Yes, you did sorry. I phrased it wrong: you don't seem to have considered it *enough.* I think it's obvious that a lot of offenders (not all of them sexual) are gaming the system. Why is it particularly sex offenders? Because they seem to be the ones happiest transgressing against certain moral norms. (I think not stealing is a moral nor…
Yes, you did sorry. I phrased it wrong: you don't seem to have considered it *enough.* I think it's obvious that a lot of offenders (not all of them sexual) are gaming the system. Why is it particularly sex offenders? Because they seem to be the ones happiest transgressing against certain moral norms. (I think not stealing is a moral norm too, but a less strong one than sexual assault; I'd consider stealing if I were hungry enough.)
Anyway, my shorter point is that they're (nearly) all liars, and you can learn nothing about the trans population from the prison population. I was serious about the castration thing: making entry to women's facilities dependent on losing one's balls would sort out who was sincere and who not, and the numbers should drop by 99% (at least).
It's plausible, but your thesis doesn't come across as obvious to me. I have to follow my own advice: when faced with insufficient evidence, I have to temper my conclusions accordingly.
Yes, you did sorry. I phrased it wrong: you don't seem to have considered it *enough.* I think it's obvious that a lot of offenders (not all of them sexual) are gaming the system. Why is it particularly sex offenders? Because they seem to be the ones happiest transgressing against certain moral norms. (I think not stealing is a moral norm too, but a less strong one than sexual assault; I'd consider stealing if I were hungry enough.)
Anyway, my shorter point is that they're (nearly) all liars, and you can learn nothing about the trans population from the prison population. I was serious about the castration thing: making entry to women's facilities dependent on losing one's balls would sort out who was sincere and who not, and the numbers should drop by 99% (at least).
It's plausible, but your thesis doesn't come across as obvious to me. I have to follow my own advice: when faced with insufficient evidence, I have to temper my conclusions accordingly.
There's nothing surprising about those findings