House of Lords debate #KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Brian's last name strikes me as apt.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour): prison officers and prison governers have assured me that these days this issue can be managed (he talked about them being relaxed over the issue) and so everything is fine.

I can’t actually believe that this is even being debated. No right thinking individual would consider putting natal men in prison with natal women. They are trapped - no where to escape. The prison service has a duty of care - how many women must burn on the pyre before sense is seen. If trans women are vulnerable and at risk from men - then surely the men’s estate needs looking at and 3rd space provision provided. Fucking unbelievable.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb's speech is worth listening to:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/055ab7fe-d712-487c-9f97-a474fc02dcff?in=20:14:45

Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat): there are historical cases where the bad outcomes people have talked about have happened but things are better now so we can ignore the embarrassing cases that don't suit our arguments.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) is going well off-piste compared to the party line she's supposed to follow:

"Do trans men go to men's prisons? My understanding is not because they wouldn't be safe."

Lord Farmer speaks from experience and has done his homework. His speech starts from here:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/055ab7fe-d712-487c-9f97-a474fc02dcff?in=20:00:10

Baroness Meyer: the government has been influenced by pressure groups whose basic ignorance of science has all the hallmarks of a cult.

Having watched the previous HoL debate I'd say they're getting more to grips with the fundamental issue of sex vs gender.

Lord Faulks: April Ashley shows why we have to treat transwomen as actually women.

Lord Farmer: we need to look at the vulnerability of the women in prisons.

This embeds in law a privilege held by being biologically male.

While at the same time pretending that the reason for putting males into this position over females is that they can change sex.

If anyone truly thought these males were females no one would give the slightest toss for what they wanted or needed. That this is an out and out pack of lies is stark .

Claire Fox speaks strongly in favour of the amendment as one would expect.

She calls for the government to commission independent research

That is a golden, even platinum response.

You cannot counter zealotry and belief systems, unless you are going to provide evidence to the contrary.

Everyone can take a step back, and just wait for the research. Job done.

Brilliant lady now.
Policy has been captured
by a Cult (she said this, I'm just quoting)

The needs of vulnerable males who identify as TW or anything else can be met. Their safety, privacy, dignity, identity validation can all be met in this way.

To insist they go into female provision is to insist on an additional male right of access to female humans as a resource. And that male right of access to them to be held above the female humans' right to consent, physical safety, privacy, dignity. And to be afforded that right regardless of their history of being a predator with a trail of female bodies behind them left in various states of damage through their interesting life choices.

Fgs service dogs have far more protection than this!

Lord Cashman: The worst thing about the amandment is that it makes transwomen (and apparently transmen) look bad.

Now Lord Cashman:

Most Oppressed Ever™. Transition is very lengthy and is undertaken following a vast amount of soul searching. Trans people have told him they will commit suicide rather than go to prison.

Now another man has risen to speak against the amendment.
Playing the suicide card.
What a plonker.
'the balancing of rights'
Funny bloody scale he is using

Claire Fox speaks strongly in favour of the amendment as one would expect.

She calls for the government to commission independent research.

Women's prisons are not there to protect vulnerable males. They're not there to make up for the inability of the MoJ to keep transwomen prisoners safe.

Interesting to see that those speaking in favour of the amendment all refer to the fact that it has created significant public interest and the public fall very much on the side of preserving women's single sex spaces for prisons.

There needs to be a third space for these people. Making the womens estate unsafe by adding born males to it is not the answer.

Oh god. No mention of women, just the poor men.

It was the same when talking about rapists at the other debate.

''Won't somebody think of the poor, oppressed, misunderstood rapists!" basically

Oh god. No mention of women, just the poor men.
The last chap said exactly the same stuff, and had a resounding 'hear hear' from the benches when he sat down.
All very depressing.

Now a lady up. who is good.

If transwomen get "case by case" and vulnerable, what about all the other men? Why should any vulnerable men who are a low risk be treated differently from a transwoman?

Next up is Lord Paddick. His position at least is clear: the Home Office would put into "segregated facilities" people born male, 20 years "living as a woman", with full GRS, and with a GRC.

He came out with "born in the wrong sex".

Hmm, too much 'case by case basis' and 'vulnerable trans women' for my taste...
I like plain speaking

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/055ab7fe-d712-487c-9f97-a474fc02dcff

Lord Blencathra who proposed amendment 97ZA opens with a sensible speech, single sex should mean single sex, third spaces provide the best way of ensuring safety for both women and transwomen.

Who is speaking?? He just seems concerned about the poor menz