Rapists have been housed in the women's estate before. Without a GRC. With predictable results.
That whole policy to me reads as an attempt to appease both sides of the 'debate'. And so leaves some very big questions.
For me there's the stuff I mentioned earlier.
But the thing that's missed. That's always missed. Or not missed but set aside. In all manner of conversations. Whether it's about segregated bogs/ changing. Or about sexual harassment by men on the street. Or the always trivialised wolf whistling. And on and on.
Is the fact that a worryingly large minority of men get a kick out of making women and girls feel uncomfortable/ scared/ upset. And loads do it without crossing the line into illegal acts.
Staring for example. That's not illegal. But a man or men just watching you. Silent. It's very scary. I used to walk past a building site when I was a girl and all the men would go quiet. Stop what they were doing. Stop talking. It would fall quiet and they would just stare. Watch me. I found that terrifying.
Looking at people is not illegal.
Neither is standing too close. Slowly looking up and down. I doubt it's illegal to have an erection if you don't get it out. It's not illegal to strike up conversation, ask personal questions. Etc etc.
That's the sort of thing they call microaggressions I think? Not so micro.
Loads of males enjoy doing all this. And they know where the line is.
To have transwomen who have sexually offended against women and girls mixing with the rest of the prisoners so they don't miss out or something. They are protecting the main estate from these (in their own words) transwomen offenders who present a risk to 'other' women. That means they won't give the opportunity to assault or rape. What about all the other things that women know so well, when it comes to enjoying female discomfort at sexual threat?