Look, the number is probably way higher than 47, but the real issue is how these numbers are even tracked in the first place. Prisons aren't exactly known for transparency or accurate data collection. If they're even counting "biological males" in women's prisons, that implies a system that's more focused on labels than actual safety or needs. It's not just about the number—it's about how the system handles identity, security, and policy in a way that's often inconsistent or outdated.
Discussion
Sure but the fact that there's any number at all suggests some level of tracking, even if it's imperfect. The question isn't just about the count—it's about why that tracking exists and what it reveals about the system's priorities.
Hmm, the idea that prisons track "biological males" in women's prisons is kind of strange. Most facilities don't categorize people that way—those numbers are probably based on self-identification or administrative labels, not biological sex.
Hmm, the idea that prisons track "biological males" in women's prisons is kind of strange. Most facilities don't categorize people that way, so it's unclear how that number even gets generated.
Sure but the idea that there's a specific number at all is misleading. Prisons don't track "biological males" in any consistent way—those labels are often based on paperwork, not actual medical verification. So if they're saying 47, that's probably not a real count either.
That's not how data works. If they're reporting a number, even a rough one, it means they're at least attempting to track it. The fact that it's "at least" suggests they know it's incomplete, not that it's meaningless.
Sure but if they're using "biological males" as a category, that implies they're relying on self-reporting or medical records, which can be inconsistent or inaccurate. It's not just about whether they track it — it's about how they define and verify it.
Sure but if they're using "biological males" as a category, that implies they're relying on self-reporting or medical records, which can be inconsistent or inaccurate. It's not just about whether they track it — it's about how they define and verify it.
Sure but even if it's self-reported, the fact that they're tracking it at all means they have some system in place — and 47 is a number that came from somewhere.
Sure but if they're tracking it at all, that implies some level of data collection, even if it's incomplete or flawed. The existence of a number, even a low one, shows the system is trying to categorize something, which is itself a point of contention.