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"

No debate is over. Let's hope this amendment comes back when more debate has already been had and it gets more sunlight on the issue. Keep pushing, everyone.

This. Is. Not. Over.

@Datun

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.

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

It says a lot about you and your attitude that you believe that sentence backs up your argument and not mine.

In 2021 we are in a situation where convicted murders and rapists can acquire a piece of paper that lies about their biological sex, gives them access to incarcerated women, and it's kept secret.

And you're still claiming it as a victory.

2022*

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

Which legislation says that?

I got through the first 10 minutes until I heard ' living as a woman,' then ' born in the wrong sex'
Some of these folk are so ill informed it never ceases to amaze me. They spout dangerous nonesense and try to look like they know what theyre talking about.

Btw used to be a regular poster on here under a similar name. Been away awhile

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

By this logic no male can ever be excluded from female prisons. A GRC means no risk assessment applies and nobody can ask about grcs.

So what you are saying Redlake is that all womens prisons are effectively open to anyone who wishes to go to one.

Good of you to point out this potentially hugely dangerous loophole.

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

This is the part of the GRA which is concerned with "Prohibition on disclosure of information".

I can't see anything there which indicates that the MoJ don't have the right to know whether someone has a GRC.

Baroness Nicol has also tweeted to 'write strong, calm letters'. Fair Play to Women has templates to make it easier (I'm sure Keep Prisons Single Sex do to).

Best to follow her advice, if women get organised, and write to MP's, Liz Truss etc it will get heard. We need to act, otherwise our rights will be trampled on.

@MabelFrances

I got through the first 10 minutes until I heard ' living as a woman,' then ' born in the wrong sex' Some of these folk are so ill informed it never ceases to amaze me. They spout dangerous nonesense and try to look like they know what theyre talking about.

It's so frustrating. Although, at least it's being debated, and everyone can hear it.

It's one thing having a nonsense ideology, it's quite another saying it out loud to the entire country.

@OldCrone

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

Which legislation says that?

From MoJ rules. It's the birth certificate they ask to see.

Where ‘sex’ cannot be determined, staff must use the best information available, consulting
with equality leads as necessary. Staff should avoid asking to see a GRC but instead
request sight of a birth certificate as confirmation of legal gender where the person was born
in the UK. Someone born abroad who has a UK-issued GRC may not have been able to
obtain a new birth certificate in their acquired gender. A GRC is an acceptable form of proof of
sex, if produced voluntarily. If an individual cannot produce a birth certificate, and have not
chosen to provide a GRC, they may give permission for staff to check directly with the Gender
Recognition Panel to confirm that a GRC has been issued.

Indeed!

Sorry that was re Datuns post

From MoJ rules.

Link?

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

The policy document which you linked previously makes it clear that the statement above is false.

Your arguments are laughable.

The ridiculous thing is there's a very good chance the prison authorities know exactly who is male in the female estate even if officially a GRC prevents them being recorded as male. I'm fairly sure every prison guard could tell you who they are because without the wizardry of soft lighting and photo filters we can tell who is male and female accurately probably about 99% of the time. So all this stuff built into the GRA about privacy is largely nonsense anyway.

The GRC should be abolished and the GRA repealed. Reinforcing a lie does no service to the needs of anyone except the liar. Born in the wrong body is complete nonsense and pretending you can change sex is dangerous . Why the law has been changed to benefit what used to be a very small group of men, is unacountable. The brainwashing of otherwise apparently sensible MPs is astonishing. Than you to Kate Coleman and those that spoke up for the amendment .

@OldCrone

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

This is the part of the GRA which is concerned with "Prohibition on disclosure of information".

I can't see anything there which indicates that the MoJ don't have the right to know whether someone has a GRC.

They don't have the right. They have the right to ask for proof of sex. The birth certificate but NOT the GRC.

@Waitwhat23

Because having a GRC is a private matter. Not even the MoJ have the right to see one.

The policy document which you linked previously makes it clear that the statement above is false.

Your arguments are laughable.

You missed the word "voluntarily". Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

You missed the word "voluntarily". Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

In which case, what’s the fucking point of schroedinger’s document?

Trans people have told him they will commit suicide rather than go to prison.

Surely that applies to other people too, not just trans people.

You missed the word "voluntarily". Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

And given that it's now a piece of piss to get one, with even the fee being waived, look at all these trans organisations desperately lobbying to have even questioning whether a man has gender dysphoria being ruled as conversion therapy!

You've got to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a GRC, they cry! The only criteria for which is to say it out loud.

Again, being able to acquire a piece of paper which gives men, including convicted rapists, access to incarcerated women, purely on the basis of their say so, is not something that helps your argument.

The fact that you can't see and continue to ride it triumphantly towards what you see as a victory, is truly disturbing.

As pp said, the "privacy" aspects of the GRA are a loophole that badly need closing.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

You missed the word "voluntarily". Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

In which case, what’s the fucking point of schroedinger’s document?

Indeed! This is where we need wholesale reform now. Separate the EA2010 into individual Sex/Race/Disability/Sexuality Discrimination Acts. Trans to be a protected characteristic ONLY if the person has a recorded GRC otherwise what's the point and it doesn't override sex-based or other rights anyway. The current legislation is not fit for purpose and in the interests of true equality we need to nip this creation of a sacred, unquestionable caste in the bud right now.