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?

None of you are confused.

The PP was making a point that the title is written in a way that nobody would ever disagree.

@RootyT00t

None of you are confused.

The PP was making a point that the title is written in a way that nobody would ever disagree.

That's good tho, right?

How can a woman in court make sure that, if convicted, she's not housed with a rapist?

@RootyT00t

None of you are confused.

The PP was making a point that the title is written in a way that nobody would ever disagree.

What form of words accurately communicating the substance of the case would anyone not agree with?

Say what now?

The position is so ludicrous nobody would disagree with it. And somehow that's unfair?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Say what now?

The position is so ludicrous nobody would disagree with it. And somehow that's unfair?

IKR!

@FindTheTruth

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.

Not down to me!! I am observing, watching, supporting & campaigning, but am ultimately a bystander in this.

Huge respect to the courageous and strong woman, FDJ, who brought this case.

@ErrolTheDragon, the wider debate of whether transwomen should be in female prisons and transmen in male.

Any idea on when a judgement will be made? Will be very interesting to see the outcome of this.

@RootyT00t

None of you are confused.

The PP was making a point that the title is written in a way that nobody would ever disagree.

Clearly some people did disagree, those who implemented this policy which led to the complainant FDJ and other imprisoned women being sexually abused by male offenders. The MoJ are defending this policy. It is not absurd and unbelievable that this policy is implemented, it is a logical consequence of the mantra TWAW (Trans Women Are Women).

TWAW is either true in all situations or TWAW is not true. Anyone who states TWAW needs to be aware of what they are actually stating. No woman becomes not a woman if she commits a crime and goes to prison. Or takes part in women's sport. Or takes her swimming costume off in the communal female showers or communal female changing room. Or if she becomes a nurse or doctor and conducts a smear test on a woman who has specifically asked for a woman to do it. Or if she gets employed as a carer and enters the home of a woman who has asked for a woman to provide her intimate care.

Lots of people think TWAW is just a harmless kind platitude but it is an absolutely binary statement that covers every single situation. You can't challenge the prison policy without challenging TWAW. Official sanctions concerning pronouns also make it very hard to raise a dissenting view - "It is absolutely wrong that she was placed in the women's estate."
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns//

TWAW has become 'remove sex based exceptions' whereas it used to mean treating someone with respect in their gender identity.

'do you believe TWAW?' is a loyalty test:

• A: YES - your starting point is to remove sex based exceptions, you get a pass as long as you remain silent (including when women are locked up with rapists).

• A: NO your starting point is to stand up for sex based exceptions, you get abuse, no-platformed, kicked off twitter, reddit, lose your job, get rape threats and on and on and on

This case will tie in with some of those being brought before UK courts this week.

I have a question.

Male and female people are a thing.
Some males feel more comfortable presenting as female and vice versa. They are trans women and trans men. That's all clear.

Why is the drive not to make trans people accepted in society, there are protections already in employment law etc.

And 'widen the bandwidth' of what men and women can be like, so they are accepted as a group within their own sex class.

Why this push to say they are literally male/ female and so the whole of society- laws and norms- need to be turned on their head?

To go back to the beginning, why did the idea that they are literally the opposite sex to the one they are born and everyone must accept that for everything become the predominant one, when other solutions are available which do not encroach on women's rights and spaces?

And why are men's spaces and words not being challenged in the same way as women's?

Not read the whole thread, but whilst I do completely disagree with TW being placed in female prison, I also feel very uncomfortable with Male guards in female prisons and know people who faced a lot of abuse from them

Agree.

That's a separate issue though tbf.

The treatment of women in immigration detention centres is just horrendous. I'm sure the men don't have a very good time either.

I completely agree, Hammy, and for similar reasons. Female prisoners are such a vulnerable population and it's a predator's dream workplace.

Unfortunately, TW in the female estate is only going to make that worse, because they'll end up needing to employ more male guards on the female estate. Realistically, female guards can't rely on being able to restrain TW.

There is also the point that tw in prison are, I suspect, treated with extreme care by the guards etc.

There's always the worry of being accused of transpobia etc. If they are seen to threat them any differently.

Hence the situations with tw exposing themselves etc and the staff not knowing what to do.

I know it's trivial in the face of things but not really- the gym competition. Where the women would do some challenges and could win a pack that would be awesome for the women in prison.

A TW smashed the female competition and won.

That person at some point met another TW in the prison and started a relationship. In the end I think they were both moved.

