AIBU to think GRCs should be revoked if a male person is convicted of committing a sexual offence?

[happydappy2]

The granting of a GRC to a male is a huge statement of trust that you will 'live as a woman' if you then commit a sexual offence against a woman/child (in a male way ie using your male genitalia) should that GRC then be revoked? Part of prison is a deprivation of liberty...

The current prison policy is bonkers, issuing GRCs is crazy but just like you can lose yr driving licence, might GRCs be taken away for bad behaviour?

I'm as gender critical as they come but I can't see on what grounds this would be done or for what purpose.

If someone (male or female, in possession of a GRC or not) is convicted of a sexual assault then they will usually be punished with a custodial sentence in line with the current sentencing guidelines.

There are separate arguments to be made about how we record perpetrators of such crimes and I do believe that their sex should be recorded accurately and they should be housed appropriately in the prison estate. That's not the same as revoking a GRC however.

I think if you have a history of sexual violence you should not be allowed to have your gender reassigned.

Yes they should have the GRC revoked.

No male whether inside prison or not who has been convicted of any violent or sexual offence against women and/or children, including downloading, viewing, procuring or producing images of child sexual abuse, should ever be considered for a GRC and they should receive NO medical interventions whatsoever including prescriptions for hormones relating to gender reassignment.

Yes because cis women never commit sexual offences.

This is out and out trans bashing and will be reported.

Yes.

Yes because cis women never commit sexual offences

What are cis women and can you link to how many are convicted of sexual offences?

@entropynow

Yes because cis women never commit sexual offences.

This is out and out trans bashing and will be reported.

Report away, the facts don't lie and this quite clearly NOT trans bashing.

There is no such thing as a 'cis' woman, just a woman and women are not identifying as men or transitioning to men and being granted a GRC and going on to commit sexual or violent crimes against men, if you want proof of that look at the figures.

I can’t bear the ‘cis’ prefix. It’s awful.

Personally I'm not botherer about the GRC. However, all sex offences should be accurately recorded and reported , including the sex of the offender. Males should not be housed in women's prisons, especially not those who have been convicted of a sexual offence.

I think it's an interesting idea but I don't see how it would work in practice. There is nothing to stop someone from changing their name and re-applying.

For me, the issue is the GRC and self-identification.

It's common sense. Of course a GRC should be revoked in those circumstances.

A person with a penis can't be a woman anyway, so what is the point of a GRC anyway, let alone when the legal loophole has already been abused by predititory males.

Marguerite2000 Personally I'm not botherer about the GRC

The GRC grants privileges and requires a level of trust, it should be revoked once that trust has been broken and the privileges conferred by it removed.

@RedDogsBeg

Marguerite2000 Personally I'm not botherer about the GRC

The GRC grants privileges and requires a level of trust, it should be revoked once that trust has been broken and the privileges conferred by it removed.

I see your point.

People should be punished according to their crimes, not their place of birth (eg Osime Brown case), gender identity, or other factors.

Cis women are entirely capable of sex crimes. This is not a male only thing.

However, the risk assessment and risk management process for housing such offenders within prison needs to be very tight - but I'd say the same about a cis male offender who had sexually assaulted adult men.

I can't actually see what the function of a GRC is.

It was made very clear in the Ann Sinnot case that single sex exemptions apply regardless of whether someone has a GRC or not, and pertain to birth sex.

One thing that does concern me, very much, is that offenders can effectively wipe clean their conviction history with a GRC.

Studies show that transwomen retain a male pattern of criminality. This means that the average transwoman is more likely to commit sex crimes than the average biological woman.

Safeguarding goes on risk patterns, not on individual cases.

fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/

This is not a male only thing.

98% of all sexual crimes are committed by men, I would say sexual crime is very much a male thing.

The GRA was such a homophobic hash of a law, I'm glad to see a grassroots group explaining why it needs to be repealed.

www.repealthegra.org/

Crimes should be recorded by sex, obviously. We know this isn't happening already and we know you can identify into whichever prison estate you like without a GRC, but what I didn't know was that police officers can identify as a woman and intimately search a female suspect despite being male. It's madness that a male police officer took their police force to court to be permitted to search women intimately despite being male and there being single sex exemptions even with a GRC.

A new report here shows police forces don't record GRCs for staff either, so you can ask for a female officer should you need to be intimately searched but you may not get one. The lesson is, don't get arrested! (Different for hospitals, sometimes you can't end up in there.)

www.standingforwomen.com/nhs-and-police-report

I don't think a GRC should remain if you breach the declaration but committing male pattern violence whilst 'living as a woman' or deliberately get pregnant whilst 'living as a man'.

@entropynow

Yes because cis women never commit sexual offences.

This is out and out trans bashing and will be reported.

Statistically and factually the number of females that commit sex crimes is absolutely minuscule compared to that of males.

@DeathByWalkies

People should be punished according to their crimes, not their place of birth (eg Osime Brown case), gender identity, or other factors.

Cis women are entirely capable of sex crimes. This is not a male only thing.

However, the risk assessment and risk management process for housing such offenders within prison needs to be very tight - but I'd say the same about a cis male offender who had sexually assaulted adult men.

You don't think the biological sex of the offender matters?

Related thread to my post

Report on NHS and Police Accommodation for the Provision of Female-Only Services www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4273742-report-on-nhs-and-police-accommodation-for-the-provision-of-female-only-services

@Lockheart

I'm as gender critical as they come but I can't see on what grounds this would be done or for what purpose.

If someone (male or female, in possession of a GRC or not) is convicted of a sexual assault then they will usually be punished with a custodial sentence in line with the current sentencing guidelines.

There are separate arguments to be made about how we record perpetrators of such crimes and I do believe that their sex should be recorded accurately and they should be housed appropriately in the prison estate. That's not the same as revoking a GRC however.

This.

Personally, I don't support GRCs. I don't think the Law should endorse a lie. I think we could acknowledge people's gender identity in other ways, without pretending that they have changed sex - that pretence creates many more problems than it solves.

However, while we have GRCs, they are a legal acknowledgement of someone's identified gender being different from their birth one. They aren't a reward for good behaviour.

They aren't a reward for good behaviour.

They confer privileges not available to any other member of the public whether male or female, privileges should not be retained when the holder has behaved so egregiously.

Cis women are entirely capable of sex crimes

Again I ask, what are cis women? And how many sex crimes are these cis women convicted of?