To think that if you commit a male crime, you should do male time, even if you identify as a woman?

[TheAvidAmberPeer]

I know this is a sensitive topic but I’ve been thinking about how justice systems handle trans women who commit serious crimes, especially violent or sexual offences, and whether it’s fair to house them in women’s prisons. To me, if you were born male and commit a crime typically associated with male offenders, particularly one involving violence against women, it seems like common sense that you should serve time in a male facility. Identity doesn’t erase biology or risk in those cases.

AIBU to think fairness and safety, especially for vulnerable female prisoners, should come before ideology?

No-one is "shouting" FFS!

The OP started a thread inviting opinions so people are posting their views on this specific issue!

Do YOU think transwomen should be in women's prisons?

What constitutes a 'male crime'? Crime is crime I'd have thought. I think it's the prisons that need to be segregated by sex.

I just don't understand how certain posters can't see how anti-women they're coming across.

Shut up and stop talking about your rights and what's important to you ladies, no one wants to hear. Oh and your voices are very shrill and loud, keep it down.

It's just all dripping with misogyny and 'know your place'

Why are you conflating racism and women standing up for their sex based rights? Are you saying women refusing men access to female spaces are as bad as racists? That’s a novel take and very very insulting.

It’s not for women to refuse men access to anywhere. It’s a question of law. And yes I am conflating one form of bigotry with another, which is in no way novel.

What do you think is 'bigoted' about women standing up for their sex based rights?

So women refusing men access to female spaces is bigotry? Wow!!!

It's just constant smearing, silencing, insulting women whose position is perfectly reasonable and lawful.

Its absolutely disgusting behaviour

Worse than just bigotry, it's simplistic, shallow-thinking, lack-of-legal-understanding, shouty, incorrectly-expressed, making-an-unseemly-unladylike-fuss bigotry.

I think it is very important to call out exactly what @Elektra1 is trying to do here.

They 100% know that women are entitled to single sex spaces, as per the law. They 100% know that there is nothing unreasonable about women upholding their rights.

But they want us to doubt ourselves, to be intimated, to think we've got it wrong, to second guess our own judgement. Basically they want women to STFU and let men have what they want.

That's what all the name calling, smearing, tone policing, calling us stupid, misrepresenting our position, obliquely referencing things like racism is all about. We've seen almost every trick in the book on this thread already.

Let's all recognise it for what it is and keep calling it out

They are having to resort to forced teaming because it’s clear that trans ideology is unable to stand on its own merits.

But isn’t that reducing racism to “people are saying no to what I want”. Can you not see how racist that makes you look? You are reducing the struggles of entire oppressed groups to the level of someone not getting called the right pronoun. That is so offensive to all people oppressed by race. I’m actually surprised you haven’t referenced Jim Crow yet. Or are you saving that?

I would think it patently obvious why we are not able to stop talking about this. There are many people, politicians included, who are still misleading the public about the supreme court ruling and its implications.

We are not going to stop ever because men will never stop pushing at our boundaries and trying to get access to spaces where females are undressing and/or vulnerable. Why don’t you take your own advice and stop trying to prevent us by shaming us because it’s utterly futile

No. No males in female prisons even if they are eunuchs. The law is clear.

Yes it is. Ask the Scottish government they've had dozens of their laws repealed by the crts in the last 18 years

Except the equality act 2010 supercedes the grc act 2004 and the supreme court ruling says that a man with a grc is still a man So now he isn't a woman for all purposes anymore.
Please let that sink in the sc just gutted the GRC act. Men with a grc get to pretend to be women on paper only now, just on documents and government systems. They cannot join a women's club or group, they cant work in a women only job, they cant go on a women's hospital ward or a woman's prison, they can't be nominated for a woman's award or scholarship, they cant play on a woman's sports team, they can't be recognised as their child's mother on their birth certificate and they can't enter any woman's single sex facilities.
The sooner you realise quite how badly you've lost this war the better for everyone

*Except the equality act 2010 supercedes the grc act 2004
*
that's irrelevant.

and the supreme court ruling says that a man with a grc is still a man

no . it doesn't, it says that for interpreting provisions related to the EA 2010 (civil law related to the boundaries of lawful/ unlawful discrimination), the protected characteristic of "sex" refers to birth sex, meanwhile there is a separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So now he isn't a woman for all purposes anymore.
The legal recognition granted to GRC holders was always limited by the GRA in various areas as quoted above.

please educate yourself before making pronouncements about law.

No that's not how it works. There is a principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK, courts cannot repeal an Act of Parliament.

Parliament is the supreme law-making body, and only Parliament can make, amend, or repeal legislation.

Courts are bound to apply Acts of Parliament. If a statute is clear, judges cannot override it, even if they believe it is unjust or conflicts with common law principles.

What courts can do is: interpret legislation, where it is unclear.
Declare incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 if an Act conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights. ( But this does not strike down or repeal the Act; it leaves it to Parliament to decide what to do).
Dissaply Acts in very narrow contexts, for example, where they conflict with directly effective EU law (back when the UK was in the EU). Post-Brexit, this power is much reduced.

The SC judgement does not repeal the provisions in the GR Act, nor was it ever the courts stated purpose or intention to do so. They were tasked with interpreting how to understand provisions in the EA in light of provisions in the GR.

I think they should have a separate wing for trans prisoners but I believe they do that now anyway?

they do in a female prison, but the trans prisoners still get to mingle with the women. There should be a trans wing in a male prison, but that would upset the poor trans identified males.

Give it up. You’re making yourself look a bit silly now. As a campaigner for trans rights you should be welcoming the SC ruling. It was a huge win for transmen. Or don’t they count? All you seem concerned about is getting males somehow allowed in female facilities. Why? Women have said no. The law has said no. Deal with it.

Give up "making myself look silly" by challenging pp's completely wrong statements about law, annd providing accurate information instead?
That'll be a no.

Also- the SC ruling was in no way shape or form a "win for trans men". Trans men are just as devastatingly affected by this ruling as trans women.

please just stop talking about things you know nothing about.

In what way are "trans men" devastatingly affected?

Also, do you think a "trans man" should be housed in a male or female prison?

In exactly the same way that trans women are devastatingly affected.

Well that clears that up then.