That's a seemingly little thing but it's not. Why have a gym challenge for a small but coveted prize? To get the women interested, exercising, friendly competition, something to do or cheer on.

The TW was obviously going to win from the off. That kind of wrecks the whole thing doesn't it?

And that tw didn't have to enter. The fact they did kind of sums it all up really.

Just coming here for my own sake and the sake of females in my family and wide society that females should not be put in vulnerable positions with any males intact or not. It is the issue of safety but also dignity. Just back off already with all that nonsense. Enough.

I feel very?? about the government plans to create 500 new places for female inmates.

The prison populations are:

There were approximately 77.42 thousand men and 3.41 thousand women in prison in the United Kingdom in 2020.

An increase of 500 female places is a an increase of about 14%.

The government said that increased numbers of police officers would result in more women in prison. (??!! bit of an assumption? Seems a bit odd?).

The new cells will be self contained and have their own showers...

The prisons reform trust and other orgs are of the strong view that a large number of women in prison should not be there.

Non violent
Terrible histories- care, abuse, exploitation
Are often acting on behalf of a man who they are controlled by
Serious mental health issues
Very short sentences with often massive repurcussions (kids in care etc)

The charities agree that fewer women should be incarcerated.

The government wants to build 500 more spaces with own showers...

You've got to wonder who they are actually for.

Women don't have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists. They can choose not to commit offences which may lead to prison sentences.
@TakeTheCuntOutOfScunthorpe

Are you still peddling this? Are you really suggesting that rape is a proportionate punishment for crimes which are often trivial in nature? Crimes often committed under duress thanks to an abusive partner?

Try looking at it from the other angle then. Criminals are sent to prison so that they cannot commit the crime again for the duration of their sentence. Ideally they wouldn't commit crime on release either but at least they are under lock and key for a while. They are there for public protection, punishment and reform. It rather defeats the object of sending them to prison if they get an easy opportunity to reoffend before they've even been released. We don't allow conjugal visits in this country because being deprived of your liberty is a key aspect of imprisonment.

Just extraordinary and depressing that 'sex offenders shouldn't serve their sentences in a women's prison' is somehow a debatable position instead of something everyone, bar the rare MRA, would agree on.

@NiceGerbil

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.

I wonder what it said about race. Surely Muslim women are negatively impacted.

@RootyT00t

Yeah, I agree.

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

The rules certainly seem to be illogical. Our argument however is perfectly consistent.

Transmen (i.e. females) should be (and are) placed in the female estate.

Transwomen (i.e. males) should be (but often aren't) placed in the male estate.

This way you prevent male-on-female violence. There is a particular problem in prisons with male-on-male violence but the solution to that doesn't involve leveling down by putting female prisoners more at risk than they were before.

The toilet debate is a very different one and has bugger all to do with the subject of prisons. Suffice it to say that what is happening with toilets in many institutions (particularly in the public sector) is that all toilets are being redefined as "gender neutral". Therefore men (whether they identify as something else or not) are quite free to use any toilet they wish without question. This removed the essential function that the toilets provide of being a single-sex, safe space. I dare say that there are more than a few men too who would prefer to keep the Gent's private.

Yes Ddraig, but, the legislations primary aim (sadly) is not to protect women. It's to allow for transgender.

So, according to them, transwomen should be in the women and transmen should be in the men.

@RootyT00t

Yes Ddraig, but, the legislations primary aim (sadly) is not to protect women. It's to allow for transgender.

So, according to them, transwomen should be in the women and transmen should be in the men.

Hi R00ty - I may have missed something - which legislation do you mean? Are you referring to the MoJ policy?

The legislation (EA 2010) makes the MoJ policy unlawful. I would also hope that the entirely negligent method of formulating this policy is unlawful as well as the complete and utter failure of the MoJ under PSED (Public Sector Equality Duty) to consider the safety of women.

I find it so concerning (and very telling) that everyone is not up in arms about this and discussing it as a National scandal.

Instead a brave woman is forced to take the Ministry of Justice to court to force them to give her a tiny bit of consideration for her safety.

To the people that aren’t too worried because they assume they will never be in that position - not everyone who is in prison expected to end up there.

@RootyT00t

Yes Ddraig, but, the legislations primary aim (sadly) is not to protect women. It's to allow for transgender.

So, according to them, transwomen should be in the women and transmen should be in the men.

It's not legislation, it's MoJ policy. Policy which should soon be ruled unlawful and which never should have been implemented. There isn't a hierarchy of protected characteristics, making provision for the "feelings" of one group should never take precedence over the safety of another.