Is it only white middle class women who are GC?

[Ziegfeld]

I recently summoned courage to have “the talk” with an old friend who is gay. I wanted to know his current thoughts on sex based rights, and I thought (as we are old friends) even if we disagreed we could have a civilised conversation about it.

Unfortunately I think he called me transphobic about five minutes into the conversation when I asked, so if we say let’s have self ID, how do we tell whether someone genuinely believes themselves to be a TW or is a man simply announcing he is a woman solely for the purposes of accessing women-only spaces for bad intent. ( His answers to that were “well we need safeguarding” and “there are hardly any TWs, this isn’t a real concern” and “well ideally we should all just have gender neutral changing rooms”)

Some more things were said by both of us which I won’t go into here because I am sure we’ve all heard them before.

But then he said that it’s only white middle class women (like me) who have a problem with self ID and allowing TW access to women’s spaces. He said that working class women and women of colour have no problem at all with it.

I don’t think this is true - look at Allison Bailey for example. But I would be interested to know what other MNers think. Is this a race and class issue? Or is it that white middle class women tend to have more platforms to speak out than other women?

@barleybadminton

I did notice in the document you shared that trans ppl with a GRC MUST be treated as their legal gender presumably meaning that none of the assessment you mentioned above would occur as it would not normally occur for a female prisoner.

No hey will still be risk assessed and can be held in the male estate or placed in a segragted unit such as the one at Downview where they would not have unsupervised contact with other prisoners.

4.65 When considering whether to hold a transgender woman with a GRC with other women, or in
separate accommodation, all risks need to be taken into account. Any significant risks posed
by a transgender woman with a GRC to other women, or by other prisoners to the individual,
should be assessed in order to make sure that appropriate accommodation, regime and
supervision is provided to manage such risks appropriately.
4.66 If risk is particularly high, it may not be appropriate to hold a transgender woman with a GRC in
the women’s estate, either with the general population, or on a bespoke unit.

You missed out this paragraph barley:

4.64 The Gender Recognition Act 2004 section 9 says that when a full GRC is issued to a person, the person's gender becomes, for all purposes, their acquired gender. This means that transgender women prisoners with GRCs must be treated in the same way as biological women for all purposes. Transgender women with GRCs must be placed in the women’s estate/AP unless there are exceptional circumstances, as would be the case for biological women.

They go into the female estate except under exceptional circumstances.

And you missed out this paragraph about when a male with a GRC can be placed in the male estate (only under circumstances where a woman would also have to be placed in the male estate because she was considered to be so dangerous):

4.67 It may then be necessary to locate a transgender (male to female) woman with a GRC in the men’s estate. This can only happen if the risk concerns surrounding the transgender individual are at the equivalent level to those that would apply to any other women that may need to be held in the male estate.

And this one about placement of prisoners more generally.
2.3 ... Where individuals have gained legal recognition, they must be treated in accordance with their legally recognised gender in every respect.

You seem to be a bit selective in which parts of that document you quote barley. But we can all read it. There's no point in posting misinformation. We can all read.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed there will be benefits, the question is is there a risk of harm. The recent Judicial Review noted that in 2019 there were 11 recorded sexual assaults committed against trans women in the male estate

At least you are honest.

We can say then that there is no benefit for females having males in the female prison estate.

And that women are therefore designated as safety humans and support humans for vulnerable males.

Same old, same old.

I would hope you agree that is an unacceptable situation

Yes. No male should be experiencing harm while in prison. However the answer is NOT to make females give up there safety and dignity to keep some males safe. It is to better maintain safety in the male prisons.

Please provide proof that males are not currently sharing cells and showers with females barley. Stop deflecting and provide evidence.

We know that this year the MoJ cannot even provide numbers of males housed in female estates. If you try to tell us otherwise, you have a better source that the MoJ did for their court case.

Proof and numbers thanks barley. Otherwise you are wishful thinking.

If the issue is safety for TW prisoners, that's a valid concern and it can be met by providing either vulnerable prisoner wings, or TW units such as Downview attempted to provide. But this isn't acceptable is it? So it isn't about violence, the resource being sought is not a safe space.

What about safe spaces for female prisoners?

I can't get my head around anyone whose response to vulnerable women being locked up with violent males - and with the rape conviction rate in the UK these are not mild, low level offenses, these males have committed very serious crimes against females which will have been life changing for those victims - is to have anything but concern for those females. What is happening to these females is inhuman.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed there will be benefits, the question is is there a risk of harm.

