KPSS House of Lords tomorrow

[Isthatthebestyoucando]

On Monday there is an amendment being tabled in the House of Lords to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which would stop men being held in women’s prisons.
Anyone on twitter please tweet #KeepProsonsSingleSex and #Amendment214 to show strength of feeling.

Important too that this does not get entirely stuck on males always being allowed to go anywhere females are, whether or not females consent, unless it's been proven to the last decimal place that females have been sufficiently hurt in sufficiently large numbers to take the horrific step of limiting male freedom of access to them.

Which is fantastically sexist in itself.

Female people's entitlement to privacy, dignity and freedom from male presence and male gaze regardless of how that male identifies is part of seeing females as equally human to males. And for the freedom of belief of female people to perceive all males as males regardless of the male person's self identified gender, and to expect the same law and regulations for privacy and dignity to be applied equally to all males.

So either it's fine for all prisons to be mixed sex, or it isn't. If it is not, then those reasons do not go away on a male person's internal feelings.

So if just the one person gets moved into a facility - affects all people they come into contact with.

They will get ‘special’ treatment - they could be a murdering rapist, but they will get the protection, extra consideration, and be treated like they are at risk.

What am I missing?

The misogyny Kitten as soon as you realise the one person is male & the multiple people are female is all makes hideous sense

I'll be on GB News this afternoon at about 5.00 talking about prisons in the context of safeguarding.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Done. And yes, I heard a politician saying we need to get rid of the House of Lords the other day and yelled 'Over my dead body' at the radio. This gender ideology issue, above all others, has proved what a mature second house that doesn't have to please voters is a vital element of democracy.

This. I never thought about it until now.

I have always been in favour of the House of Lords for this reason.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/19/jury-returns-verdict-on-transgender-woman-found-dead-in-male-prison

This is the 'suicide' that Paddick referred to when arguing that trans women are vulnerable.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

I'll be on GB News this afternoon at about 5.00 talking about prisons in the context of safeguarding.

Excellent - will set the alarm

“It shouldn’t matter that Vikki hadn’t begun medical treatment for gender reassignment. As far as the Equalities Act is concerned, reassignment is social, not medical, so she should have been treated like any other young woman entering prison.

Is Stephen Whittle right here? Or misrepresenting the law?

@WalkOnGildedSplinters

“It shouldn’t matter that Vikki hadn’t begun medical treatment for gender reassignment. As far as the Equalities Act is concerned, reassignment is social, not medical, so she should have been treated like any other young woman entering prison.

Is Stephen Whittle right here? Or misrepresenting the law?

I believe not. To be treated as being the opposite sex you need a GRC. Those with a GRC automatically go into the women's estate with no record of their being male. The policy debate therefore concerns those who do not have a GRC. They are not entitled to be treated as women although Stonewall et al argue that to exclude them is discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The GC position would be that it is lawful discrimination on the grounds of their sex (permitted under the EqA in certain circumstances). That is my understanding.

@WalkOnGildedSplinters

“It shouldn’t matter that Vikki hadn’t begun medical treatment for gender reassignment. As far as the Equalities Act is concerned, reassignment is social, not medical, so she should have been treated like any other young woman entering prison.

Is Stephen Whittle right here? Or misrepresenting the law?

Gender reassignment under the equality act includes social transition or intending to, which is why it applies to kids in schools. So he’s correct on that point.

However gender reassignment or those with grc, do not trump the single sex exemptions. Which is why we have single sex exemptions, to ensure in some circumstances that those who have transitioned, including those with a grc who should otherwise be treated as their new legal ‘sex’ (so on passports etc) should still be treated as their birth sex in circumstances where single sex exemptions apply. Which most definitely should be prisons. So he’s wrong on that point.

I believe not. To be treated as being the opposite sex you need a GRC. Those with a GRC automatically go into the women's estate with no record of their being male. The policy debate therefore concerns those who do not have a GRC. They are not entitled to be treated as women although Stonewall et al argue that to exclude them is discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The GC position would be that it is lawful discrimination on the grounds of their sex (permitted under the EqA in certain circumstances). That is my understanding.

I’m not 100% that TW with a GRC automatically go in the female estate but regardless however I’m 99.9% sure this amendment is about those with a GRC.

