Women shouldn’t have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists

[FindTheTruth]

Am I being unreasonable to think that Women shouldn’t have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4180758-MOJ-Prison-Policy-JR-TODAY

Some posts in this thread:
Page7 @teawamutu**
Women have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists.



I mean. What. The. Actual. Fucking. Fuck?
—————————

Page 8 @ArabellaScott**

Locking women in a place they cannot escape from with intact male rapists.

It's like the worst dystopian fiction you've ever read.

And the UK govt okayed it.
—————————

Page 11 @KeepPrisonsSingleSex**
Hi everyone,

Thanks for all your support and interest for this very important case.
Live tweeted from court today and will attend remotely and live tweet again tomorrow.

The points that I took away from today's proceedings are as follows:



1. The 'old' policy on allocation of transgender prisoners (pre Karen White) allowed a degree of discretion re allocation of trans prisoners, including those with a GRC. The new & current one (at least in respect of TW with GRC) does not. (My take is that this now puts women at increased risk, whereas the revised policy should have protected women.)



1. Secretary of State for Justice when formulating the new policy post-Karen White stated that the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act do not apply to prisons. (My take is that if women's prisons are not a definitive example of a single-sex space, then what is?)



1. Before the new policy rolled out there was a 'consultation' with stakeholders including Fair Play and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studied. But evidence presented in court shows Minister had already agreed the new policy predicated on the opinion that single-sex exceptions do not apply to prisons. Therefore this was not in fact a consultation, and none took place. The interests of women in prison were not represented. The evidence presented at that time by FPFW & CCJS was not considered: the decision had been made.



1. I am concerned that in November 2020, Lucy Frazer (Minister for Prisons) re-affirmed the correctness of the policy on allocation of transgender prisoners. This supports the previous Ministerial view that EA single-sex exceptions do not apply to prisons. Yet in September 2020 Liz Truss gave clear statement affirming government commitment to single-sex spaces. Does this commitment extend to prisons or not? This is an important question that government needs to answer.

—————————

Page 11 @ChazsBrilliantAttitude**
I was thinking of a prisons’ version of the Staniland question



“If John Warboys obtained a GRC should they be moved to a woman’s prison?”
————————-

AIBU?
So ….are we hateful bigots on the women’s rights board for thinking Women shouldn’t be locked up with intact male rapists?

That's the bit that's so scary.

On the thread which was a big one and maybe even aibu rather than FWR, the vast majority of posters thought (obviously) it was appalling.

The two posters who argued the above, were out of step in the thread and would be well out of step with the majority of the general public.

The fact that the police have been recording crime reports etc by self ID for years, and prisons have been putting these rapists etc in the women's estate...

These are not the sort of organisations/ institutions that are exactly known for being progressive.

And yet they did all this. Without seemingly any concern or thought. Things that any person on the street would say wtf that's ridiculous.

Only two explanations I can think of.

This is being driven hard from very high up
Or
It literally didn't even occur to them to even register that there could be an impact on women, let alone give it some thought

The ministry of justice, like any public institution should have done an 'impact assessment' to see if there's an impact on any protected characteristics - sex-based rights in the equality act. but they didn't. I want to know why. Someone in another FWR thread suggested it was an over-reaction. Just follow stonewall and we'll look progressive. no. 5 in the top 100 organisations erasing women and gay kids

They didn't do an impact assessment at all?

Jesus.

Ages ago the Scottish impact assessment was posted on here. It was not very long and completed by hand. It had ticked that gender reassignment and bizarrely age would be positively impacted. Next to the characteristic sex was just written 'N/A'.

Says it all.

They didn't do an impact assessment at all?

Seems to be a common theme.

If you look through the FOI thread, some of the responses are coming through. The one thing that seems to be consistently left out of the responses is the IA. Either its not held, or none was done. Its not present on any responses I've seen so far ( although there is loads to get through its taking time)

Well we're only women so who gives a shit.
Clearly not the moj.

I don't matter to the law, the policy makers, the politicians.

I don't matter because of my sex.

