Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

@OvaHere

it's been long known that cross dressing is a paraphilia very frequently co-morbid to sex offenders.

Yep. It's verboten to say so now but the facts remain.

From the judgement:

"There is no statutory requirement that male and female prisoners be accommodated in different establishments, but rule 12(1) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides that –
"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

The population of a female prison may include persons who were born female and identify as such (referred to in this judgment as "women"); persons who were born male but identify as female, whether or not they have undergone any alteration of physical characteristics ("transgender women"); and transgender women who have obtained a GRC ("transgender women with a GRC"). It is important to the Claimant's case to note that both a transgender woman and a transgender woman with a GRC may retain male genitalia."

"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

I am actually shocked by those prison rules because the inequality is already baked in in 1999. 'Women' vs males. Not female.

Were women's prisons never intended to be single sex? Where had transvestite or transsexual prisoners been housed before? Was it just that in 1999 they could not see where we would be 20 years later and the word "woman" was not contended ground? Were Press for Change consulted?

This is pre GRA so there was no legal reason for the fudge of language.

The judgement looks like it needs a good Barrakering, doesn't it?

So, to be clear, our current prison rules say Female-and-criminal-men-who-say-they-feel-like-women-and-men-with-the-paraphilia-of-transvestic-fetish-disorder-and-the-tiny-group-of-males-who-the-state-say-can-legally-call-themselves-female-even-though-they-still-may-have-penises prisoners shall normally (and what's with the normally? irrespective of their crime?) be kept separate from male prisoners.

Maybe the 1999 prison rules is the place to start change?

I'm absolutely aghast.

I can't even bring myself to write anymore.

I am just so so so angry, sad, I could cry.

Women are nothing but Canon fodder for men.

I hate this fucking world right now

Obscene is the right word.

Of all the things that have gone on, this in the legal team's press release really stood out

This is the first time the
High Court has considered the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act

What a ridiculous situation. 11 years of this legal thingy being used every day everywhere, and no case law. In the mean time, stonewall and all the others stating that their interpretation is law - that tw have to always be admitted to female services -, but never actually taking a case to court to demonstrate this.

Disgusted with the result, I hope there’s an appeal

This is absolutely obscene. I can't think of anything else to say. It's just utterly obscene

"I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant's case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition (for which Ms Hogarth provides evidence) that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women....

However, the subjective concerns of women prisoners are not the only concerns which the Defendant had to consider in developing the policies: he also had to take into account the rights of transgender women in the prison system."

[quote BuffysBigSister]Richard Garside who is a criminal justice expert also pulls out some "hopeful" points in this Twitter thread (which I hope I have linked correctly). He's worth a follow on this issue

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1410917867990704129[/quote]
Garside has been a consistent voice of reason on this topic for some time (even when it led to a conference being cancelled).

archive of his thread (it might need updating later): archive.is/9uksf

Richard Garside who is a criminal justice expert also pulls out some "hopeful" points in this Twitter thread (which I hope I have linked correctly). He's worth a follow on this issue

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1410917867990704129

To me a "transgender woman" is a female person who identifies as a man.

And Why is it always about the 'risk' involved? Focusing solely on the trans person? Their behaviour. Their feelings. Their crime.

What about the incarcerated women whose PTSD from male violence will be triggered by the presence of a male? Any male.

And, for the love of god, any male who is prepared to violate the boundaries of incarcerated women isn't suddenly going to start treating them with respect, is he?

And they acknowledge that the very cohort demanding access are the very cohort who present more risk of sexually offending.

It's inhumane.

I cannot believe this. It is disgusting.

I am so cross with this judgement. I read it (only had a quick skim) that a) the argumentation from our side was slightly muddled, b) that there are sufficiently procedures in place that the overall framework is legal and c) that there is a lack of information to suggest otherwise.

a) why was the argumentation on our side unclear? (I believe it wasn’t argued that all transwomen should be excluded, unclear argument on the distress of women?)
b) did our side try to state that the individual processes didn’t work ?
c) did our side state that information needed to be collected?

Overall, I just find this classist as well as sexist. The men in power are counting on that the process will be fair. The process are never fair for vulnerable, working class women who are up against males. That is what these people cannot grasp.

Please, please go over the the petition section and sign the one there about recording the correct sex of offenders in Scotland. It’s hugely important especially in the light of today.

They used to do the same on tiger shoots apparently, tie a couple of goats up under a tree and wait....... didn’t stop the tigers eating goats funnily enough.

2) the risk can be managed

What's the betting that, as with everything else involving transwomen, what will be "managed" is not the behaviour of the transwomen themselves, but the behaviour of the natal women. As with young girls needing to "educate themselves" over their discomfort at the presence of a penis in their locker room, I have not doubts that prison services (fully paid up members of the rainbow flag), not wishing to incur the wrath of TRAs, will put any female prisoner complaining of harassment into isolation, or otherwise punish her or require her to change her attitude. Well, I suppose it's no different to women worldwide having to bear the burden of responsibility of not being raped, rather than men baring the responsibility of not raping.

Men really do hate women, don't they. That's all it comes down to. Madonnas and whores. Women in prison deserve it, they stopped being worthy of protection the minute they were convicted. Or fill in the gap - wore a short skirt, got drunk, walked home alone at night, left her husband, failed to get self defence lessons, had an opinion, got a top job, out-performed a man, blah blah fucking blah.

I really thought this would be the end of it.
It's an example of how captured and entwined in law gender ideology has become.

Why do they talk about transgender women? I didn't think there was such a term in law? I thought in law such a person was referred to as a transsexual? Isn't transsexual the legal term.

Saying transgender women is misleading. A transgender woman, by definition, must be a male.

“Whilst we are disappointed with today’s judgment, we welcome this clarification in the law. The judgment is clear – Policy makers must therefore have due regard to the impact of these policies on non-transgender women. It is our client’s bravery, in bringing this important and sensitive challenge, which has made this possible.

Fingers crossed that MOJ will have a good hard look at what they're doing