The problem isn't "poor women need to be defended from gross trannies", it's "what happens to babies born to these women?"
If you put men in women's prisons, somebody's going to get raped because, even though prisons are supposed to represent a maximum of direct state control, they're still rife with crime. If a man rapes a man, or a woman rapes a women, it's messed up but ultimately they're both convicted criminals.
However, if there are men with women there is a high chance of having a baby result from said rape, a baby who has done nothing wrong and needs a mother for a certain period of time.
So what do you do? Let them mother keep the baby in prison where things like rape are not uncommon? Let the mother, who is a convicted criminal, raise the baby outside of the jail? Kill the baby who, again, is innocent? There is no good solution.
On top of that, if the jail decides to give the mother some sort of privilege, women will intentionally take advantage of this policy and get pregnant on purpose.
This is actually part of the reason women used to be considered property; no one wants to deal with all the inherent problems of imprisoning women in a general population so, instead, they made women property of their husband or male relative so they couldn't go to prison. Instead, their "owner" was placed in charge of their behaviour and also reaped the consequences.
This is actually part of the reason women used to be considered property
Quit repeating this feminist lie.
Women were never "property." They were considered to be under protection of their husband, which meant he was obligated to take care of them. That's not the same thing as "property".
You can throw your "property" out the window and forget about it. Nobody has ever been able to just throw their wife out the window and forget about her without expecting to suffer consequences.
Even in Islamic countries, men are expected to take care of women. This "property" myth is a complete fabrication.
Instead, their "owner" was placed in charge of their behaviour and also reaped the consequences.
That's still largely the case outside the criminal law context. The difference is the husband used to have authority coupled with that responsibility. That authority has been stripped away but men are still largely on the hook for women's bad decisions. Look no further than boiling rage that the concept of paper abortion instills in feminists for proof.
The baby's life is a tragedy, but it's not the argument I hear from conservatives allied with TERFs to defend women because they think it's an effective political tactic. I believe the goal is to cause female voters to empathize with fellow women behind bars. Pregnancies are an "Oh yeah that's bad too!" afterthought.
As for the baby, you abort or take it away to an orphanage. It's an easy solution, but so is not putting men in women's prisons, and naturally the government has to make everything complicated. I also have a hunch that those same women conservatives have courted in the pursuit of defending women, would also be the ones screaming "You can't take those babies away from their mothers!"
Yes, I may have worded that poorly. I meant the "women that conservatives have courted", mostly the suburban mom types who consume boomer-tier memes on Facebook and might get angry enough at men in women's locker rooms to vote for Republicans.
And most of these "trans" inmates aren't on hormones, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Edit: lest you accuse me of being on "women's" side -- no. I don't like seeing people rewarded for lying or gaming the system. "Trans" is inherently a lie and avoiding real jail so that some criminal piece of shit can just go and rape women to their heart's content instead has to be the epitome of gaming the system.
The problem isn't "poor women need to be defended from gross trannies", it's "what happens to babies born to these women?"
If you put men in women's prisons, somebody's going to get raped because, even though prisons are supposed to represent a maximum of direct state control, they're still rife with crime. If a man rapes a man, or a woman rapes a women, it's messed up but ultimately they're both convicted criminals.
However, if there are men with women there is a high chance of having a baby result from said rape, a baby who has done nothing wrong and needs a mother for a certain period of time.
So what do you do? Let them mother keep the baby in prison where things like rape are not uncommon? Let the mother, who is a convicted criminal, raise the baby outside of the jail? Kill the baby who, again, is innocent? There is no good solution.
On top of that, if the jail decides to give the mother some sort of privilege, women will intentionally take advantage of this policy and get pregnant on purpose.
This is actually part of the reason women used to be considered property; no one wants to deal with all the inherent problems of imprisoning women in a general population so, instead, they made women property of their husband or male relative so they couldn't go to prison. Instead, their "owner" was placed in charge of their behaviour and also reaped the consequences.
Quit repeating this feminist lie.
Women were never "property." They were considered to be under protection of their husband, which meant he was obligated to take care of them. That's not the same thing as "property".
You can throw your "property" out the window and forget about it. Nobody has ever been able to just throw their wife out the window and forget about her without expecting to suffer consequences.
Even in Islamic countries, men are expected to take care of women. This "property" myth is a complete fabrication.
That's still largely the case outside the criminal law context. The difference is the husband used to have authority coupled with that responsibility. That authority has been stripped away but men are still largely on the hook for women's bad decisions. Look no further than boiling rage that the concept of paper abortion instills in feminists for proof.
The baby's life is a tragedy, but it's not the argument I hear from conservatives allied with TERFs to defend women because they think it's an effective political tactic. I believe the goal is to cause female voters to empathize with fellow women behind bars. Pregnancies are an "Oh yeah that's bad too!" afterthought.
As for the baby, you abort or take it away to an orphanage. It's an easy solution, but so is not putting men in women's prisons, and naturally the government has to make everything complicated. I also have a hunch that those same women conservatives have courted in the pursuit of defending women, would also be the ones screaming "You can't take those babies away from their mothers!"
Yes, I may have worded that poorly. I meant the "women that conservatives have courted", mostly the suburban mom types who consume boomer-tier memes on Facebook and might get angry enough at men in women's locker rooms to vote for Republicans.
And most of these "trans" inmates aren't on hormones, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Edit: lest you accuse me of being on "women's" side -- no. I don't like seeing people rewarded for lying or gaming the system. "Trans" is inherently a lie and avoiding real jail so that some criminal piece of shit can just go and rape women to their heart's content instead has to be the epitome of gaming the system.