So you think there is no risk of harm to women prisoners if prisons are made mixed sex?

Trans women in the men's estate are around 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted then men or women in either estate. I would hope you agree that is an unacceptable situation, and as such, if risk assessment procedures can be implemented which do not place women at rsk, then one way to address this is to allow some trans women who are assessed as low risk into the female estate - with some additional safeguards such as not sharing cells/showers with non trans prisoners.

There are many other groups of prisoners who are at greater risk of being assaulted in the men's estate. Should they all be placed in women's prisons?

Wouldn't it be better to make the men's prisons safer for all male prisoners, however they identify?

@barleybadminton

Regarding the recent judicial review it's perhaps worthy of note that the former prisoner who brought it was quite clear that unlike many here she did not object to the presence of trans women in the female estate, it was only trans women convicted of sexual offences she felt should not be permitted.

It's worthy of note that not even that limit can be respected.

You are still arguing that we place such people in the female estate.

Why don't you argue for building separate units in the male estate? Instead of building on women's prison sites?

What next? Will you post that one way to address violence in male prisons is to place some transwomen who are assessed as low risk in schools - with some additional safeguards such as not sharing showers with pupils? Perhaps suggest building some units on school playing fields?

No? Is that because it would be absurd to use facilities meant for children's educational needs to serve adult male prisoners?

Well, it's just as absurd to reallocate women's facilities to males.

There are plenty of other solutions. Imagine that there are no female prisons. What would you do then to protect transwomen in prison?

Regarding the recent judicial review it's perhaps worthy of note that the former prisoner who brought it was quite clear that unlike many here she did not object to the presence of trans women in the female estate, it was only trans women convicted of sexual offences she felt should not be permitted.

And it is worth noting that many female victims of male assault and abuse have stated that any male in single sex spaces cause harm and distress.

We know there are females who are quite happy to disregard the needs of those others for no males at all.

Your statement here is irrelevant. And continues to show your complete lack of empathy for women.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed there will be benefits, the question is is there a risk of harm.

1. Earlier you said that if we cared about women in prison, we would be working on various other things to benefit women in prison. Given that you do not claim that transwomen in female prisons benefits women, why are you spending your time arguing for their inclusion, instead of any of the issues you listed before?

2. i) Mickey Mouse could tell you that there is a risk of harm: sexual assault and the psychological stress of fearing sexual assault
   ii) sexual assaults and rapes have already happened, proving that this is a reality, not an abstract risk.

It doesn’t surprise me purgatory.

We are still waiting for the statistical evidence to barley’s continued claims that no females are sharing cells or showers with males in prisons. Didn’t the MoJ admit they had no records that separated out females and males with GRC’s. And yet, we are told we are wrong. We are told it is not happening. Yet, if what I remember from the MoJ transcript is right… it is not reported.

Along with the statistics of exactly how many males have had their penises removed to discredit the estimate of from 80% up to 95%. I mean, it is all very well to say it is wrong but if posters declaring it is wrong have no better estimate to hand, then their declarations have little relevance.

It all seems to be based on wishful thinking really.

But, I am happy to see new figures. I quite enjoy seeing new figures to go through. So, I will wait.

I can't get my head around anyone whose response to vulnerable women being locked up with violent males - and with the rape conviction rate in the UK these are not mild, low level offenses, these males have committed very serious crimes against females which will have been life changing for those victims - is to have anything but concern for those females. What is happening to these females is inhuman

Even in our worst times, in times of World War, there is an international agreement that prisoners are segregated by sex.

What are our authorities doing, knowing that often vulnerable women are both harmed and distressed by this, to continue with this policy?

If there is no benefit why is it happening?

Or why do people want it to happen?

@barleybadminton

Please provide evidence that disputes this.

It's generally accepted that if you make a claim then it's down to you to provide the evidence which supports it. I am not aware of any such evidence. In fact given no-one knows for sure how many trans women exist in the UK, let alone how many have had surgery, then such a claim cannot possibly be made.

Getting back to this then.

So, FWS has at least extrapolated that 80-95% have had no surgery, or other treatment.

And you admit that no one actually knows. And despite disagreeing with my posting of the upper reaches of that estimate cannot post anything that also disputes it.

You also haven’t yet produced the statistics on just how many transitioned males are in the female estate. Or what they are incarcerated for. (I am conscious that these may take time to find so I will acknowledge that these may still be linked up today by you).