@EyesOpening

I believe not. To be treated as being the opposite sex you need a GRC. Those with a GRC automatically go into the women's estate with no record of their being male. The policy debate therefore concerns those who do not have a GRC. They are not entitled to be treated as women although Stonewall et al argue that to exclude them is discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The GC position would be that it is lawful discrimination on the grounds of their sex (permitted under the EqA in certain circumstances). That is my understanding.

I’m not 100% that TW with a GRC automatically go in the female estate but regardless however I’m 99.9% sure this amendment is about those with a GRC.

They do automatically go into the general population of the female estate. No risk ax. Conviction, offending history, anatomy not taken into account.

“However gender reassignment or those with grc, do not trump the single sex exemptions. Which is why we have single sex exemptions, to ensure in some circumstances that those who have transitioned, including those with a grc who should otherwise be treated as their new legal ‘sex’ (so on passports etc) should still be treated as their birth sex in circumstances where single sex exemptions apply. Which most definitely should be prisons. So he’s wrong on that point.”

Were the single sex exemption not already in place for “valid sex discrimination” e.g. members of the opposite sex can legitimately be excluded from certain jobs, but possibly amended with the introduction of GRCs?

They do automatically go into the general population of the female estate. No risk ax. Conviction, offending history, anatomy not taken into account.

Thank you for the clarification.

The exceptions that were made for the Aristocracy are an absolute corker, EyesOpening. The eldest male child always inherits the title irrespective of where he is in the line of births, if he decides to become a woman he still inherits the title BUT if his first born sister decides to become a man, guess what, no inheriting the title for her, funnily enough birth sex is absolutely, irrevocably the deciding factor here.

Now compare and contrast that with placing males who have been tried, convicted and imprisoned for rape who then declare they are a woman and therefore must be placed in the female prison estate.

Three cheers for the patriarchy and misogyny.

What happens if they’ve changed the sex on their birth certificate? How does that work in practice - can you see there are two copies or that it has been amended?

@RedDogsBeg

The exceptions that were made for the Aristocracy are an absolute corker, EyesOpening. The eldest male child always inherits the title irrespective of where he is in the line of births, if he decides to become a woman he still inherits the title BUT if his first born sister decides to become a man, guess what, no inheriting the title for her, funnily enough birth sex is absolutely, irrevocably the deciding factor here.

Now compare and contrast that with placing males who have been tried, convicted and imprisoned for rape who then declare they are a woman and therefore must be placed in the female prison estate.

Three cheers for the patriarchy and misogyny.

Oh yeah, I read about that before, shocking but not really surprising! I also read about how TW are accepted (or maybe just allowed to stay if they transition after already being members) in the Freemasons (can’t remember if TM are).

@WalkOnGildedSplinters

What happens if they’ve changed the sex on their birth certificate? How does that work in practice - can you see there are two copies or that it has been amended?

The change of sex on a Birth Certificate is technically a 'legal fiction' and in the case of primogeniture that is what is treated as - a fiction, the Birth Sex rules supreme. Great eh, making sure that men always inherit titles is considered with such reverence and yet making sure women prisoners are not raped by men who have been tried, convicted and incarcerated for rape is not. Priorities.

Thanks Red. I know, once you know that you just see the whole thing for what it is.

For watching KPSS live in 20 m

Caught the end of it - well done Kate :)

(The LGBTQ+ statement on went on for quite a while, but nothing to do with prisons, of course. All about educating young people for this bright and beautiful future )

I'm not surprised they weren't available, it's fucking indefensible.

So even though members of the House of Lords said last night that a risk assessment is always done on a case-by-case basis, apparently that's simply not the case if they have a GRC?

A GRC, incidentally, which gives them an automatic entry into the women's estate.

If they have a GRC, any risk assessment that would have been used on them as a male, is ditched because they now qualify for the female risk assessment, and there isn't one.

Because women do not constitute enough of a risk.

And these people are running our bloody country.

I could not be more contemptuous.

So only Dr Kate Coleman pointed out that there IS NOT A RISK ASSESSMENT FOR RAPISTS/VIOLENT OFFENDERS WITH A GRC. and the Lib Dems peers and Shami and government official statement are wrong on this.

Obviously that Lord Blencathra has not done his research. His view is way behind the times. A good reply from Baroness Brinton explaining the way things are done now. There is a lot of scaremongering about management of trans prisoners. Correct she says there is more to fear from other cis women prisoners than trans.