House of Lords debate #KeepPrisonsSingleSex

[Alekto]

There's to be a debate in the HoL tomorrow pertaining to non-females being able to 'identify' in to women's prisons.

https://twitter.com/womensrightsnet/status/1480252452133822465?s=21

#KeepPrisonsSingleSex is trending at 3 in the UK on twitter but I can't see a thread here, so thought I'd start one. I don't know how the HoL works. Can anyone shed any light about what is likely to happen?

Text of tweet:

"Women's Rights Network - WRN
@WomensRightsNet
·
3h

On 10/1 HOL debates #Amendment97ZA seeking to stop male prisoners being housed in women's prisons. We ask the Lords to consider the safety & dignity of women uppermost in the debate & support the amendment #KeepPrisonsSingleSex #PoliceCrimeBill #Amendment214
@NoXYinXXprisons"

Redlake If transwomen are recorded as WOMEN in womens prisons, then if one attacks a woman, it’s recorded as though a woman attacked a woman. The data is not being recorded accurately.

Thanks for giving us all the names, Nauticant. It's a shame that they don't all have nice name badges.

So depressing. So many men, hating women.

It really bugged me that they ALL kept saying 'transwomen' when they should have been saying MEN. It would have made the whole farce so much clearer.

And why did no-one point out that whatever cosmetic surgery these men have undergone (and precious few of them have had any) men are twice as strong as women. And I would suspect that offending males are rather more than twice as strong as the poor women who end up incarcerated with them. So how can women ever be safe, locked up with these men??

It's all about the poor menzes.

Presumably TW would have had to be convicted for any such assault to count. We know from last year's court case that there have been complaints of assault. Bur what about sexual exposure? Outside prison it is an offence for a man to expose himself but we know that women are being forced to shower with these men.

Are KPSS pusing any cases of sex discrimination? Presumably if complaints are met with additional punishment then that would count as victimisation?

@BettyFilous

Thanks for the links. There were some excellent speeches.

I can’t believe Cashman played the suicide card. The guilt tripping never bloody changes. It’s clearly never crossed his mind that there are women going into prison terrified of encountering these transwomen, many of the latter with convictions for violent and sexual offences against women and girls. He just doesn’t see women at all. Same goes for all the other speakers opining about the most vulnerable (most important) trans and not giving a stuff about women. Still, it started to draw a line around this. It’s clear it’s not about safety. Third spaces would address that concern.

And the apologies to the women raped?

Assaulted?

Harassed and intimidated, living in constant fear of an assault?

Who had to shower under the eye of a male regardless of how they behaved or acted? Who had to tolerate being locked in a space with a male, a number convicted of truly awful offenses when they were vulnerable? Less than 1% of rapes end in an actual prosecution, never mind a prison sentence.... these offenders committed very serious, serial damage .

If a male is threatening that they will commit suicide unless permitted access to non consenting females who cannot escape them? Providing them with females and everyone crossing their fingers that today he'll choose to be nice and let the females make it through 24 hours without suffering serious harm or worse?

It's not the bloody solution. Mental health care, of much better quality. Trans specific wings with all the staff and care necessary. Female people are not a bloody resource, they are people .

I'll bet this lot think they've all got nice and righteous views about slavery and would make all the right shocked noises about that without seeing the appalling hypocrisy they are guilty of in seeing people as tools to be used.

I liked the fact that a couple of those speaking on this made it abundantly clear that we are primarily talking about fully intact males who in Scotland atleast (12out of 13) have not transitioned in any way other than by name/pronouns and/or clothing, so no hormones or any kind of surgery which is a very different picture than the one the other side are trying to paint

@Redlake

So the MoJ have been getting it right since 2019. All those horror stories trotted out by GC people are just historic examples.

And this is what they have been following since 2019:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Transition is very lengthy and is undertaken following a vast amount of soul searching.

Weird how a fair few seem to do this ''soul searching'' and realise they've actually been women all along only after they've been arrested for a serious crime, isn't it?

I liked the fact that a couple of those speaking on this made it abundantly clear that we are primarily talking about fully intact males who in Scotland atleast (12out of 13) have not transitioned in any way other than by name/pronouns and/or clothing, so no hormones or any kind of surgery which is a very different picture than the one the other side are trying to paint

I think something strategic was happening there. A number of the peers slapped down the amendment on the basis of it applying also to those who had had gender reasssignment surgery because it took a blanket approach of segregating according to sex. It would have been difficult to have drafted the amendment to have gone for an approach of segregation according to status of surgical modification. This meant that while the debate was going on what was continually being repeated by those in favour of, and by those opposed, to the bill was that transwomen who have had no surgical modification at all are getting into women's prisons. We know this. But plenty of people who didn't will now be thinking about it.