But so far, no statistics on
-how many have no penises either in general population or in prisons. —how many are in prison that is reliable apart from the minimum numbers.
-what type of crimes transitioned males are inprisoned for.

(Note: The numbers that represent a minimum ARE known (and linked in this thread) and have been presented to parliament as they have been hand sorted by people who need the information. Those with sex crimes have been counted. In all your posts, you have not disputed those)

So, your claim that:

The truth is the vast amount of women prisoners will probably never even come across a trans women, and if they do it's likely to be someone fiully transitioned and serving time for a non violent offence.

Is what? Wishful thinking because that is what heavily invested lobby groups and activists have said on twitter? Based on propaganda that has no basis in reality? What you think will convince readers if you say it often enough? At least posters are posting numbers derived from professional women hand mining data.

The truth is you have presented nothing to support this claim. At all.

And getting back to the bizarre takes and twists from yesterday.

Interesting isn't it that the woman who have put themselves on the line and endured the stress of court cases have been largely women of colour whilst their often rather privileged white compatriots cheer them on from the sidelines consequence free.

When posters started to point out that they themselves are not ‘white’, barley you pivoted to focus on class. And tried to posit that working class women don’t care about these issues. Because none of your female working class friends discuss it with you.

You point out yourself that often working class women have other priorities. And I agree they do. But it is in no way accurate to state that they do not care. Because I happen to know that they do.

They just don’t necessarily discuss it and why would they discuss it with someone who exhibits clear disrespect and derision for people who believe that sex should be prioritised when needed.

Then you come out with ’It is this prioritising of this issue over and above everything else which appears to negate the realities of working class lives and political objectives’.

And

’Just another example of how out of touch the gender critical movement is with the reality working class women are facing on the ground.’

WTAF? This is what the framing of upholding women’s rights as ‘anti-trans’ and ‘a single policy interest’ does.

Your attempt to avoid acknowledging that there are well known feminists who are fighting for every aspect of women’s needs is so ludicrous. I have twice mentioned Julie Bindle and Rhona Hotchkiss. No one could accuse Julie of being single focus, unless that was all you ever read of her work. Do you know Rhona’s background? There are many more feminists who prioritise sex over gender when needed. Tell us again, why would we name women to score points, thereby outing them which could mean them losing their jobs?

There are many women who don’t call themselves feminists who prioritise sex over gender when it needs to be that are also working tirelessly for all women.

This is the result of attempts to detach women’s rights from females to include males. All the rights protecting females are being fought to be upheld. You have attempted to portray the rights to female single sex spaces as luxury beliefs that working class women don’t seem to have. Because they don’t talk about it with you or post about it online.

You have attempted to portray some prominent feminists as being single issue and ‘out of touch’ when in fact that ‘single issue’ (the conflict in rights) actually impacts just about every right set up to protect females. So, yes… I will say I am ‘single issue’- that issue is females of all ages.

The arrogance that comes across in posts such as this is rather outstanding to see.

And just who are you barley to tell any woman where they should be directing their attention anyway?

You made sweeping generalisations on behalf ‘working class women’ all through your posts here last night. (Not unlike your sweeping negative generalisations on other posts) Based on what? What makes your working class knowledge and experience different from other posters? What do you even define as working class vs middle class?

Are you so entrenched in your prejudiced belief that posters here are white, something that was immediately denounced, and have a middle class background that you cannot understand that posters here come from a very broad spectrum of backgrounds. As do all women who hold feminist values?

It is just bizarre take after bizarre take. All formed around the prejudice (often sneering) displayed in your posts against women discussing and actively campaigning to uphold their rights against the conflicts of another group’s rights.

Women saying ‘no’ seems to really infuriate you. Why?

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

If there is no benefit why is it happening?

Or why do people want it to happen?

Correction: Its of no benefit to women

I can think of plenty of people who would want that to happen. Including Barley

@Helleofabore

And getting back to the bizarre takes and twists from yesterday.

Interesting isn't it that the woman who have put themselves on the line and endured the stress of court cases have been largely women of colour whilst their often rather privileged white compatriots cheer them on from the sidelines consequence free.

When posters started to point out that they themselves are not ‘white’, barley you pivoted to focus on class. And tried to posit that working class women don’t care about these issues. Because none of your female working class friends discuss it with you.

You point out yourself that often working class women have other priorities. And I agree they do. But it is in no way accurate to state that they do not care. Because I happen to know that they do.

