Just 5 trans women in women’s jails - Inside Time article

I'm only a pen-pusher apparently (I'll let my governor know, so I don't have to do all the awkward face to face landing stuff any more), but it was FEMALE STAFF, who pushed pens eloquently and decisively, to make the change to the PSI that RMN referred to earlier.

There is a TW in my establishment. They are not violent or a sex offender. They have had bottom surgery. They do not pass, FWIW. In theory, they would meet RMN's criteria for going to a female prison. They are not on the VP wing, through their own choice (they were offered the opportunity). The other prisoners actually look out for them and leave them be. We somehow managed to develop a supportive community in a male prison, although we are low on hair accessories.

I swear this issue often fels like shouting at the Cat's Protection League for not considering small dogs.

You know, the ones about the size of a cat, and who don't bark very much. You bigots.

I don't understand your perspective, RMN.

What on earth do trans-identifying male prisoners have to do with female prisons? It's nothing to do with female prisons, their inmates and their staff. No male - no matter how he wishes to be perceived or what body modification he's been through - should ever be in women's single sex spaces. Not even the nice They/Thems with hair bobbles.

Ever. No exceptions

The problem of how to safely house transwomen prisoners is an issue for the men's prisons to solve.

They can try trans wings, splitting VP units up into sex offenders and not sex offenders, increase staffing ratios, whatever strikes them as a possibility. I don't see why feminists need to argue about this, it's a Men problem for them to fix.

(obviously I do see why this is a problem for feminists, because males are being held in the female estate, but this should never have been the case)

Not if you see them passing scrunchies and lippy and think everything’s tickety boo.

Yy @RedToothBrush. It gets really simple if you focus on the women.

To me, because I'm gender critical, genital surgery status is irrelevant, plus I would like to reach a point where nobody feels the need for self harm on that scale. But I have always noted that female prisoners where they speak up, tend to regard surgery status as important, and I can imagine it makes a difference in communal living.

'Just 5 males'.

Can we just reflect on the invisible women in this very simple statement. How many women are being impacted by just 5 males?

Can we have a number on that?

How many women have to share mixed sex shower facilities? How many women have to share mixed sex sleeping arrangement? Are these women feeling that their dignity is being respected?

The focus, even in that simple comment, isn't on the women affected. They are invisible and secondary to the men. Thats not balancing needs if we are silent about the dignity of women as the starting point in conversations.

Why can't we have headlines like '400 women share communal showers with males in prison' for example? I am fairly sure if that were the headline for the BBC it would get complaint and be accused of bias.

This thread has just really focused my mind on this point.

Maybe we can have a concerted effort when we talk about trans prisoners to stress the women first. Lets centre them.

Can we start to rewrite News Headlines which centre women when we have stories about the conflict between trans issues and women rather than accept the bollocks of stuff like 'anti-trans JK Rowling'.

If we start thinking like this and start reframing in our own heads and say it out loud as a matter of routine, maybe others will start to see the invisible women.

Can we ask the question routinely: where are the invisible women?

They should never have been remanded into a female prison. I'm shocked they were remanded into a female prison in England!

I agree that separate wings in the male estate is what I would choose too.

I would point out though that Stephen Wood/Karen White was on remand in England, not Scotland. And definitely had a penis. Perhaps they're being excluded because they were on remand.

I don't exclude cases that were 'a long time ago' because I'm old and therefore to me this century is not very long. The policy only changed a year ago and in my view it's important to keep clearly in mind how things came to happen.

Claims to be Gender Critical yet thinks “misgendering” is bigoted. Hmm.

Transwomen are men, though. That is the definition of a transwoman. A man who wants to be a woman, believes he is a woman, tries to look like a woman. How else could anyone describe him?

You’re telling me that I have to be careful with my language about how I talk about an individual who we only know exists because you say so and if I’m not careful I could be reported for a potential hate crime under the harassment act if you weren’t being so nice today, and I am “daft” to use the word coercion?

I don’t care what the legal definition of coercion is. You’re trying to coerce me into using wrong sex pronouns with the threat of a “report”.

Well, no. I won’t be coerced. I won’t change my language because of your threats.

Oh you don't think women are put at harm because the hypothetical tw doesn't have a penis and shares hair accessories!

I forgot !

How lovely for these vulnerable woman that he passed your test and was put in the women's estate because you think he's no safety risk. Never mind the psychological harm that he might cause to women by being there , eh? So long as the poor man is kept safe.

Well the solution IS NOT to put women at harm.

Which is what you are suggesting.

Please highlight where I have suggested that. I'll wait.

It could fall under protection from harassment act 1997 because you are referring to an individual rather than a group. If you were talking about a group of transwomen being male, that it is fine, but you are referring to one individual who is not theoretical.

In reality, I would not report it. But think very carefully before you start throwing around legal terms like coercion because it just makes you look a bit daft.

Oh no someone is upset that we are correctly sexing males again!

Whilst claiming to be Gender Critical !

What crime is being committed that is aggravated by hate?

Yep! This a legal not biological distinction. What it’s saying is there is an indefinite number of trans women in female prisons.

Coercion 😂 you know that has a very specific legal meaning, right?

Likewise, repeatedly misgendering people may be a hate crime. Are you comfortable committing a hate crime?

Well the solution IS NOT to put women at harm.

Which is what you are suggesting.

As others have said there are plenty of vulnerable males in the male prison estate who don't have special entitlements.

The fact that some 'identify' as women doesn't make them the problem of vulnerable women to solve.

Note that I have not used female pronouns to discuss transwomen once.

Your thank you cookies are in the post.

Failure to acknowledge the sex of people being locked up with women is anti-women. Forcing people to use neutral pronouns for a known male is coercion.

Right but in the meantime you're quite fine with women being thrown under the bus to keep these males safe?

No im not fine with it, I've asked everyone to come up with solutions and we keep circling around to the idea I suggested. What are you expecting me to say? That's it's five to throw someone with breast in with sex offenders? Nobody in their right mind would think that is ok.

You have told us he is a man. I use correct sex pronouns. I do not believe in gender identity so I am not deliberately misgendering because I am not a believer, in the same way I can’t be guilty of blasphemy.

And you have the right to be gender critical. However you can choose to use neutral pronouns, and your refusal to tells me that you are not gender critical, just transphobic, because of your persistence in this. Note that I have not used female pronouns to discuss transwomen once.

Right but in the meantime you're quite fine with women being thrown under the bus to keep these males safe?

What I'm interested in is why you think that the safety and dignity of women should be put at risk to keep these males safe?

Why are women secondary to the safety of males?

How you can claim to be gender critical and hold these fundamentally anti women views baffles me.

@itsfinallytime because I have said, multiple times, that I support the formation of more transgender wings. I believe these wings for transwomen should be within male estates, negating the need for vulnerable transwomen to be housed in female estates.