Scottish Prison Service guidance - ruled unlawful

That would be nice, destroyed by their own plan, it seems like natural justice.

The comment about 'A trans prisoner could not live in his or her transgender identity in the abstract' is interesting, and it's useful to see mentioned in court because it makes clear two separate things.

If a man with a trans identity is in a room alone, does he cease to be a man with a transgender identity?

Of course he doesn't. He can be a man with a transgender identity perfectly freely, he does not change in any way. His need to be transgender can be perfectly well accommodated with separate provision.

The mumbled content under this is: can a man perform womanhood as he might wish, in order to meet his own preferred perceived needs, without using the spaces of and presence of real women? (Subtext: can it be acceptable that women should be compelled to provide this?) with this in fact being transgenderism?

That's the sticking point. If it's in an honestly labelled mixed sex space with women who consent? Why not. I am always a bit concerned for women willing to provide their body to be used by a man out of a belief that it is a right, socially virtuous and kind thing to do, but at least they consent. It's the women who don't consent, can't consent, need accessible spaces too, and as actually acknowledged here cannot simply give up their access and go away. Which is a bar so low its more or less underground in terms of equality of consideration to the man.

It pulls back to the basic SC premise: IS a man with a transgender identity an actual biological female, (no), do biological females (half the human race) have needs of their own that can only be met in single sex spaces (yes), and should those women's needs be subordinated and limited in law so that a man who is not a woman can perform his chosen identity as he wishes, using them?

The law said no. The whining and anger of everyone, including the government, said but we wannnnnnaaaaaaaa.

The sexism, the endless ruddy sexism and what is, in all honesty, the male supremacist belief that one man's interests always trumps any number of women's, is so bloody depressing.

Article 8 is a qualified right which means a domestic Country laws and public bodies can overide it pass laws that limit it in certain circumstances, including national security, health and well being etc.

I think many governments (including the UK government) are now also questioning whether it has been overly relied on to e.g. prevent criminals from being deported.

Sometime I'm going to sit down and read everything I can find about Article 8 of the ECHR, as it seems to have been the Trojan horse/thin end of the wedge for attacking women's rights.
'the right to respect for their private and family life, their home, and their correspondence' sounds like it should be a good thing for everybody, doesn't it?

But it gets invoked to justify some very questionable things, including men being house in women's prisons because they say they are women - thank you Lady Ross for pointing out the limits to Art 8.
And indeed that Art 8 has limits, as it seems to have become the Japanese Knotweed of law making..

That is a distinctive feature of living in a prison that makes it difficult to draw
meaningful comparisons with the experiences of trans people in other settings, or indeed to draw from authorities relating to Article 8 rights in non-custodial contexts. In Goodwin and R (C) the issues with which the courts were concerned were the maintenance of government records and the retention of official data. The implementation of policies relating to such matters may well engage Article 8 rights, but there will be no direct impact on other individuals in respect of whom official records are maintained.

Disappointing for anyone who wishes to rely on Goodwin to assert a right to enter opposite sex single sex spaces...

But does this judgement have wider authority?

It is possible that this would have a knock on effect for women’s refuge and SV services as well, given that consent is mentioned as necessary, outside of the prison world.

Well in Scotland anyway.

I remember one female prisoner who ended up in court charged by the SP for the 'crime' of 'misgendering' but fortunately the judge threw it out of court. I hope she sues them.

Hopefully this might support any women who've been punished for complaining / accurately sexing to take action? I recall there's a woman prisoner who was not allowed to be released because of her objection to a male convict in the prison?

Nice outcome, but should have been bloody obvious. How much public money is being repeatedly wasted on establishing what should have just happened in the first place? Hopefully this sets a precedent that women in hospitals should have the same basic rights as prisoners since you generally aren’t really at liberty in a hospital either due to sectioning or physical incapacity/sickness, and all the same arguments should apply.

"A trans prisoner could not live in his or her transgender identity in the abstract. Accommodating a trans woman prisoner in the women’s estate necessarily involved association with women, and their circumstances were such that they could not opt out"

That's the part that's always enraged me, I'm glad it's been recognised and part of the official record.
I'd like to think there's also something that addresses the prison service punishing inmates who refused to be coerced into complying with their illegal policy's.

Always thought cults were restricted to camps in America or the Philippines that would eventually be raided by the authorities and would be set alight by the adherents within.
Or maybe the cult of transgender is not so different, it's just that the adherents are the self-labelled intelligentsia, and setting things alight has been the burning of women's rights, and common sense itself.
Who amongst us genuinely thought that institutions themselves would become no different from the religious maniacs they always decried?

It’s good to see it laid out, particularly the acknowledgment of women’s human rights and the limitations on “gender identity” in a prison setting.

That second question is the danger.

Some of the most useful bits from the archived link at top:

Her ladyship said that Article 8 was a qualified right. Custody imposed very significant limitations on the private and family lives of all prisoners and also on the ability to express gender identity.
In the custodial setting, accommodating the wish of a trans woman prisoner to live as a woman by a transfer to the female estate entailed association with an identifiable group of other prisoners — women prisoners. There was no obvious parallel outside imprisonment.

At liberty, a trans woman might consider that she could best express her female identity by sharing accommodation with women, and that might be achieved on the basis of consent, but a person, whether male or female, could not be compelled to share the living space needed for essential daily activities such as eating and washing, with another person.

A trans prisoner could not live in his or her transgender identity in the abstract. Accommodating a trans woman prisoner in the women’s estate necessarily involved association with women, and their circumstances were such that they could not opt out.

A trans woman’s Article 8 rights were already respected in the men’s estate by measures including ensuring access to hormone treatment and maintaining privacy and dignity in living arrangements.

Sex segregation in prisons was in accordance with law and was necessary, at least, to protect the rights and freedoms of others, specifically women prisoners.

I'll add the one they always miss - women have article 8 rights too.

Which is what it always comes down to isn't it? No confusion, just a straight out refusal to see other humans as holding any equality of rights or consideration with a trans identified person, particularly if he's a man.

Good, glad this is proven again.

Now does the govt care about and follow the law or not? And if they don't, why should the electorate?

How surprising that the Scottish govt. are on the wrong side of the law again.

Thanks for this, a bit of good news!