They just don’t necessarily discuss it and why would they discuss it with someone who exhibits clear disrespect and derision for people who believe that sex should be prioritised when needed.

Then you come out with ’It is this prioritising of this issue over and above everything else which appears to negate the realities of working class lives and political objectives’.

And

’Just another example of how out of touch the gender critical movement is with the reality working class women are facing on the ground.’

WTAF? This is what the framing of upholding women’s rights as ‘anti-trans’ and ‘a single policy interest’ does.

Your attempt to avoid acknowledging that there are well known feminists who are fighting for every aspect of women’s needs is so ludicrous. I have twice mentioned Julie Bindle and Rhona Hotchkiss. No one could accuse Julie of being single focus, unless that was all you ever read of her work. Do you know Rhona’s background? There are many more feminists who prioritise sex over gender when needed. Tell us again, why would we name women to score points, thereby outing them which could mean them losing their jobs?

There are many women who don’t call themselves feminists who prioritise sex over gender when it needs to be that are also working tirelessly for all women.

This is the result of attempts to detach women’s rights from females to include males. All the rights protecting females are being fought to be upheld. You have attempted to portray the rights to female single sex spaces as luxury beliefs that working class women don’t seem to have. Because they don’t talk about it with you or post about it online.

You have attempted to portray some prominent feminists as being single issue and ‘out of touch’ when in fact that ‘single issue’ (the conflict in rights) actually impacts just about every right set up to protect females. So, yes… I will say I am ‘single issue’- that issue is females of all ages.

The arrogance that comes across in posts such as this is rather outstanding to see.

And just who are you barley to tell any woman where they should be directing their attention anyway?

You made sweeping generalisations on behalf ‘working class women’ all through your posts here last night. (Not unlike your sweeping negative generalisations on other posts) Based on what? What makes your working class knowledge and experience different from other posters? What do you even define as working class vs middle class?

Are you so entrenched in your prejudiced belief that posters here are white, something that was immediately denounced, and have a middle class background that you cannot understand that posters here come from a very broad spectrum of backgrounds. As do all women who hold feminist values?

It is just bizarre take after bizarre take. All formed around the prejudice (often sneering) displayed in your posts against women discussing and actively campaigning to uphold their rights against the conflicts of another group’s rights.

Women saying ‘no’ seems to really infuriate you. Why?

👏👏👏

I don't want to spend too much time on the facts and figures, but as a brown woman who did not grow up in the UK, and had to fight for a space every step of the way- education, safety, even just walking down the damn road- I will be damned if I cede that space to men now. Why is it always women having to make way for men and be kind?

It's quite a common response when one doesn't have an argument to fling insults. Here we see barley try to impugn women by any made up slurs barley can think of. Then pivot and switch to the next slur when the previous is shown to be fallacious.

A tedious kind of gish gallop.

Life is tough and short, barley. Women here are doing their best to make it better for women and children (however they identify). If you could drop the tiresome and pointless attempts to try and 'win' at all costs maybe we could all get on with finding ways through this situation.

No debate is over, and it's pointless trying to shore up lies with more lies. The truth has a way of coming out in the end. Best make peace with the fact that women are quite aware of the dirty tactics used by a campaign that apparently can't rely on simple facts and evidence for argument, but has to resort to threat, coercion and distortion. It really does nothing to further the argument that women should allow males into our spaces.

What an easy way to close an argument when you're struggling because your reasoning is weak.

It is also quite noticeable that across the different threads, barley keeps referring to groups of women for reference - young women, working class women friends.

Do you have any experience of the discrimination females face everyday since birth yourself, barley? Or do you gather your information from women and apply it against women who disagree with you?

Here is a murderer in a Manchester female prison estate- Jeska apparently is one of those transitioned males in a UK female prison.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/styal-prisons-most-notorious-inmates-22586876.amp

@Helleofabore

And getting back to the bizarre takes and twists from yesterday.

Interesting isn't it that the woman who have put themselves on the line and endured the stress of court cases have been largely women of colour whilst their often rather privileged white compatriots cheer them on from the sidelines consequence free.

When posters started to point out that they themselves are not ‘white’, barley you pivoted to focus on class. And tried to posit that working class women don’t care about these issues. Because none of your female working class friends discuss it with you.

You point out yourself that often working class women have other priorities. And I agree they do. But it is in no way accurate to state that they do not care. Because I happen to know that they do.

