Shadow Justice Secretary, Steve Reed, says TW convicted of violence should not be sent to a women's prison

"Does Labour think that a tanswoman who has been convicted of a sexual offence against a woman shouldbe sent to a women's prison?"

"No. That's a pretty clear answer I can't make it plainer than that. But absolutely not and I'll tell you why: because the overriding prioirity here is the protection of women and that overrides any rights that a prisoner in those circumstances might claim so for me you cannot put an offender who has been convicted of sexual or potentially serious physical attacks on women in a prison with other women."

Full marks for never saying "transwoman" in the same sentence as "offender" and "sexual attack", and a bonus for not saying "male" or "man" here either. "Prisoner in those circumstances", eh. Someone must have prepared that answer well in advance. And finishing with "other women".

With "case by case basis" doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Hm.

This 'stuff 'em all in together' mad passing thought also introduces another issue that we're also all going to encounter soon.

Which is: how many males can be in a women's group of prisoners before the females are in such a minority it is no longer viable?

A mixed sex grouping of sex offenders is going to be overwhelmingly male.

The MoJ will not place females of any identity in the male estate because of the risk of sexual assault. (Which seems in that context to be something that matters: goodness knows it doesn't normally.)

How many males can identify into the female estate before the same tipping point is reached?

And shall we face the fact that as we introduce all these category A male prisoners into the women's estate, we will eventually need a specific category A women's prison. Which will have very few if any females in the group of women imprisoned there.

This seemed to be the rather confused message from an interview earlier with someone - I can't remember whom. That no sex offender should be in a women's prison.

Which seemed to imply including the women.

Are we going to put sex offending women in the male estate?

If we did have a sex offender prison or unit that was wholly mixed sex, there would still be one group at much greater risk, suffering much greater damage, making up well over three quarters of the victims and very very few of the perpetrators. And regardless of how you manipulate the language and play with pronouns, you will still be able to identify this group on a sex basis.

As someone said very wisely a few days ago, sex segregation in prisons is needed, it works, it's worked for 200 years, and it's only being played with to try and wangle around to fit a square peg in a round hole - to accommodate a very small group of men who insist on their right to access women, have no interest in the wellbeing and impact of their presence on women, and don't think women matter.

Those men's needs can all be met in the male estate.

Everyone keeps talking about this male, and the evidence would suggest that they are rarer than a unicorn.

Would someone please locate this male and interview them? And then possibly the liberal left may like to keep them well dusted in a glass case, since they seem to be so very important to the case of getting men into women's facilities against the wishes and best interests of said women.

Into a 'Sex Crime' section held within single sex prisons with only people of the same sex?

Ok. Great.

And all the rest of the crimes sorted by sex as well, and never by 'gender'.

OK. Great. Thank you.

This. He showed no awareness of what he had just said, did he? He seemed to think he was cleverly moving the conversation onto the failings of the government rather than illustrating that most men who commit assaults are not convicted... so just keeping the convicted ones out of prison does not keep women safe..

I just despair of the quality of our politicians. That man just came across as really stupid. I would expect an A-level student in a debating club to handle themselves better than that. None of these people have grasped the brief on this issue, have they? None of them have analysed the arguments to come up with a coherent, evidence based position. This is why they flounder and contradict themselves.

And actually, its women who have been used as a political football on this issue, so fuck off.

That's a completely separate issue. Prisoners should all be separated by sex, and then within those single-sex prisons, particular categories of prisoners can be separated.

I am not. I am saying that anyone no matter what sex or gender that commits rape should be alongside vulnerable people.

And you take absolutely no measures to prevent rapes in the first place. Bravo.

What proportion of sexual assaults are performed by already-convicted sex offenders, do you think?

It's got to be low single digits. Why are you determined to invent "solutions" that solve 3% of the problem, rather than continue with the long-established one that solves 99% of the problem?

Your category segregation proposal might contribute to safety in men's prisons, where you don't have an existing 99% solution, but it's unnecessary in women's prisons, where simply excluding males is far superior.

Men aren't women's problem to solve

And I see "case by case basis" is this week's new think.

I am not. I am saying that anyone no matter what sex or gender that commits rape should be alongside vulnerable people. They should be segregated into a sex crime sector. Which is what should be happening already.

This!

I am sick of this nonsense, this lie, that we already know which men women need to be afraid of, so can just keep them out of prisons/ refuges (because, apparently TRA refuge workers think they can magically spot 'bad' men identifying as women because they are 'professionals' ) and all will be well.

Its a lie that all the evidence and data and case evidence and lived experience and all of human history disproves.

I am just sick of this lie! Just sick of it! And if they start to implement it, it will lead to the case made by the muppet upthread that all we need to do is segregate convicted sex offenders, and then there is no need for single sex prisons at all! Or single sex anything!

He's refusing to join the dots.

And .... we can't tell. We simply cannot tell.

*sexual violence

Yes, male violence is a scourge.

As it happens, no woman on Earth commits male violence.

And men commit 99% of all human violence.

Sort yourselves out.

Err, no.

It could be said to be both.

But the SEX of prisoners AND refuge service users (accommodation plus the option for single SEX group sessions) also needs to be separated.

Why are you so determined that female people be put into positions that harm them?

So all all those violent rapists he's saying shouldn't be in a women's prison, are suddenly not a problem when they're in a woman's changing room or following 12 year old girls into their toilets??

These people.

It never, ever occurs to them to wonder what women's lives are like, does it?

There are an infinite number more male rapists, sex offenders, bullies, intimidators and creeps outside of prison than there ever will be inside.

So the convicted rapist can't go in the women's prison.

But he can go into the women's toilet to commit the rape that puts him in prison.

No mate. You stil don't Fucking get it.

I want them to go back to asking them
if TWAW straight after that well rehearsed nonsense.

Women's prisons are for biological women.

Promising start, Labour. Keep going.

Yes he did! It jumped out at me. Interesting that he's recognising the bar being conviction of a crime. It seems he thinks it's ok to allow a transwoman into women's toilets so they can commit the sexual assault in the first place. So much for safeguarding.

Absolutely. Amazing he can quote the appalling stats on rape case convictions and not make that connection. There are tens of thousands of rapists who have never seen the inside of a prison cell.