ineedone

Defining just about anything in a "legal" sense is extremely difficult. Just within the 9 SCOTUS Justices we have now, there are at least 4 completely different philosophical schools of thought (Form, Intent, Realism, Modern Dynamics). It is also impossible for anyone to really know which, if any, is the best/most correct. We usually go with whoever seems least wrong.

However, it is very important that a definition exist in a "legal" sense. So you can see how this topic would be extremely controversial and important. With the way the court is as of right now, and this is not a very informed opinion, I do not think the argument about gender would go much further then whatever your government issued ID considers you. I do not see the court as being "liberal/progressive" enough to really change that.

Mikey213

But the social construction itself is nature, is it not?

bb4_96

I just hope this isn't an argument that individuals that have had sex changes ought to have special accomidations ie. Man gets sex change and hopes to be detained with women. Now it's a different story if sex was unclear at birth. But I think thats far from mainstream.

ineedone

It is much more than just where to detain a perpetrator. But to your hypothetical, why would someone who had a sex change not be incarcerated with whatever they are technically classified as? Should we be building prisons (spending more tax dollars!) specifically for persons with sex changes? Why would the sex being unclear at birth be any different then a person having a sex change later in life?

bb4_96

We can chase around sex changes all day and the associated bs. It needs to be based on what you are classified as at birth not what you decided to be. Consider this.. Why not(as a man) get a sex change then try to rob a bank. That way if you end up in jail you end up with females or other post ops instead of males.

We should not be building prisons for people who decide to get a sex change. Prison spending would run rampant in efforts to accomidate everyones sexuality.

Sex unclear at birth isn't a choice. A sex change later in life is very very optional. Why should you be specially accomidated(in legal system) based on a surgery you elected to have?

And this is all just in terms of anatomy. How can you tell someone that can't afford a sex change that although they feel like a _____ they have to be detained with _____ just because they couldn't afford the operation? Thats a monetary discrimination.

At the end of the day prison is prison. It isn't supposed to be a special place where you get your own little personal bubble to be your own special you with others like you.

My arguments are fairness of proposed modification to current system and where the funding will come from?

ineedone

Why would it matter either way? If you have a legal sex change than, legally, you are whatever you changed too. Correct? How would anyone know what you were at birth? Again, why does it matter what you were born as? As of right now, and G6civicx will have to verify this, I believe the standard is just whatever you are considered as the most recent government ID.


Well, this is a philosophical debate. There are very strong arguments out there that say that gender does not necessarily correlate with physical attributes. The brain is a very complicated thing, and I doubt anyone can say they have the right answer on this subject.

Not sure how this would be an issue. The issue should only present itself at the time a crime is committed and/or sentencing. Whatever you are at that moment is what would matter. Not what you intend to be or want to be (I think??? again G6civicx would have to clarify).

Legal opinions and decisions very often turn on definitions of words that are extremely difficult to define (like any adjective in the English language). As the world progresses and changes, so do the definitions of words. For example, the constitution says "All men are created equally" do you see how this could become an issue?

The classic lawschool example of this is "No vehicles in the park" if you can figure that one out, you will be way ahead of the game!

bb4_96

I maintain all my points:
My first point- How do you prevent intentional gender manipulation for enjoyment of time served? I think that was missed altogether.

Second point- why are we accomidating an elective surgery? Are you saying whether or not a sex change is a elective surgery is a philisophical debate? I'm confused.

Third point stands- Why are going so far as to make accomodations to people with sex changes why not for people who feel the same but can't afford the op? I don't think it's right to discriminate.

Opening this can of worms on the judical system will be a huge clusterfuck at the taxpayers expense.

So far all I've gotten is haggle. Where is the damn resolution? Throw tax dollars at it? Help me out. Tell me this wasn't an issue proposed with no resolution.

ineedone

Do we prevent gay men from entering jail with straight men? Inmates who have good behavior get more privileges. We separate prison population by gangs, ethnicity, religion, etc. I do not see separating by gender as any real issue that would be that difficult to implement. I think you would be hard pressed to find even one case of "gender manipulation" for the sake of being in a different prison/jail. Also, I doubt there is much of any difference between a "male" jail/prison or a "female" jail/prison. Incarceration is incarceration, example - maximum security is not gender specific

I am saying defining someone as male/female is a philosophical debate. People do not get sex changes for fun. It is usually do to a severe disconnect, in the brain, between the physical attributes one has and the way they process what gender they themselves wish to be. The surgery is just their way of "fixing" what they know in their mind was originally not right.

