MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Did the prison service think that the EA didn't apply to them at all, or just the single sex exemptions? I couldn't quite follow - do they accept that it does apply to them now? I assume that they didn't think they were providing a service to prisoners, so didn't have equality duties to prisoners? Does that mean they thought they could discriminate against prisoners on race, religion etc? Surely not, so it was a completely incoherent stance.

From the tweeting I got the feeling that the judges haven't understood that you don't need to have done any meaningful transition to have the p/c of gender reassignment, and you don't have to have done anything medical/surgical to have a grc.

The judges just dipped a toe into the fact that putting any tw (including low risk ones) in the female estate could be traumatic & triggering to female prisoners, and that's potentially discriminatory for the women, but they sort of tiptoed out again. It sounded like that is not the basis for this claim.

@PurpleHoodie

tea

Journalists at The Sun, The Mirror, The Mail, The Express, The Telegraph, The Times (there are more) should take note of your succinct post.

And....publicly journal.

I knew, of course I did. I contributed to the fund and I was proud to do so. But when you read the live tweets it really hits you.

I'm a boring, law-abiding, middle aged mum. I will never (until they criminalise saying TWANW) face incarceration I hope. But the sheer bloody horror of it... How could they?

I am shaking with rage.

Thanks for this thread.

Janice Turner from The Times has just tweeted about the case, hopefully it will be picked up by more of the media.

I knew, of course I did. I contributed to the fund and I was proud to do so. But when you read the live tweets it really hits you.

I'm a boring, law-abiding, middle aged mum. I will never (until they criminalise saying TWANW) face incarceration I hope. But the sheer bloody horror of it... How could they?

I am shaking with rage.

Yes, this.

Utterly disgraceful, shameful and just plain WRONG.

I have already decided that if need be, this absolutely will be the hill I choose to die on.

How dare they.

*What we're seeing is growing awareness in the legal establishment that the foundation of the legal recognition of gender, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, is fundamentally flawed filled with crap contradictory definitions trying to give something legal force that it should not have and thus the Act was always going to cause chaos down the line.

It didn't for maybe a decade while trans activists began to cotton on to the fact that an unprecedented land grab had opened up to them. When the chaos started to bite, a fantastically effective tactic was rolled out, anyone who said "hang on" got called a "bigot" and also was threatened by activists right across the captured landscape. This had been just about 100% successful until the courts got involved and started to ask "what does this mean?", "how are you seeking to apply this?", etc, and now a complete shitshow is being revealed.*

Let's just hope the shitshow continues to be unravelled, challenged, and taken down bit by bit, if need be.

From the tweeting I got the feeling that the judges haven't understood that you don't need to have done any meaningful transition to have the p/c of gender reassignment, and you don't have to have done anything medical/surgical to have a grc.

That's how I took it too, seemed a bit muddled.

@ArabellaScott

*What we're seeing is growing awareness in the legal establishment that the foundation of the legal recognition of gender, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, is fundamentally flawed filled with crap contradictory definitions trying to give something legal force that it should not have and thus the Act was always going to cause chaos down the line.

It didn't for maybe a decade while trans activists began to cotton on to the fact that an unprecedented land grab had opened up to them. When the chaos started to bite, a fantastically effective tactic was rolled out, anyone who said "hang on" got called a "bigot" and also was threatened by activists right across the captured landscape. This had been just about 100% successful until the courts got involved and started to ask "what does this mean?", "how are you seeking to apply this?", etc, and now a complete shitshow is being revealed.*

Let's just hope the shitshow continues to be unravelled, challenged, and taken down bit by bit, if need be.

THIS. 100%

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.

The judges just dipped a toe into the fact that putting any tw (including low risk ones) in the female estate could be traumatic & triggering to female prisoners, and that's potentially discriminatory for the women, but they sort of tiptoed out again.

The tweets give a very limited idea. However the impression certainly arises that this was more or less "well of course we see it's problematic for women... but."

The alarm over potentially saying no to male people regardless of what is happening to female people is just staggering. There are many other ways the prison service could meet the needs of those transwomen that would not involve any risk of harm or distress to female prisoners. The scale is so weighted.

Anyone who considered women of equal value would have seen that the answer to trans-identifying male prisoners was a third prison estate for them. But instead, women are just seen as free space to colonise. Chuck the transitioning rapists in with the vulnerable women with histories of sexual abuse, its not like they matter.

@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.

Locking women in a place they cannot escape from with even the most benign male bodied individuals (intact or not) is just as much the dystopian nightmare.

It simply should not happen. It is deeply unethical.

I think the judges do understand that a person with a GRC may not have had surgery. They asked about rapists with GRC - the crime of rape requires the ownership of a penis.

@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.

This is what gets me too. You couldn’t imagine a more obvious setting for invoking the single sex exemptions, so it really comes down the state not giving a fuck about women’s welfare.

As an aside, do these captured institutions have any means to come back at Stonewall for telling them lies and causing embarrassing court cases like this? (I presume Stonewalls small print was always "this is not legal advice")

@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.

Like the hen house, where they add a fox cause it says he is a chicken

It is also, as was pointed out earlier in thread, in breach of the Geneva Convention. There is a strong argument to be made that it is a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a form of torture against female prisoners.

@FindTheTruth

they can't hide behind the Diversity Champion scheme, because it is for employers.

policy heads and policy advisors in public institutions meet with Stonewall outside of the champion scheme all the time as 'LGBT representatives'. So.... Queer theory, parading as LGBT, is influencing policy makers. Policy makers change policy and government services and spending in line with Queer theory. Queer theory is anti women, anti children and homophobic.

Absolutely, their influence is everywhere and DfE and MoJ in particular have had some very active 'champions' among staff, but the Diversity Champion scheme itself is no excuse for these appalling policies.

They need to ditch Stonewall wholesale, but that's not where the buck stops.

The GOVERNMENT should be capable of conducting its own due diligence fgs.

It just beggars belief. What a cesspool.

tea

Don't shake with rage.

Some tea will sort it all out.

Locking women in a place they cannot escape from with even the most benign male bodied individuals (intact or not) is just as much the dystopian nightmare.

It simply should not happen. It is deeply unethical.

For sure, but we all know that women's wants/privacy/feelings count for less than those of males. One would have thought there'd be a line drawn at the bald fact of rapists being put into women's prison, though. It's so staggeringly, obviously, undeniably a terrible idea.

tea And knowledge that this is finally being picked up through the Courts.

Someone asked upthread if the policy is that trans men with a grc are automatically sent to a men's prison? I don't know the answer. If the answer's yes, then how dangerous. And if they don't pass how is it managed? If the answer's no, then that's an acceptance within the policy that a grc doesn't change one's sex for all purposes.

I'm also wondering why the legal advice that led to the policy is redacted when it is so core? Do the judges have to allow that to stand, or have they chosen to allow it to be redacted? Who advised and what did they say?

OvaHere

It is also, as was pointed out earlier in thread, in breach of the Geneva Convention. There is a strong argument to be made that it is a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a form of torture against female prisoners.

Now this is very, very interesting for any women challenging institutes. Now, and in the future.

@ArabellaScott

Locking women in a place they cannot escape from with even the most benign male bodied individuals (intact or not) is just as much the dystopian nightmare.

It simply should not happen. It is deeply unethical.

For sure, but we all know that women's wants/privacy/feelings count for less than those of males. One would have thought there'd be a line drawn at the bald fact of rapists being put into women's prison, though. It's so staggeringly, obviously, undeniably a terrible idea.

Oh yes of course. Wasn’t disagreeing at all!

Just making it clear that no male bodied individual should be housed in a women’s prison. It’s always wrong.