They just don’t necessarily discuss it and why would they discuss it with someone who exhibits clear disrespect and derision for people who believe that sex should be prioritised when needed.

Then you come out with ’It is this prioritising of this issue over and above everything else which appears to negate the realities of working class lives and political objectives’.

And

’Just another example of how out of touch the gender critical movement is with the reality working class women are facing on the ground.’

WTAF? This is what the framing of upholding women’s rights as ‘anti-trans’ and ‘a single policy interest’ does.

Your attempt to avoid acknowledging that there are well known feminists who are fighting for every aspect of women’s needs is so ludicrous. I have twice mentioned Julie Bindle and Rhona Hotchkiss. No one could accuse Julie of being single focus, unless that was all you ever read of her work. Do you know Rhona’s background? There are many more feminists who prioritise sex over gender when needed. Tell us again, why would we name women to score points, thereby outing them which could mean them losing their jobs?

There are many women who don’t call themselves feminists who prioritise sex over gender when it needs to be that are also working tirelessly for all women.

This is the result of attempts to detach women’s rights from females to include males. All the rights protecting females are being fought to be upheld. You have attempted to portray the rights to female single sex spaces as luxury beliefs that working class women don’t seem to have. Because they don’t talk about it with you or post about it online.

You have attempted to portray some prominent feminists as being single issue and ‘out of touch’ when in fact that ‘single issue’ (the conflict in rights) actually impacts just about every right set up to protect females. So, yes… I will say I am ‘single issue’- that issue is females of all ages.

The arrogance that comes across in posts such as this is rather outstanding to see.

And just who are you barley to tell any woman where they should be directing their attention anyway?

You made sweeping generalisations on behalf ‘working class women’ all through your posts here last night. (Not unlike your sweeping negative generalisations on other posts) Based on what? What makes your working class knowledge and experience different from other posters? What do you even define as working class vs middle class?

Are you so entrenched in your prejudiced belief that posters here are white, something that was immediately denounced, and have a middle class background that you cannot understand that posters here come from a very broad spectrum of backgrounds. As do all women who hold feminist values?

It is just bizarre take after bizarre take. All formed around the prejudice (often sneering) displayed in your posts against women discussing and actively campaigning to uphold their rights against the conflicts of another group’s rights.

Women saying ‘no’ seems to really infuriate you. Why?

What a joy to read, Helleofabore! 👏👏👏

All that's missing is "Expelliarmus!"

When will these twerps realise that seeking to divide and rule has precisely the opposite effect? Their attacks only serve to strengthen the bonds of sisterhood ❤️

Talking of sisters . . .

The Deptford People's Project was mentioned in a PP.

Transcribed by PencilsInSpace here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203804-The-Deptford-People-Project-and-the-impact-of-self-ID-and-transactivism-on-working-class-women?msgid=91060909

Original archived here:
web.archive.org/web/20180315031511/https:/twitter.com/LucyLoveslife1/status/973852316787933184

What a surprise! None of those statistics provided yet to back up that statement below.

The truth is the vast amount of women prisoners will probably never even come across a trans women, and if they do it's likely to be someone fiully transitioned and serving time for a non violent offence.

I mean it is an absolute style statement, so those stats must be available to be able to make that claim.

A reminder:

But so far, no statistics on

-how many have no penises either in general population or in prisons.

—how many are in prison that is reliable apart from the minimum numbers.

-what type of crimes transitioned males are inprisoned for.

And thanks bosky. Great links there!!

But I am sure that barlry will be along to say those women are the wrong sort of women and their story will be minimised.

They will be called ‘prudes’, ‘anti- whatever’, ‘pearl clutchers’, and if they make connections based on past behaviour that is verifiable, they will be then told they have ‘lurid’ imaginations. Oh… I think I have seen ‘pathetic’ used on other threads as well.

The classic tactics have all been deployed.

But, that link, which I remember reading before, is a very good account of how the pressure is applied and then enforced via vital funding and job security.

I am sure that as well as discrediting Lucy, the pressure will be denied too.

Question. Is it only white racists who are trans activists?

Ulrika, can a black person identify as being British? Or someone who was born in Germany? If you say yes to that then you've just destroyed your own argument.

twitter.com/StephMcalea/status/1476964683957641218?t=xXPg60cAQ-Krm5KC5HP1VA&s=19

WHAT. THE. HELL.

What the fresh hell is that purgatory?

That makes absolutely zero sense.

Oh dear.