Lisa Nandy says child rapists should be in women’s prisons if they identify as female

[RoyalCorgi]

Extraordinary.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oUon9j1zJ_E&

i dunno. Does the tiger have a GRC?

Robin, if you have read other threads on here about the topic of placing transwomen in women’s prisons you will already know the proportion of transwomen in jail for sex offenses is higher than the proportion of biological women.

You make the argument that no transwoman I know fits this description so you will ignore any statistics as being exceptions and ‘let the law deal with them’. Plus ignore the instances of sexual assault already perpetrated by transwomen within prison on women already identified as vulnerable. Usually due to domestic voilence from a male bodied person.

You think the system is working fine and anyone pointing out that this should never be acceptable is over reacting and misinformed. And play down the fact the title refers to just one transwoman child rapists, also ignoring the fact their is NO biological female rapists in UK prisons.

I am not sure where you are going with this.

Please answer the question. Is it ever ok to have a rapist in the female prison quartered with female prisoners? Ever?

We need to exclude all males, including transwomen, to uphold women's single sex spaces

Transwomen acknowledge dangerous men. That's why they want in the Ladies. It's frustrating how transwomen get to use predatory men in their reasoning yet women are told we are bigots for doing the same thing.

Now even of you dont give a shit about women surely a policy that allows the predatory men that you are allowed to be afraid of, to self ID I to the space you are using, puts you and your friends in danger too doesnt it?

Either these predatory men exist in which case you have to acknowledge that keeping out all males is the only logical answer even if these moves dont identify as male. Or they dont exist, in which case its perfectly safe for everyone in the correct sex space.

Which is it?

Sorry not ‘I’ ‘you know’

There's a lot I could say about this but I'll leave it at this....

There's something quite sinister about a woman being lauded by a room full of men about giving away women's rights.

Any man, however they identify, and whatever they think about themselves, surely must realise that if they are arguing, all the live long day, about why women's boundaries don't apply to them, that women will see them as part of the problem.

Sledgehammer, nut...

Well, that’s one way to deal with male sex offenders, but us feminists are largely non-violent nowadays.

🤣

I'm not sure - my mum had a very definite way that she would deal with rapists and paedophiles. It involved a rusty gardening implement.

Transwomen acknowledge dangerous men. That's why they want in the Ladies. It's frustrating how transwomen get to use predatory men in their reasoning yet women are told we are bigots for doing the same thing.

There are a number of reasons why people who identify as transgender seek to use facilities/spaces for the opposite sex. Its obviously not just (in the case of transwomen) about seeking refuge from potentially dangerous men.

When gender services started offering hormone/surgical treatments there was a requirement to 'live in role' for a period of time. Effectively males seeking treatment were told/granted permissions by Drs to go & use female spaces in order to test their commitment.

Sledgehammer, nut...

Would you say the same about DBS checks? After all the vast vast majority of DBS checks come back completely clear (although does anyone else breathe a slight sigh of relief when they see 'NONE RECORDED' on their form?! ) and the vast, vast majority of people who get them done are law abiding citizens who would never hurt anyone. They are expensive (and some people have to pay for their own DBS) and take up a lot of time and admin.

And all to weed out a small minority.

Shall we just do away with them?

Well, that’s one way to deal with male sex offenders, but us feminists are largely non-violent nowadays.

😂

Reference checking too CallofDooDee, in fact it's even more of a pain in the arse as you always have to chase them up. Let's just skip it eh? I mean they mostly come back clean...

Transwomen acknowledge dangerous men. That's why they want in the Ladies.

Really? Amazing how many folk on these pages are able to state what trans women's motives and thoughts are. Not my motivation at all.

I 'want in the Ladies' because it is the appropriate door for who I am.

Robin for someone who claims to be balanced, your disregard for basic safeguarding is shocking.

As is Robin's disregard for basic logic. Bit depressing in a lawyer.

I 'want in the Ladies' because it is the appropriate door for who I am.

If that’s the appropriate door for male people, where are female people meant to go?

*Would you say the same about DBS checks? After all the vast vast majority of DBS checks come back completely clear (although does anyone else breathe a slight sigh of relief when they see 'NONE RECORDED' on their form?! grin) and the vast, vast majority of people who get them done are law abiding citizens who would never hurt anyone. They are expensive (and some people have to pay for their own DBS) and take up a lot of time and admin.

And all to weed out a small minority.

Shall we just do away with them?*

Thanks. That makes my point very well. DBS is a good proportionate system which weeds out undesireables' access to the vulnerable. I have, in the past, undertaken (and passed) the enhanced level of check as I took a managerial role in the activities of a charity which held children-centred events. What did NOT occur was the exclusion of me as a trans woman.

Sorry, my bad - got dragged back into toilet talk when the topic at hand is actually prisons.

Neuro posted a fascinating letter from a trans prisoner a few pages back. I’m going to repost it.

