is there a thread for FWS / Prisons?

Usual mitigations are considering therapeutic treatment, eliminating risks, managing behaviour. Not providing comfort women.

I've spent a large part of the last week with a young man in prison who has been threatening to kill himself if the prison management don't acquiesce to his demands requests. We're not going along with his requests, it's not going to happen. I know for a fact that he is capable of at least attempting to carry out his threats. He hasn't killed himself yet.

Why are his demands unreasonable, while a man who says he will kill himself if he isn't locked up with women is immediately pandered to? Is my prisoner less important, less valuable, less worthy?

It's seriously disturbing to think that women's right in the UK hinge on the fact that we have the legal fiction that is the GRC.

The probable route to a solution seems a trifle optimistic, the GRC changes their sex, they might only be legally female, but giving them that much is a mistake, a fiction, even a legal fiction is still a fiction.

Excellent point, I think this should be campaigned for as part of the “bright line” mentioned in this case

There is the possibility of ensuring that a GRC refers only and solely to 'gender' and 'gender identity', and that all necessary instances are strictly sex based.

Anyone can have a special certificate to record the gender of their choice. On purple paper with gold embossed writing and as many wee flags and stickers as they like.

Birth certs, passports, any official ID, remain sex based. And the EA SSEs refer solely to sex.

This is actually pretty much what we have; if we can only get the Scottish govt to wake up to reality.

😂😂😂 far too close to reality.

For those of you not on X, Lucy Hunter Blackburn has posted the following 'draft' of a proposed new Scottish Government Bill. Echoes of Jonathan Swift, who would have been good round about now.

Women (National Resource) (Scotland) Bill
[DRAFT]

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to exploit the value of the female half of the population and something about dogs, just to justify spending any time on it

1.Relevant purposes
(1) A woman may be treated as a resource for the following purposes

(a) The performance of a sexual act for payment
(b) Alleviating mental distress in men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in prisons
(c) Providing psychological support to men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in settings including but not limited to

(i) prisons
(ii) rape and sexual crisis violence crisis centres
(iii) domestic violence services
(iv) hospitals, including closed mental hospitals
(v) schools
(vi) sports

(d) The supply of eggs for other individuals using assisted reproductive technology

(e) The supply of new-born babies under contract to other individuals, provided that any associated payments are described as 'expenses'

(f) The management of misbehaviour by boys in school

(g) Politically opportunistic statements about violence against women and women's financial circumstances and any other related matter

(h) Any other purposes for which Scottish Ministers may from time to time make provision by Order.

2.Dogs
Something about dogs that isn't really needed but makes a good headline.

3.Interpretation
(1) For all the purposes covered by this Act, everyone knows what a woman is, but for the avoidance of doubt, in section 1, a woman is a person defined by reference to their biological sex being female.

(2) In this section, “biological sex” means sex at birth.

They never stop to ask themselves in which direction they are progressing, merely felicitating themselves on being "Progressive" is sufficient..

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods
Absolutely, and this is why I'll never vote SNP again. Unfortunately, a large enough minority will keep voting for them to keep them in power. When I try to explain to my (mostly female) friends why I won't vote SNP, they look at me like I'm a tin-foil-hat wearing heretic. How bad does it have to get before enough people can see it to put a stop to it?

"prepared" = "previous page"

Following on from @Igneococcus ' post on the prepared, Prof McQueen was awarded a CBE for services to the NHS in 2021, and is also vice-chairwoman of Scotland's drugs deaths taskforce, according to the BBC.
Onwards and upwards.

Naomi Cunningham on X:

"Suppose a male prisoner says he’ll kill himself if not provided with access to prostitutes? Where exactly is the limit to women’s duty to indulge and submit to men?"

Amy’s Reindorf and Naomi Cunningham speak well on this - the GRC is a relatively good thing. It’s why the UK has legally managed to defend many GC cases- because there is a completely independent way of legally acknowledging trans people by the state . So useful that it is separate to women’s sex based rights - in other countries the two are muddled together and it will be a nightmare to unpick. The GRC may seem to cause problems but actually is probably the route to a solution 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻 Yes they can have their piece of paper and other acknowledgments but we all still understand they are the sex they were at conception

I think women forcibly locked up with violent, coercively controlling men, with that coercive control enabled and supported by the state is a human rights abuse and could well promote a similar level of despair to that felt by women in Afghanistan. What rights do these women have? The state is forcing them to lie. What else is it forcing? Cover up of sexual harassment, seemingly from the testimony they tried to suppress. How hard was it to get that testimony out? Woman who named reality prosecuted and privileges denied for 'transphobia'. How can any of them feel safe to speak up knowing how they could be punished.

