Talk:Solitary confinement of women in the United States

Untitled

I am failing to see how this article is anything but sexist for the sake of being sexist. The negatives as described for women are the same negatives for men. They are not any greater for being women. You really included that not being to have possessions or decorate your room takes away women's sense of self? It's all people. We don't need this biased article.

Transgender stuff

The stuff on transgenders should be removed because this article is about solitary confinement of WOMEN, not men including transgenders who are biological men. Include it in the main solitary confinement article, but it doesn’t belong in this article about WOMEN. —107.77.234.9 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, regarding gender identity, a partial list of genders might include: Agender (genderless), Androgyne, Bigender, Genderqueer / non-binary, Gender bender, Pangender, Trans man, Trans woman, Transmasculine, Transfeminine, Transsexual, Trigender. Also we have Third gender: Akava'ine, Bakla, Bissu, Calabai, Fa'afafine, Fakaleiti, Hijra, Kathoey, Khanith, Koekchuch, Māhū, Mak nyah, Mukhannathun, Muxe, Albanian sworn virgins, Takatāpui, Travesti, Two-spirit, Winkte. Shall we write an article for each of these genders? Welcome to the 21st century. Jim1138 (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s all a bunch of unencyclopedic liberal candy land gobbledegook. We need to talk about WOMEN in an article about solitary confinement of WOMEN. Not any of these made up genders. Two genders: male and female, and you can’t change your gender with medically unsafe hormones and surgeries! —107.77.234.9 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why even have this article at all if a section of it is gonna be dedicated to MEN in drag?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.235.234 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So much crying about transwomen. It's a valid issue. If you want to live in a bubble where trans people don't exist, Conservapedia is ---> that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.87.13 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THIS IRRELEVANT CONTENT SHOULD BE REMOVED

Why?

Confused as to why this has its own article. Ignoring the debatability of whether the negatives listed are exclusive to women, I think this article should be limited to what those purported affects are, eg. "Affects of solitary confinement on women". Not sure how the geographic location would have anything to do with it. I propose merging with Solitary confinement in the United States or broadening the geographic scope of the article. Symetrical (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Symetrical