MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Someone asked upthread if the policy is that trans men with a grc are automatically sent to a men's prison?

I don't think there's ever been a case in the UK of a transman going to a men's prison.

@Manderleyagain

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?

It is normal for legal advice to be redacted. There is a slightly complex concept of legal privilege which broadly means you should be allowed to get legal advice without worrying you would have to disclose it in court.

Legal privilege applies to all of us so none of us have to disclose legal advice we receive to the other side or the court. (broadly speaking).

Someone cleverer than me will remember the source: I believe I've read that the prison service decision was that it would be impossible to keep a TM safe in a male prison. The risk assessment would not work.

Logic fails of course at that point when you try to look at the decision made for the female estate. However I'm also sure I've read from inquiries into the risk assessment process that when considering the risks in a male prisoner moving into the female estate, the risks being considered were only those to the transwomen. Including assuring their social and emotional safety. As no women's groups ever had input or represented women's needs and interests, needs of and risks to women have at times not been just minimally considered but often not considered relevant at all.

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."

Yes my impression too. Its difficult to know what's going on from tweets, and sometimes the judge's thinking in the judgement report can be a real surprise so you can't necessarily tell from their questions.

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. good point.

OP It is normal for legal advice to be redacted. Thanks, I will not persue that paranoid line of enquiry!

Thanks for the thread, sometimes it's difficult to follow on Twitter

The fact that trans men are NOT housed in the male estate (for their safety as they couldn't be protected properly) begs the question WHY then are trans women automatically housed in the womens estate???

If authorities can snub trans mens gender identity then why on earth can't they snub trans womens gender identity.....

Ah, the feelings of males are more important than the actual physical safety of women prisoners....

They pretty much have criminalized saying, "TWANW". It's hate speech, you see.

Because if you think women are people you are a bigot.
If you think men are stronger than women you are a bigot.
If you think that a man can put a dress on and still be a man you are a bigot.
If you think that putting vulnerable women at risk of being raped is a bad idea, you are a bigot.
If you think that women and girls should be allowed to say if they feel uncomfortable getting changed in the company of a male-bodied person, you are a bigot and so are they.

Women should shut up, move over and take whatever shit the TRAs dole out, whether it's abuse on Twitter or rape in prison.

So fucking angry right now. Remember when it was cool to be a feminist? People going round proudly wearing "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirts. All bigots. Every one of them. According to the new narrative.

@happydappy2

The fact that trans men are NOT housed in the male estate (for their safety as they couldn't be protected properly) begs the question WHY then are trans women automatically housed in the womens estate???

If authorities can snub trans mens gender identity then why on earth can't they snub trans womens gender identity.....

Ah, the feelings of males are more important than the actual physical safety of women prisoners....

The head of the NHS gender service argued that it would be beneficial for these males to be with women, and the only women who would complain are 'the sort who enjoy conflict'.

That's the really horrifying thing about all this, the fact that it is always the experts and establishment figures who push these policies.

If the MOJ thkught single sex exemptions did not apply to prisons then why on earth are there male prisons and female prisons? Why are they not mixed? And if single sex exemptions don't apply then when are only transgender male prisons getting to transfer?

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/rules-transgender-prisoners-male-female-jails-justice-review

Ohhhh so they consulted with the head of ‘gender services” did they?

Didn’t think to consult with advocates for the women involved, did they.

I don't think there's ever been a case in the UK of a transman going to a men's prison.

Why on earth not, how strange, etc etc.

Funny how the need for validation/worry about distress only works one way.

Yes, Dr Barrett back in 2009. I think the prisoner in question was Karen Jones, who was later invited to HoL to talk about gender. As one does with attempted rapists.

If the MOJ thkught single sex exemptions did not apply to prisons then why on earth are there male prisons and female prisons? Why are they not mixed?

Bingo. The single-sex exemptions aren't about GRCs. They're the things that let you have any male-only or female-only services.

Karen Jones. Manslaughter and attempted rape.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html

CONTENT WARNING:

[I've redacted these details]... in a back room of Transformations, a shop in Prestwich for men who wish to buy and wear female clothing and accessories.

The attempted rape was so terrifying the woman told the police she thought she was going to die and the attack only ended when Jones failed to become aroused.

At the time, she was living in a female bail hostel, having presented as a transwoman, called Karen Louise Lawson, though was sentenced under her birth name of Mark John Jones.

She was reported as having 'carried out the attack as a cry for help so that she could go back to prison and have the sex change operation she had needed all her life.'

So prison is being used as a pathway for cosmetic surgery, for manipulating the system. The woman who was terrified for her life presumably just unfortunate side-effect.

From the Guardian article that Chaz linked:

Sarah Hannett, counsel for the MoJ, said in her skeleton argument that the policies “implement a nuanced and fact-sensitive approach” to balancing competing interests. “Any policy in this area is unlikely to satisfy every interested person.”...

“That would require the secretary of state to take steps to place all such transgender women prisoners in the women’s estate into the men’s estate without any regard for the individual circumstances of the prisoners concerned."

HELLO, OVER HERE! WE ARE WOMEN, THERE ARE LOADS OF US! WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING? HELLO...HELLO?

History truly will not look kindly on all those complicit in this horror.

You all have articulated how I'm feeling about this way better than I could. I'm clueless about all this so will be reading up. It looks worse than I even imagined though. Really have no idea how this will go/ be reported ?

The link I posted up thread is from 2015. 2 women TM, who were sent to male estates killed themselves!

Haven't read the whole thread but checking on the posts since 5pm this hasn't been shared yet - apols if a repeat.

twitter.com/victoriapeckham/status/1366797831726657541?s=21

thank you op.

MenopausalCrone those prisoners you linked to upthread were all transwomen, not transmen

The individual needs and feelings and wishes and rights of the person born male always is the first consideration over the entire class of people born female.

The inequality of consideration, regard, value, is screamingly obvious.

And there are other solutions to managing the needs of transwomen prisoners than simply utilising the female estate as is. Let's be honest about this. This is not about safety or proper care of or dignity because all of that could be provided to a high quality in third space or trans specific prison wings. This is purely and simply about affirming identity by placing transwomen with female people as female people themselves.

However the amount of consideration given to one of those parties and the total lack of consideration at all given to the other makes it very clear that no one involved in the decision believes that there is no difference between the two groups. They know exactly whose consent and interests and feelings matter and whose consent, involvement in decisions, choice, safety and right not to be harassed, assaulted or raped doesn't. They are very clear on the sex based thinking in all this.

As mentioned above: if the safety of TM cannot be considered possible in the male estate then there is the admittance that sex exists and in some situations it must be regarded for the safety and needs of all. However that thinking is not then extended to female people, and the female estate.

No one should be incarcerated in situations where their privacy, dignity, safety, freedom from harassment and freedom from assault and physical danger cannot be assured. No transwoman. And no women either. It is pointless trying to force a reality to exist that these two groups can be combined in all situations when it is only the benefit of one group and to the detriment of the other: when solutions could perfectly well be found by parallel separate provisions.

Lets be honest about what the barrier here is. And why this practical, realistic, perfectly possible starting tomorrow solution that would meet all needs equally and safely is not acceptable.

So Jones already had a GRC at the time of the attack?
It just goes to show that the GRC is meaningless in terms of women's safety.