" *

Looks like 97% of us are doing exactly the same.

This is a huge open goal .
Kier, Kier, lookee here.

Yes. A good question to ask any canvassers who will be going house to house from Monday.

"Do you and your political party agree with putting men in womens prisons? Will you publicly campaign to get all males out of womens prisons?"

" If not, why not?"

Yes, I would enjoy that.

My elected representatives are treating me, and my class, with contempt.

I matter.

My vote certainly matters

Well we're only women so who gives a shit

Women are not a minority and this is a democracy. There are even more of us out there than there are misogynistic men (and very few groups can claim that). So if enough women care, things will change.

@NiceGerbil

There was a thread on this ages ago

One or two people explained the thinking.

Trans women are women.
It would be a cruel and unusual punishment for locking women in a men's prison
They would be at massive risk
Singling out one group of women to do this to on the basis of a characteristic they can't help is appalling discrimination
Women do commit sex offences, acts of violence etc
All women who pose a risk to other women in prison should be addressed correctly and the risk managed
The prison system has failed to do this in a number of cases
The only ethical answer is to improve how these risks are managed in the women's estate.
Not take women who are assumed to be a risk due to innate aspects they can't change

That was the crux of it.

If you truly believe TWAW then naturally putting them in with men is an appalling thing to do.

So there you have the thinking.

Did they explain the thinking behind transmen also being put in the female estate?

@RootyT00t

Well, women don't have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with rapists.

Female prisoners face this.

Not all women are in prison.

However, I'm not for one second suggesting that anybody should be locked up with male prisoners.

Female prisoners are women though so.......

The whole question of the Gender recognition certificate needs to be looked at again. As long as it could give a free pass for men to access. Sex segregated spaces such as prisons and pretends that anybody can change sex it it really not fit for purpose. We should stop allowing the changing of legal documents, including deed poll, except in specific circumstances (danger to life, protection etc) any such certification should be subject to scrutiny (eg DBS disclosures) it should be recognised that if the GRC continues at all , it does not mean that you as a born male Should be able to access female spaces. Ok to keep for those already with one, with the same condition...open to scrutiny.

Interesting sense of priorities upthread. Grammatical pedantry overriding concern for a subset of women.

My elected representatives are treating me, and my class, with contempt.

YY.

Can’t believe we have to argue this... strange to see so many fall into line with a tiny but violent pressure group s demands ... so we have ‘ huge rise in rape and child abuse committed by women’. Except we don t.

Institutional misogyny / sexism. Institutional misogyny / sexism.
Institutional misogyny / sexism.

Meredith- it was raised and IIRC not answered at all.

@Meredithgrey1 I asked that further up. It was put to me that transmen need to be in with the women to protect them from men.

[quote RootyT00t]@Meredithgrey1 I asked that further up. It was put to me that transmen need to be in with the women to protect them from men.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with that and have no issue with transmen in female prisons. I was just wondering how the people who made the argument nicegerbil quoted felt about that. By their logic transmen should go in male prisons (because it TWAW then surely TMAM), but that (rightfully IMO) doesn’t happen and I don’t hear it discussed anywhere near as much - this could of course be due to numbers, far fewer transmen in prison perhaps.

Yeah, I agree.

The rules seem to be altered when it comes to transmen, same as the toilet debate.

The reason is the same, exactly, as the reason why male people should not be in the female estate, whatever their identity.

[quote RootyT00t]@Meredithgrey1 I asked that further up. It was put to me that transmen need to be in with the women to protect them from men.[/quote]
The Judges ordered that certain data and information be provided to them in written form, including the exact policy relating to the housing of TM in the male estate and an explanation of the circumstances under which this would occur

We know that this does not happen, because a biological female is at high risk in the male estate. It will be interesting to see what the MoJ presents.

It will be interested to see what the MoJ presents. and what they don't.

you made it happen KPSS ✅. thanks to you a judge has ordered the MoJ to give them basic data, which is huge.

So are female prisoners not women 🙄🙄. I’m very confused?