feel comfortable in a male body (they have gender dysphoria), but they don’t ascribe to any particular gender identity. So I’m gonna take a stab and guess that a nonbinary ciswoman is someone who is comfortable in their female body, but they identify with the gender notions of man and woman equally or don’t identify with either of them (perhaps they go with nonbinary because agender doesn’t appeal to them for whatever reason).
I would’ve thought nonbinary would preclude the ‘cis’ prefix. Isn’t ‘cis’ usually defined as identifying with the gender that matches your sex? But then agender transwoman wouldn’t make any sense either.
Descriptive terms for sexual preferences are a different thing than those for biological sex/gender. And I believe there have always been terms to describe homosexuality as long as there have been homosexuals. Just like the term “trans-” is not exactly new.
That still doesn’t explain why it’s wrong to use cis. In some circumstances, “cis” conveys useful information in a concise way. I’ve used it many times in this thread when the concept was relevant. Why was that wrong, and what should I have said instead?
I don’t understand how someone can be non-binary (which means genderless, right?) while also being a cis woman (which implies having a female gender and female sex).
This looks like one more paradox we must invite into our heads and not critically examine. My brain rebukes this.
This is why I wish for “female” and “male” to be objective. Because then we could talk about nonbinary females and everyone would know what we’re talking about. For a biological male who has undergone SRS but doesn’t have a gender identity, we could speak of an “agender transfemale”.
If I were in a women’s prison, I’d totally be informing my keepers that I’m nonbinary. Because why the hell not, if it gives me a chance to have a room all to myself.
