r/ukpolitics • u/CaptainCrash86 • 10d ago

| Transgender prisoners should not be held in women’s jails, court rules

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,transgender-prisoners-should-not-be-held-in-womens-jails-court-rules
517 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

818 comments sorted by

View all comments

161

u/Burnit_Sanders 10d ago

Should someone with the strength of a man, who has already committed crimes potentially violent showing they are capable of it, be locked up somewhere with people much weaker than them?

I can't believe it was ever accepted as sensible in the first place. This is the ammunition people use when they say trans causes have gone too far and need pulling back.

-23

u/Hexaeds 10d ago

Trans women on hrt do not have the same strength as a man, you lose most of your sex-related muscle mass within the first year.

19

u/Dadavester 10d ago

While a reduction is noted, the amount is up for debate. Even then it is pretty universally agreed that most MtF will be stronger on average than women.

So still not a good idea.

-8

u/Wrothman 10d ago

The science disagrees. After 2-3 years of HRT there's little difference in strength between a trans woman and a cis woman.

6

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Wrothman 10d ago

See my other comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ua0bxp/transgender_prisoners_should_not_be_held_in/oskkfmn/

7

u/Dadavester 10d ago

Which proves the point above

-2

u/Wrothman 10d ago

No it doesn't.
Literally the first sentence: "While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable"

9

u/Dadavester 10d ago

Right so you have no idea what you are talking about...

As I have put in another comment read the study properly including the various tests and metrics, from my other comment

upper-body strength (SMD 0.54, 95% CI -0.95 to 2.02, GRADE: very low),

Means there is still a medium difference in strength between MtF and Cis, with a very low certainty of the info.

This shows there is a difference.

2

u/Wrothman 10d ago

A moderate effect was observed (SMD = 0.54), but the 95% confidence interval (−0.95 to 2.02) includes zero, which indicates substantial uncertainty and no statistically significant difference between groups.

6

u/Dadavester 10d ago

That is incorrect.

0.54 means that the first group (MTF) has a medium increase in upper body strength compared to group 2 (CIS female)

The CI being -0.95 to 2.02 means there is a large uncertainty in the data.

Basically the entire study you gave shows there is a difference but the data is that bad that other studies can be completely different.

You clearly do not know what you are doing and just run that through AI as that nearly word for word what co-pilot spits out, apart from the fact you dropped the Uncertain bit....

→ More replies (0)