Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/04/transsexual-human-rights-courts
Quote
Transsexual prisoner wins move to women's jail
Judge says government's refusal to transfer her was violation of human rights
David Batty
Friday 4 September 2009 13.04 BST
A transsexual prisoner serving life for manslaughter and attempted rape committed while she was a man has won a high court battle to be transferred to a women's jail.
Deputy judge David Elvin QC quashed a decision by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, to continue detaining the 27-year-old, referred to only as A, in a male prison.
The judge said the refusal was a violation of her human rights. He said: "I declare her continued detention in a male prison is in breach of her rights under Article 8 [right to private and family life] under the European Convention on Human Rights."
The judge was told that steps had been taken to transfer A, described by her lawyer as "a woman trapped inside a man's body", to a female prison "as soon as possible".
Phillippa Kaufmann, appearing for A, told the court: "The transfer should be effective in a few weeks."
Kaufmann had described at a recent hearing how, although apparently born male, A had her womanhood recognised by law and her birth certificate had been amended to show her female sex.
Hair on A's face and legs had been permanently removed by laser and she had developed breasts after hormone treatment.
But she was forbidden from wearing skirts or blouses, or more than "subtle" make-up, at the men's prison where she was being held on a "vulnerable prisoners" wing.
To complete her change to full womanhood, she required gender reassignment surgery, but had been told she could not have it while she remained in a men's prison.
The Department of Justice and the prison authorities argued that she would be no more likely to be accepted by inmates at a female prison and would have to spend long periods in segregation at an extra cost of £80,000 a year.
They contended that a move to a female jail might have a serious impact on her mental health and make it more difficult for her to reduce her level of risk to society and win early release from her sentence.
Because women and gays can't rape?
Wasn't this a Law and Order: SVU episode?
Is it officially a man or a woman? Either way it's a trivial decision.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
I'm saying that there is no such thing as a transexual, and this person should be executed.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
Depends. Was the person s/he attemted to rape a woman, or a man?
I suspect that transferring a convicted attempted rapist who still posesses a penis into a woman's prison would not be the most popular of decisions with the other prisoners, however s/he identifies him or herself.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
When the offence is sexual assault, yes.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Depends. Was the person s/he attemted to rape a woman, or a man?
I suspect that transferring a convicted attempted rapist who still posesses a penis into a woman's prison would not be the most popular of decisions with the other prisoners, however s/he identifies him or herself.
This whole thing seems silly to me and in part due to needless red tape. Surely they could take the guy out, have his operation, then move him from the hospital to the women's prison? Or move him back to the men's prison for that matter.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
Depends. Was the person s/he attemted to rape a woman, or a man?
I suspect that transferring a convicted attempted rapist who still posesses a penis into a woman's prison would not be the most popular of decisions with the other prisoners, however s/he identifies him or herself.
While the article does not give all the details, from this part:
QuoteTo complete her change to full womanhood, she required gender reassignment surgery, but had been told she could not have it while she remained in a men's prison.
I gather she wants to have a gender reassignment surgery so your objection about her having a dick is unfounded. Not to mention it becomes a sort of Catch 22 - she can't have a surgery while she remains in a men's prison but she can't be moved to a women's prison while she has a dick, no?
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2009, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
When the offence is sexual assault, yes.
I disagree. Either you consider gender identity to be protected as a human right or not.
If not, (meaning you treat it as a foible/deviation/mental illness) then I can't see why, say, a male thief should be transferred to an all-female prison only because he wants to "wear women's clothes" only because his crime is not serious enough, for example.
If yes, this means you got to treat gender identity as a de facto gender and treat people as if they were of the gender they identify as, irrespective of the crime they commit.
I mean, to illustrate the point, let's assume the perp wasn't a trans woman but a biological woman, who rapes other women. Surely, noone in their right mind would argue that she should be kept in a male prison because "the offence is sexual", no?
This person in this case is legally a woman (or at least wants to be - the article is sketchy on details). So why should she be treated differently?
:meh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Given the crimes committed this seems iffy to me.
Why? Are you saying that a person's gender is a function of crimes he or she commits?
Depends. Was the person s/he attemted to rape a woman, or a man?
I suspect that transferring a convicted attempted rapist who still posesses a penis into a woman's prison would not be the most popular of decisions with the other prisoners, however s/he identifies him or herself.
While the article does not give all the details, from this part:
QuoteTo complete her change to full womanhood, she required gender reassignment surgery, but had been told she could not have it while she remained in a men's prison.
I gather she wants to have a gender reassignment surgery so your objection about her having a dick is unfounded. Not to mention it becomes a sort of Catch 22 - she can't have a surgery while she remains in a men's prison but she can't be moved to a women's prison while she has a dick, no?
That may well be the case, but you asked a rather different question - namely, whether a person's gender depends on their crimes.
My answer is 'it does in part, for the purpose of assigning them to a prision, where those crimes are sexual in nature'.
If the perp chose to rape
women, then keeping him out of a woman's prision tends to foster the very reason why the sexes are seperated in prision in the first place - and the injustice done to
him by being kept in a men's prision seems, comparatively, rather less.