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"

If we have sex segregated exemptions built into the equality act, there's no point in having a GRC. What does it do?

Currently the only thing it does is make it impossible to enforce sex segregation that the government built into the act to make the GRA fair!!!

It's a complete shambles.

I'm so open to exploitation that it's positively dangerous.

Not even exploitation.

You cannot have a law that says any man can be given access to women, on the basis that the women need to provide validation for an untruth.

Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

In some circumstances they do:

From the legislation:

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

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

You seem to think this indicates that the MoJ have no right to know whether someone has a GRC. It appears to me that (d), (e) and (f) say otherwise.

This section appears to be mainly for the use of people (such as employers) who have obtained this information in an official capacity, and prevents them from making this information public. It is not to make the possession of a GRC a secret that absolutely nobody else can know about.

I can't help but see that expressing support for this dysfunctional system makes very clear that the worst aspects aren't bugs, they're features.

The more that the arguments in support are developed, the clearer this becomes. We saw that in the House of Lords last night.

No wonder Dentons were so firm about keeping things under the radar and not engaging in any debate.

This says you are wrong re offender management

committees.parliament.uk/publications/7597/documents/79615/default/

Sorry referencing the poster who says that GRC is confidential

@OldCrone

Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

In some circumstances they do:

From the legislation:

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

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

You seem to think this indicates that the MoJ have no right to know whether someone has a GRC. It appears to me that (d), (e) and (f) say otherwise.

This section appears to be mainly for the use of people (such as employers) who have obtained this information in an official capacity, and prevents them from making this information public. It is not to make the possession of a GRC a secret that absolutely nobody else can know about.

That is about disclosure where it is known. It still does not compell a person to produce their GRC. They may even have lost or destroyed it.

@OldCrone

Nobody has the right to see a GRC.

In some circumstances they do:

From the legislation:

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

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

You seem to think this indicates that the MoJ have no right to know whether someone has a GRC. It appears to me that (d), (e) and (f) say otherwise.

This section appears to be mainly for the use of people (such as employers) who have obtained this information in an official capacity, and prevents them from making this information public. It is not to make the possession of a GRC a secret that absolutely nobody else can know about.

I had come to the same conclusion - in particular - (f) the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime - in respect to convicted rapists being placed in the female estate.

That is about disclosure where it is known. It still does not compell a person to produce their GRC. They may even have lost or destroyed it.

Your earlier argument was that the MoJ had no right to know about it. There are official records of the GRC as well as the copy given to the holder.

In the document linked by Redlake previously, this is the only line which relates to any other protected characteristics -

'3.13 Other Equalities Considerations
3.14 All protected characteristics are considered when making decisions about individuals who are transgender.'

That's it.

The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England and Wales) Order 2021

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1020/contents/made

Disclosure for offender management purposes
2.—(1) It is not an offence under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to disclose protected information if the disclosure is necessary for a purpose set out in paragraph (2).

(2) The purposes are—

(a)the probation purposes,
(b)the performance of functions relating to prisons or prisoners of—
(i)the Secretary of State, or
(ii)a relevant contractor, and
(c)any other purposes connected with the management of offenders (including the development or assessment of policies relating to matters connected with the management of offenders).
(3) In this article—

(a)“the probation purposes” has the meaning set out in section 1 of the 2007 Act,
(b)“relevant contractor” has the meaning set out in section 14(9) of the 2007 Act, and
(c)the reference to prisons or prisoners includes a reference to—
(i)young offender institutions or persons detained in such institutions, and
(ii)secure training centres or persons detained in such centres.

@Datun

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.

The poster in question does not feel any need to back up his position. His position is that is a-ok for women to be raped. No back up or explination needed.

One point I want to make is that in general society may not care about women in prison but...now that any sex offender can be locked up with vulnerable women the fear of being caught will be zero, infact being caught and locked up will be a goal for many.
This will increase sex offences for every woman and child.

@newnamesa

One point I want to make is that in general society may not care about women in prison but...now that any sex offender can be locked up with vulnerable women the fear of being caught will be zero, infact being caught and locked up will be a goal for many. This will increase sex offences for every woman and child.

Frankly the Rape conviction rate shows you everything you need to see when it comes to societies views on women. I genuinely feel this is one of the most misogynistic period in recent times.

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.

This.

Exactly this.

It has been tried and proven that to try and do 'equality' as one big lump just ends with the most powerful and vocal group dominating the interests and visability of all others. It's decreased actual equality and inclusion and become a fight for one characteristic to be visible and met to the exclusion of others, particularly where, as grown up conversation has to face, wishes and needs conflict. The T in particular cannot held in the same brief as female interests (I would say women, but that will be read by some as a mixed sex group hence all the problems resulting for females, culture is also an issue of clash, belief is an issue of clash, and I suspect disability will swiftly become one too.

