Help with LibDems argument

[OutofInk]

Hello there

I've taken the leap and come out on our local FB page as GC. We are talking about the Lib Dems and someone has posted this in response to my concerns

www.libdemvoice.org/how-transgender-people-are-treated-in-prison-57873.html?fbclid=IwAR1F-wrFh_HVVPWmKWKdpAV4n9sB4sB3RCKM1W8lzA4zQpC-rmv0myypxnM

I'm off to do some googling, but can anyone help me rebut this? I fell that they are missing the point.

This piece is good:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/are-female-prisoners-at-risk-from-transgender-inmates/amp/

Or have a look at fair play for women’s site they should have some good clear info.

Or this article is also good:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/01/marie-dean-story-shows-there-s-no-simple-answer-how-we-treat-transgender

Thank you - I bloody love Sarah Ditum

Can the measures guarantee that no woman prisoner will ever be assaulted by a transwoman? If not, then what is the acceptable number of assaults on women prisoners?

One of the tricks of the article is here:

It seems to me that this document sets out well all the steps that need to be taken to protect both the trans prisoner (who is at much higher risk of assault than non-trans prisoners) but also protecting other prisoners from someone who might be deemed to be a risk.

This is arguably true when a transwoman is in a men's prison but probably untrue when the transwoman is in a women's prison. At that point it's the women prisoners who are at risk. Which means that if the safety of women prisoners is to be taken into account, this naturally points to third spaces.

This is the new policy on transgender prisoners for UK prisons.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/825621/transgender-pf.pdf

The old policy linked to in the article (which is from June 2018) is now out of date.

The new policy says that " all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender". This means that in the first instance, any man who has gained a GRC making him legally female will be sent to a women's prison.

The Lib Dems want to make it possible for anyone to gain a GRC on a self-identification process - without the gatekeeping that currently exists. This means that any man could gain a GRC and be legally female. Such a man who commits a crime will automatically be sent to a women's prison regardless of the risk he might pose to the female prisoners.

The Lib Dems appear to think it's fine to send a rapist to a women's prison if he says that he is a woman.

Liberals have a world view which rests on individualism and the individual's right to do as they please: in the name of equality, and civil liberties. That's about it!

There are no established arguments, traditions or pathways for looking at and analysing structural inequalities. This ends up meaning, in effect, that women do not have a 'protected' status as a group. They are just one amongst many and their rights are no more valuable than anyone else's.

Liberalism ( British tradition) does not recognise the differences between women and men, as such. They assume any differences will disappear given enough Liberalism.

This is why we see Layla Moran talking about "only seeing people's souls", and Jo Swinson talking about human rights not being a pie in which 'more for some means less for you'.

Liberals do not seem to have a way of analysing and dealing with conflicting rights. They seem to choose not see or to recognise any conflict. Everyone should just shove up. Conflict is dealt with on an individual, case by case basis. Structural oppressions facing certain groups or categories of people are not recognised - because the underlying power structures effecting different groups in society are not recognised.

It was always the Labour party ( no longer, it seems) that looked at inequality through the lens of various structural oppressions - never the liberals.

You can discuss this with the Liberals until you are blue in the face ( & you will be) and they still will have no empathy for your position.

So.. I was going to send the following, what do you think? I have copied and pasted from several sources - that you posters!

I did read the article, although I'm not sure how much comfort it is to the female prisoners who have already been sexually assaulted in prison. Within days of her transfer to New Hall prison in West Yorkshire, White had sexually assaulted four women.

Confining a rapist in a women’s prison, among vulnerable inmates including rape victims, is like locking a fox in a henhouse. Yet they merely followed government guidelines . How does 'everyone deserves to be protected' work in that scenario?
Transwomen and female inmates are not being separated effectively. There is a growing number of male sex offenders self identifying as women demanding to be housed in the female estate and in reality women will be forced into contact with transwomen. So, whose rights are paramount? The male sex offenders, or the women? Yes, you've guessed it.... the perverts!

The article is also factually incorrect. The old policy linked to in the article (which is from June 2018) is now out of date. The new policy says that "all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender". This means that in the first instance, any man who has gained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) making him legally female will be sent to a women's prison.

The Lib Dems want to make it possible for anyone to gain a GRC on a self-identification process - without the gatekeeping that currently exists. This means that any man could gain a GRC and be legally female. Such a man who commits a crime could be sent to a women's prison regardless of the risk he might pose to the female prisoners.

The Lib Dems appear to think it's fine to send a rapist to a women's prison if he says that he is a woman. I do not.

And we have not even started on men being allowed in domestic and sexual abuse shelters, or all-female shortlists. Or the problems in women's and girl's sport. Or the right to request a female carry out a physical examination, or the rights for women to refuse to perform waxes on male genitals even though a man claims to be a woman, or boys being allowed in female changing rooms, or the erosion of language to erase 'woman' from documentation.

This is not about gender neutral toilets and being kind to gender-non conforming kids. This is one group asserting their rights above another group. And as women we are conditioned to 'move over'. to 'be nice'.

It should also be noted that you can wholly support trans rights and reject self-ID. I believe that trans people should be supported, have access to healthcare, and be more accepted into our society, a view that is shared by a significant portion of the trans community.

I do not believe that we should sleepwalk into a situation where predatory men can take advantage of laws designed to protect trans folk. And I don't think that women and girls should put up and shut up because they want to draw and keep their own boundaries.

The Conservatives are backing away from this, hoping no-one will notice.
The Labour party pledged to uphold single sex exemptions in the Equality Act but are currently having a bit of a bunfight about it.
The Greens are still trying to live down the fact they described women as 'non-men' because they didn't want to offend transwomen.
The Lib Dems say that reforming the Gender Recognition Act and making it easier for men to access female-only spaces 'can't wait'.

And that is why I'm not voting Lib Dem.

Hi OP. I like what you've written.

It's a massive step to "out" oneself as GC these days. There are some amazing individuals on this forum so you're now in excellent company

Thank you - I've changed it a bit to make it clear that I'm talking about sex offenders that are transwomen, not just normal transwomen.

I am a bit nervous but I'm about to hit send.