I agree. The pro-amendment Lords were well briefed and managed to cover key statistics and arguments, which will now be on record in Hansard and can now be covered in media reporting and cross-referenced on social media. Well done all!

Are the Labour & Lib Dem parties on a suicide mission?? Several of the Lords pointed out that popular opinion was behind removing men from women's prisons (not that they called them men, of course, they never do).
So, are they trying to make themselves forever unelectable? For the sake of their lunatic fringe, they will upset the voters? I don't get it. Am I missing something??

@redlake you seem to have overlooked the recent MOJ judicial review. The MOJ have no clear idea how many transgender (with or without a GRC) there are in the prison estate. The document you have linked states that there are low numbers but has no evidence backing to support this statement.

Quoting from the recent judgement -

'103. One matter that does concern me is the possibility that HMPPS may not hold accurate information as to the numbers of transgender prisoners (both those with GRCs and those without). The quality of this information was questioned during the hearing. Following the hearing we were provided with a third witness statement from Yaser El-Borgi, the Deputy Director of Interventions and Operational Services at HMPPS and chairman of the Transgender Advisory Board. What emerges is that accurate information on the numbers of transgender prisoners (either with or without GRCs) is not held in any central list. Mr El-Borgi says this at paragraph 10 of the statement:

“10. As we exclude prisoners with GRCs from central lists, we do not have a ready list of people with a GRC, and as a result we do not centrally record how many people have a GRC. That is not to say we do not record whether someone has a GRC, for example, in the course of conducting a Local Case Board or Complex Case Board – it is just that there is no central record of all prisoners with GRCs across the prison estate.”

104. Yet the premise of the policies is that they must be applied to transgender prisoners –see for example paragraph 4.7 of the Care and Management Policy. Further, the policies distinguish between transgender prisoners depending on whether or not they have a GRC, so that information too, must be known. The policies cannot be effectively applied unless HMPPS knows which prisoners are within their scope. Whether this information is held centrally or locally is not critical; what is critical is that the information must be held and must be robust. The reference to CCBs recording this information is not the answer. The only persons who will (under the policies) come before CCBs will be transgender prisoners. The concern is not whether or not all prisoners who come before CCBs are transgender, but rather that the circumstances of every transgender prisoner are considered by a CCB. This a matter of real importance and, in my view, one on which HMPPS needs to have a very high degree of confidence. However, this is not something which affects the outcome of the claims presently before the Court, which are directed only to the legality of the policies, per se.'

How can risk assessment procedures be effectively implemented if this information is not known?

How are the MOJ 'getting it right'?

Horrid red lake horrid

Don’t you care for vulnerable women at all

Just horrid

Can someone smarter than me please explain why the amendment was withdrawn?

[quote Thelnebriati]The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)
page 5;

Separation of categories
Rule 11
The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions, taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment; thus:

(a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate
institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women, the
whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate

www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf[/quote]
Unfortunately the UN now assert that men are women, thus undermining all the work put in by those who created the rules.

If the amendment is withdrawn, then it can be brought back at a later date. This is largely about being able to raise the subject, discuss and raise awareness at this point, and is likely to be a planned strategy by those in the HoL seriously concerned about this.

Because it had no chance of passing. It would have been voted down. But I don't think it was proposed in order to pass, it was proposed to trigger a debate in Parliament to increase awareness, and to get put on the public historical record that some of the people who govern us really do think that male sex offenders should go into women's prisons if they declare themselves to have a feminine gender identity.

The amendment was withdrawn because, sadly, they did not have the numbers to carry it - more speakers were against, than in favour. They must have done the maths

For chrissake. The relentless campaigning is to have these assaults recorded as committed by women. In order that reports committed by transwomen simply aren't possible.

They don't even know how many men are in there with a GRC. It's a bloody shambles.

It's just disgusting to know that you are enthusiastically advocating for women to be put in prisons with rapists and sex offenders, inside a system where the reporting of assaults can't happen, and claiming it as a victory.

Thank you

If the amendment can be brought back some day soon I'd love to hear the following question asked:

"I invite the Rt Hon Gentleman to explain to the House how a man becomes a woman."

Simple yet effective I think, if they think this is a real possibility then let's hear it. I'm sure the resulting look on Lord Winston's face will be worthy of a new meme.

Good question @OhHolyJesus I’d also like them to ask;

‘Why were women and men segregated in prison populations? What was the original thinking behind that?’ We all know why!

Thanks for all the info and commentary. Heartened that this is all now in the public domain and recorded in hansard. No debate indeed.

It's just disgusting to know that you are enthusiastically advocating for women to be put in prisons with rapists and sex offenders, inside a system where the reporting of assaults can't happen, and claiming it as a victory.

Hear hear!

Thanks for covering this

Baroness Nicholson confirmed it was strategic:

twitter.com/baroness_nichol/status/1480646087639769096?s=21