Telegraph: MoJ to ban transwomen (male to female) from women's estate - links with specific details

This ^^

So how will they tell if a TW has retained male genitalia?

Medical records?

Absolutely. It hamstrings attempts to have blanket self ID across the board, making it effectively political suicide.

Legally speaking I think if any trans prisoner takes it on to asset their human rights, it would probably fail this strengthening women's position.

And if you have one 'legitimate exemption' it creates a situation where trans women are not women in terms of political speak. This also opens the door to other legitimate exemptions being in play, considered both reasonable and proportional.

If trans women are not women in prisons the bubble bursts. You always have it as an argument to put forward which comes under the label 'legitimate concerns'.

This is also ultimately why TRAs will have a shit fit over it because it breaks their thought terminating cliche TWAW and in doing so starts to make people think. That's how you break cultish thinking and just going along with the Stonewall brainwashing.

Politicians of all stripes will be much more likely and willing to talk about those exemptions or avoid using the phrase TWAW because if this does indeed go through, it makes TWAW as a phrase one that's growing politically toxic.

I hope there's a few people out there going 'we are all JKR now'.

If it is coming in today, then if Labour get in then they would have to positively reverse the measure.

So they would need to stand up and say ‘we want violent men in women’s prisons’ or ‘we want fully intact men in women’s prisons’. And I say men, because without a GRC that is what they are.

Would they really want to do that?

is it not much more likely that Labour think ‘excellent, now when we push ahead with self-ID we can say we will keep this particular policy in place, and then we don’t get [quite as many] awkward situations as the SNP did?

I suppose the worry is that the policy can be quietly dropped - but there would need to be a minister that approved, because if a minister is required to overrule, that couldn’t be dropped without that minister agreeing that they didn’t need to, I presume?

Absolutely! Screenshot this.

I am just wondering….
So how will they tell if a TW has retained male genitalia?
Will TRAs be raging about “genital inspections” - because how else will they verify intactness?
Surely it is appropriate that all males are housed in the male estate, with TW in a designated unit to ensure their safety?
No need for differentiation and verification of genital status to decide which estate, just housing in male estate, general or transgender unit?

DemiColon · Today 23:06
That doesn't mean that we can assume that most men convicted of other crimes have also committed rape

Given the rape statistics, yes we can be sure that some of them have.

This is a step in the right direction. Thank fuck for that.

That would be my guess as to why this is restricted to criminals who have used violence / sex crimes rather than all criminals.

If it goes to court, the argument then becomes about proportionality / privacy / dignity balanced up against women's right to privacy / dignity/ right to be safe.

If it's only for violent / sex crimes therefore constituting a clear risk factor for women, it becomes much harder to argue it's a disproportionate response which violates trans women's rights.

It means they'd be much more likely to win any legal challenges and get a legal precedent which works in women's interests. What they don't want is to set themselves up for a case which could roll back on women's rights hard.

What I mean is, not that men should go to women's prisons, but that logic is just dodgy. Not having many actual rapes convicted or even charged does not mean most or many criminals are probably also rapists. There is a lot of missing content there.

Well anyone who is male is a potential rapist, that's what potential means.

That doesn't mean that we can assume that most men convicted of other crimes have also committed rape.

RedToothBrush · Today 22:42
I mean, there were all these comments about whether there should be pant inspections, and well, yes I think criminals are exactly the type of people for whom not taking them at their word, might be deemed appropriate.

It's almost ironic.

Yes.

That assertion that they can’t be expected to check inside criminals pants is outrageous anyway as they think nothing of strip searching (innocent) black children , including a little girl who was having her period - making them spread their legs when naked, making them cough and then perhaps even poking about.

Please would anyone who has not already done so, go to petitions and sign the Sex-Matters petition to Parliament to update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic sex is biological, and not sex as modified by a GRC.