We make reasonable accommodations for a lot of issues (diseases, mental disabilities, sexual orientation, what neighborhood you grew up in, etc.). I think G6civicX issue is more with defining it as to issues in patent law. Not quite sure though, but we discriminate for a lot of things, others not so much. And again, I doubt it would be that difficult to have a area in a prison/jail be allocated for "mixed gender" inmates if they wish to be separated. Besides, when we legalize marijuana, there will be a lot of extra room in those jails!

How would this be a "clusterfuck" we already deal with these types of issues/questions on a daily basis. Can you correctly tell me what "No vehicles in the park" means? The legal system is all haggle, generally speaking, we never have one "correct" answer. Every issue is always different. Again, I think this is pretty apparent through much of life, we are not looking for the "right" answer because we will never truly know that until we meet our maker (or not?), but we are looking for the "least wrong" answer.... I just got a little to deep there...

bb4_96

Im still going to stand by my first point. If i knew i was going away for life I'd be half tempted to get the op. I firmly feel I'd rather bunk with sandra than bubba. I don't think the general pop knows you can get away with it or more people would.

If sex change is a way of fixing onesself how is it any less elective than female breast augmentation in such a judgemental super critical society? Only part of that point i succeed is the neccessity of accomidating sex changes in prison, seeing as you aren't proposing to.

On the third point: Where does it end? When everyone in jail has there own swell little cubbyhole to serve out their time? How is something like that managed? How much manpower is involved? To me all this catering to inmates looks expensive in staffing alone, much less structurally facilitating isolation of every little group.

So this was just as i suspected. This was a very costly problem proposed with no reasonable resolution other than a costly one... at taxpayers expense. People are already a touch sensitive about prison spending. Let me ask you this. Would you be in support of this if you had to secure the funds privately? It's easy to propose fun ideas like this when it's coming out of the infinite pool of tax dollars but what if you were put in charge of securing private funding source for this special interest agenda? Corrections officers top out at about 100K with benefits paid around here... a piece. This is just more justification for state/local governments not to fix the potholes that jar my bones every morning. I don't know how many people you'll be able to convince that prison isn't cushy enough already.

In other facets of life that don't dig into US tax dollars I'm all for accommodating gender/sexuality movements. Just not in the ones that effect this country's bottom line.

ineedone

I think that is a very extreme view, and something that no one has ever done, or even considered doing, in light of jail time. However, if you had a sex change in anticipation of committing a crime and being caught... well.. kudos to you. You deserve it.

This is not so much about determining where someone goes to prison as much as patent issues. I think...

The prison system is privately owned in many cases. Non-violent offenders, a majority are in for marijuana possession, are what drives the cost of prisons. Not the guards, or segregating the prisoners for the protection of those guards and themselves.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but every issue (especially social) can be broken down to economic terms.

But like I said before, this is more of a "No vehicles in the park" issue. Not a "where does the perp go?" question.

bb4_96

Obviously every issue can be broken down into economics terms. That doesn't mean me need to.

I don't understand "no vehicles in park" or "patent issue"

ineedone

What does "No vehicles in the park" mean? Of course, your first instinct will be "oh, just cars" well, trust me, you can have an entire class full of debate as to what a vehicle may be. It is all about defining a word, and how to interpret what congress lays out as law and how to follow/enforce that. This also has a lot of legal theory as to how to interpret the constitution. (Textual, Purpose, Realism, Modern Dynamics)

Patent law deals with exclusive rights granted by a state/government to an inventor for a period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention. So you can see why a definition could mean all the difference. Especially when it comes to bio-genetics, and other scientific patents (I am assuming this is where the whole male/female distinction may become quite the problem). Again, G6civicx is the real attorney so whenever he chimes back in I am sure he will be correcting a lot of what I said, but my limited, but growing, knowledge of it all has at least given me some sort of idea as to what it all is.

Walperstyle

You guys take things way too far.

I will simplify this in pictures.

















That is the complete list. The end.

__________________
KA-T ORG-Function over Flush

erikbanana

define justice.

HPKMotorsports3

Male= Superior Being... and i say that because "God" created who? thats right adam first!!! lol

__________________

hang_510

the standard is: the box you check, M or F, there is no 3rd choice!



does it matter? if we are equal, then the law applies equally and there is no need to define it further.



the reproducitve organs of mammals are unique to the gender (mutations aside)




cant tell? what are they trying to hide?
kill em, decision time is over.



the decision was made on the olympic runners gender, s. african or chinese??? about what gender class IT was permitted to run in.

since there are apparently differences in performance, if you try to cheat, you WILL get caught and exposed.