These must be separated out into individual briefs, represented by those who focus only on the needs of that particular group and their representation, (and are aware of the need to be wary of political capture), and those groups need then to present their briefs separately to permit law and policy to meet all needs and find alternative solutions away from this ridiculous idea of 'lets exclude all of x to prove we care enough about y'.

Grown up politics. Badly needed.

We are seeing a steady row back as it is realised: the idealism and hard sell of what the utopia the TQ+ political lobby sold clashes unacceptably with the legal and civil rights of others.

Step one has been to realise: forcing rape victims pleading for a female examiner to get her knickers off, shut up and let someone she perceives as male but identifies as a woman examine her, or go without care is a really bad idea .

Step two has been to realise: forcing abused women to use pronouns of a male attacker against their experience, perceptions and own truth of what happened and thereby subject them to a whole lot of stress and threats that unfairly affects their ability to participate in a court case is a really bad idea .

Now if we can realise that forcing vulnerable women to have males in their space with everyone crossing their fingers that the women are only afraid and humiliated as opposed to actually sexually assaulted, or really badly hurt in a way likely to affect them for the rest of their lives? Is a really, really bad idea....

that would be a good next step please.

And then that female people need access to public services, facilities and resources too.

It cannot be exclusively about the needs of a male person who is trans. Other people matter too.

@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?

Yes. We may as well scrap the GRA if this is the case. I agree with you entirely, Redlake.

That is an extremely good point.

Article by Debbie Hayton in UnHerd 11 Jan.

"Lords Amendment on single-sex prisons withdrawn"

"Women are vulnerable in the prison estate, but many still doesn't understand this"

She raises the question of where transwomen like her should go but agrees women are vulnerable and quotes the sponsor of the amendment:
"The female estate is a definitive example of a space that should be single-sex. If women in prison cannot be guaranteed single-sex spaces, no woman or girl can. Hospital wards, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, refuges and toilets in schools—I am talking about anywhere where women and girls, for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety, require single-sex spaces.

• Lord Blencathra"

Also:
' Yet as Baroness Fox pointed out, “the solution should be to make the male estate safer and fit for purpose for all … the purpose of women’s prisons is not to protect vulnerable males”.

After the debate, Fox told UnHerd that the debate “felt like a good dose of gas lighting. They were describing a world that doesn’t exist and accusing us of making up a world that does exist.” Quite.'

unherd.com/thepost/lords-amendment-on-single-sex-prisons-defeated/

Sharing is a short interview from the 1970s with April Ashley as I thought it interesting that the questions of toilets and prisons came up, as did the homophobia in a Roman Catholic and working class family and unsurprisingly suicide is also discussed as well as being a feminine boy who is rejected as no one knows how to accept him as he is.

So in 50 years not much has changed in terms of the 'debate' relating to this legal fiction.

(April was also on Loose Women in 2015 when Ruth uses the 'born in the wrong body' phrase.)

If women in prison cannot be guaranteed single-sex spaces, no woman or girl can.

Stephen Whittle has put it specifically on record that this was the intention and plan of the political lobby. If they captured women's prisons then after that it was all downhill.

Sadly a combination of stupidity, gullibility, good intentions, credulity, lack of anyone asking the difficult questions, laziness in doing proper thinking and due diligence and heavily ingrained sexism meant that no one did their job in protecting and considering female interests against male ones.

She died recently, just after Christmas. It's been reported that her father was Catholic and her mother was Protestant. As she said in that interview, she couldn't bear her because she was an embarrassment, and according to another article, was abusive to her, and yet another that she banged her head on the ground. An obituary noted that her father was in the Royal Navy was often away at sea and often inebriated when at home. "But she also recalled him as a “gentle drunk” who, after she transitioned, was the only member of her family to accept her."

April's story is a terribly sad one and I can't help thinking that had that little boy been able to express himself freely and been accepted within his own family then all the abuses (I believe they happened), unnecessary operations and medications and recovery and well as the suicidal thoughts, would not have happened.

This is what we should be learning from someone who has gone before, not how to repeat the experience for children of today.

Stephen Whittle has put it specifically on record that this was the intention and plan of the political lobby. If they captured women's prisons then after that it was all downhill.

I think that was James Morton (although it wouldn't surprise me if Whittle had said something similar).

In 2018, the then manager James Morton, whose name is detailed on the SPS policy metadata, wrote:

"We strategized that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise."

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

@OldCrone

That is about disclosure where it is known. It still does not compell a person to produce their GRC. They may even have lost or destroyed it.

Your earlier argument was that the MoJ had no right to know about it. There are official records of the GRC as well as the copy given to the holder.

The Gender Recognition Register is just a record of GRCs awarded. It is not a live register like the sex offenders register. GRC holders may have changed their name ie through marriage or changed their address. There is no requirement to notify the GR panel.