(Ignore the Gov. response so far saying everything is fine as it is. Look at Sex Matters website to see why not. )

I know they are saying this new prison policy will be regardless of a GRC, but they could be open to a legal challenge with the way the Equality Act interacts with the GRA. There have been a couple of EHRC committee meetings with a legal expert Dr Michael Foran, and other knowledgeable speakers, about this interaction being problematic.

This is one of the few places where an inspection of what's contained in pants is pretty much standard. So even if your paperwork say female, ladypenises are going to get noticed.

I mean, there were all these comments about whether there should be pant inspections, and well, yes I think criminals are exactly the type of people for whom not taking them at their word, might be deemed appropriate.

It's almost ironic.

This is being reported on Sky News now.

The phrase “male genitalia” has been spoken several times.

There are quite a few threads about this on facebook, and whilst many are really glad this has happened, most have real doubts it will last in practice ie it is a policy (though would be great if the 1823 act could be bought back).

Most women are saying they have no doubt Labour will win the next election (not because they are brilliant but because the Tories have lost credibility).

And that they will just shelve or actually abandon the policy. They are now so entrenched in their TWAW narrative, that not only will they not adopt this but will push for a revision of the UK GRA to align with the Scottish GRR (which will not be challenged by Labour) and then Wales will make the change as well.

So Lammy and all the others spouting the case by case basis I suspect are an indication of Labour policy.

Otherwise, given all the write ups of the miraculous recovery of Labour under Starmet because of dumping Corbyn, and now seen to be welcoming to Jewish members who had resigned etc., wouldn't they also be looking at all the women expelled from Labour for saying women are biological females?

So I think that Labour will be more intent on keeping on side those like the insane canvasser in Rosie Duffield's constituency, than trying to re-involve those they perceive as ageing dinasours.

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · Today 12:59

zanahoria · Today 11:48
"The new rules will also cover all transgender women with male genitalia and will apply regardless of whether transgender prisoners have a gender recognition certificate."

How about all males?

A male with his dick cut off could still be a threat.
There seems to be this mentality that they cant exclude all males, and can only make exceptions when the public find out, and then only that particular subset of men.

We all can name men who claim to no longer have male genitalia who look, sound and behave exactly like every other man. But they are treated differently in law, for some reason.

This extensive Swedish study of gender reassigned males MTF (who had had surgery) found they retained the same violent offending patterns of ordinary men.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

All male prisoners are potentially rapists, so few reported rapes result in conviction, and add in all the unreported rapes.

It's not safe to lock females up with males. State sanctioned rape, sexual assault, coversion, harassment, STDs, pregnancies etc.

It just shouldn't be something female prisoners need to worry about when they are the responsibility of the state.It should not be possible.

The fact that trans women think that they can be accepted as female when only approximately 8% of them have their genitalia removed is an insult to biological women. We need to be kept safe, and need safe spaces in all types of environments.

Conviction rate for rape so low that you have to assume all males are pote

Why isn’t it just all crimes and all TW going to prison?

I quite agree. The number of rapes reported vs the number of rape convictions suggests there are large numbers of rapists who are not convicted of their crimes so why is the MoJ gambling with the safety of female prisoners.

It is a step in the right direction but I won't be happy until we have clear, exemption free policy which stipulates no man should ever be housed in the female prison estate. If the government wants to maintain legislation which creates the absurdity of 'legal sex' then they can deal with the potential consequences. They have an obligation to maintain the safety of all prisoners so they can sort it out.

I feel like I'm misunderstanding, I can't see how this would make sense?

I'll gladly reiterate for the monitors: decent male people do not demand their own needs to be met at the expense of distress, trauma, sexual harassment and intimidation, sexual assault, (woman prisoner describing this in detail in the press today) and rape for females.

Other answers must be found. Acceptable collateral damage of females = zero

This thread’s being screenshotted on Twitter, by the way. Everyone wave to the Misogynist Monitors!

Oh, I do hope they're able to cry harder