What if the man in the women's prison is going to threaten to commit suicide unless he gets to shower with a certain prisoner, for example. Or left alone with her for a bit. With this as the basis, not caring how women feel about men in their prison, how far will they go? Who would know if they did this with the coercive control fully in place?

There's another court case going on about weeding out prison officers who won't go along with it.

It's a different context but the utter control of these women's lives and determination to subordinate them to men is the same as in Afghanistan.

I think it's important to point out because I remember so vividly an article by Afghanistan women journalists after the Taliban took over - men they had worked alongside, were colleagues, who they thought would rise up with them to protect women's rights went along with it.

It's why this fight is so important - this case and the SG's argument is a massive red flag to all women. At the moment the rest of society is not in the same position as the women in Scottish prisons. But if they're willing to use their power to do this to vulnerable women in prison, do we really think that ANY woman is safe from being used as a product to soothe an allegedly suicidal man's soul? They are institutionalising coercive control abuse of women.

I ca't quite believe the Scottish government tried to prevent that prisoner's testimony by claiming it wasn't relevant.

I can't fathom it.

Hypothetical claims of suicide risks by men - key to their case.
Actual testimony of sexual abuse by women - "irrelevant".

It's utterly terrifying how little they appear to value women. It actually makes me feel very vulnerable at times to witness how democratic western governments are taking this approach in the trans-context. "We acknowledge women's concerns, but feel trans-identifying men's are more valid" - OK; tenuous and disturbing in itself, but relative to what we're seeing here, kind of OK.

But this?

It really does make comments like this "It's a Taliban level of disregard of women's rights" feel apt in some ways. You feel awful saying it, so conscious of your privilege, and what an insult it could be to women living in unimaginably worse ways... but the appallingly literal negation and silencing of women we're seeing there is reflected in this, in our apparently absolute irrelevance...

Good point, the selection criteria of 'we don't think that this guy is dangerous' and 'this guy is threatening to commit suicide if we don't' is likely to end up selecting those people that are pre-disposed towards coercive control

Forcibly locking up women with men who are ADMITTING they will coercively control from the start, along with the prison service, is such a huge women's human rights abuse. Forcing the women to deny reality to pretend the guy wearing tight leggings to show off his penis is a woman. The guy making sexual comments and threats. Getting punished if they say what they see. If they can do that then the women know they can do anything and cover it up and must lose all hope.

It's absolutely shocking.

If all the women in the women's prison said they'd want to commit suicide if incarcerated with a man, then what happens? Does the SG still think his rights are more important? (the answer is obviously yes, since they didn't go there).

There are more prisoners then at risk of suicide from men in women's spaces than there are sad (coercively controlling) men.

I'm really pissed off this obvious point was not made.

The facts suggest that women are far more likely to be suicidal over being incarcerated with men than the men are. More of them will have suffered male violence for a start, so will be more likely to have PTSD associated with male bodies. Men have 160% the punch power of women, they are bigger, stronger. TIMs will have the same sex based advantages as the other men, so on the physical strength side of things have no disadvantage in the men's estate. Whereas women have a physical disadvantage with any TIM.

It's infuriating that the whole thing basically rests on 'we care more about men killing themselves than women and are willing to deploy a very large number of possibly very mentally unwell women as human shields'.

I would like more scrutiny of the suicide risk in women's prisons and the part forcibly locking them up with men has had in that.

One TIM in a woman's prison can cause mental anguish to however many women are there (100s?). So the SG argument is basically one man's wants override no matter how many hundred women's needs. It's a Taliban level of disregard of women's rights.

There is another article in the Times about Scotland's chief nursing officer at the time the QEUH scandal broke (or rather started to slowly emerge from the shadows while ScotGov tried their best to pretend nothing was wrong with the hospital) who said (according to one of the whistleblowers) that the bereaved families should just have been given £50K compensation "the equivalent of a trip to Disneyland". I can't even quite put into words why this enrages me so much, there is so much wrong with this. She retired and walked right into another job as chairwoman of the Scottish Police Authority.
It's just one never ending circle of incompetents moving from one well paid role to another and nothing ever gets better.

It's a game to them. They just don't care how this affects women.

They don't care about prostituted women, women prisoners, hospital patients, drug deaths, children in state schools - I could go on.

The Scottish parliament are comfortable on very good salaries, and just do not care that the country crumbles around them. They get to award themselves prizes and applaud each other.

The gov have done their damnedest to confuse things as much as they possibly can. Smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

https://genderblog.net/fws-day-3-sex-is-semantics/

Nick Wallis' write up.

I had missed the end of the hearing - the judge has said due to the 'complexities' nobody should expect a quick outcome and it would take her some time to come to a conclusion.