My mind is truly boggled that simply self IDing as trans means that convicted sex offenders are no longer obliged to participate in the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme, on the basis that they are now female, and thus now have a female risk classification.

Which is clearly fucking bonkers.

*I see a lot of people writing in to say how great their prison is for transgenders, so I’m writing to tell you about Littlehey.

There is a big trans’ population here – or is there? This is a predominately sex offender prison, and it is with utter disgust and concern as a non-sex offender trans’ prisoner that I find anyone can and does say they are trans’, just so they can continue in their sexual deviant ways, such as cross-dressing or avoiding having to do the SOTP programme because they become classed as females.

The sickest part of this is that the system can do sod-all about these trans’ bandwagon-jumpers, because the policy states they must be treated as transgender prisoners ‘if they say they are’. I have had staff and other inmates express their disgust to me (a genuine trans’ prisoner) over this behaviour.
You do not have to be transgender here, you only have to say you are and you do not even have to ‘live in role’. But on the flipside, if you are trans’ and are a slightly better-looking female than others, you get nothing but negativity and bitterness from those not quite able to carry off looking female. So if you want to be able to avoid addressing your offending behaviour, come to HMP Littlehey and ‘go trans’’, if you enjoy unwanted sexual attention, or want to be slated by your own trans’ community, then come here.

You are fooling no one but yourself by living a lie, and it is trans-imposters who give real transgender people a bad name, in and out of prison. To genuine trans’ people – stay strong.*

insidetime.org/trans-imposters/

Would you say the same about DBS checks? After all the vast vast majority of DBS checks come back completely clear

This is an important point & worth remembering that CRB checks (named DBS now) were implemented after the horrific murders of Holly Wells & Jessicca Chapman by Ian Huntley.

Huntley was employed as a school caretaker with accomodation on site. The vetting process in place when he was appointed failed to identify a significant number of allegations against him of raping children. Enhanced CRB/DBS checks for those in specific roles working with children & Vulnerable Adults therefore include police intelligence in recognition of patterns of predatory/relevent risk behaviour.
This is how Safeguarding frameworks evolve to better protect children & Vulnerable Adults.

2003 Guardian,
'Vetting blunders let Huntley slip through net
The failure of authorities to unearth underage sex complaints against Ian Huntley will strengthen calls for an overhaul of the criminal records system, writes Steven Morris
"The Soham case exposes serious failings within the vetting system which is designed to prevent people who may pose a threat to children from getting jobs in schools.
Though Ian Huntley had no convictions for sex offences, he had been reported to police in his native Humberside on six occasions over sexual assaults or sexual relationships with underage girls.

In addition social services in the north east investigated four relationships between Huntley and schoolgirls, one only 13, and an alleged indecent assault on an 11-year-old girl.

But checks made by police on Huntley when he was appointed caretaker of Soham Village College failed to unearth these details of his past."

www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/17/soham.ukcrime2

Sledgehammer, nut...

That's nothing more than the endless (endless) essential repetition of 'females you must abandon your own interests to centre the needs of males'.

No.

After a weekend where we've been told that women wanting to talk about female rights is 'hate', and females' physical safety mustn't be allowed to come before males getting their emotional needs met, I no longer have the time or interest in anything but fighting for female needs and rights.

If I'd ever heard the faintest shred of compassion or support from TW regarding female needs and rights (and you'd expect, since they insist they are women that this might be of passing interest) then I might feel differently, but it's been consistently 'shut up about you and take care of me'. I have as yet seen no evidence of care or consideration for females, while a very great deal of evidence requiring females to put aside their own interests to show unconditional care and consideration for the needs of TW. *

I will not stand still and see vulnerable females locked in with violent men with a proven in court history of glorying in the controlling and abusing and objectifying of females, in some great experiment about political ideals. It's sick. No one who saw females as fully human would be considering this. No one but a dedicated misogynist would be trying to stop females talking about it without the faintest interest in their needs or experience, and yet again trying to make them virtuously centre the needs of males.

The sexism and the total lack of even basic empathy is sickening.

• [minor edit at poster's request]

I 'want in the Ladies' because it is the appropriate door for who I am.

Do you believe you've changed sex?

Can you deadname yourself for a DRB check? Could an employer ask what your previous name was if you present your self as MaryJane Smith but it looks very much like you were born Fred Smith?

No we don't know what their motivations are. That's the point.

When we find ourselves alone, and especially in an enclosed space, with a man, we cannot intuit their intentions. What we do know is that males as a group, commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual crime and that, as a group, they are bigger and stronger and faster than females.

I wonder why it is that you find this so hard to understand.

No, because that's not what a DBS is for. Other measures in the implementation of safeguarding exist. It's not a 'I have a form with ticks on it, now I can get what I want.' Safeguarding is a mindset that puts the needs of the vulnerable above the wants of the individual.

Again, this is a thread about an elected official proposing that men should be able to identify as women and have access to the women's prison estate, this putting vulnerable women at risk.

Not about you, and your respectability.