Mary Harrington: How could the Lords vote to let trans women into female prisons after this fiasco?

[pombear]

A powerful piece by Mary Harrington.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10406427/MARY-HARRINGTON-Lords-vote-let-trans-women-female-prisons-fiasco.html

There may be readers on this forum who understandably have concerns about Daily Mail links and articles.

Back in 2013-15ish I would have imagined highlighting this type of article in different news outlets - reading a sentence such as "women locked in a mixed-sex prison might still live in a climate of fear even if they are not physically assaulted!"

Take yourself back to those years - where would you have thought journalists concerned for these vulnerable women would have been able to voice them?

Thanks for sharing.

Blencathra proposed that transgender inmates could be housed in specialist units. You might think this a reasonable compromise. But in November, the House of Lords disagreed – with a majority of their Lordships voting in favour of some males having access to women’s prisons.

The November debate was about keeping rapists out of women's prisons, IIRC. Not all TW, but those convicted of rape or sexual assault.

But convicted rapists matter more than women. Rapists having access to trapped, vulnerable women is more important than women's safety.

It's sadistic. Inhumane. Anyone who refuses to vote in favour of protecting women from men convicted of rape and sexual assault is sick in the head. It's extremely twisted and cruel to choose to put women through that when you have the power to stop it.

You can bet the people cheerleading for rapists would change their tune quick smart if it was them that had to be caged up with one.

Interesting.

I googled the actual amendment and it has the debate as well.

www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-11-15a.98.4

Loads spoke in favour of amendment. And the debate is worth a bit of a read. I read about 8 or 10 of the back and forth speeches whatever called and just interesting to see how speak etc.

Also vv enjoyed reading chakrabati. From what she said, I would guess extremely unpopular. Not because challenging difficult areas. But because of the nasty, sarcastic, goady, patronising things she said! Not subtle either.

I'll post in a mo. Worth reading!

Anyway the amendment says that males with or without GRC should be in male prison.

That's not what I want.

I want no males in women's estate.

I don't want males with GRC/ full surgery/ been living whole life full time in TW identity for 20 years /gay male with some things whatever say electrolysis face legs, breast implants, hormones.. To be in with men.

I want no males with women

I don't want males with massive targets on their foreheads to be exposed to inevitable risk either.

Just checked re sex offences.

It's sex offences or violent offences.

I think I would vote against tbh.

Because I don't agree with this amendment.

1. If passed then prob that's only compromise will get. Still males in with women.

How know anyone not violent/sex offender? Just not caught? The sex offences we know the situation. Essentially decriminalised.

And what about the rest of it? The subtle stuff so many do to intimidate, show dominance? The impact just because male? And a load more.

Inadequate and missing the point. And think could close door on other changes.

1. I don't want those state TW just dumped in with men. The focus on the obvious problem- het male, sex offences - should not mean forgetting they are not all.

1. Putting in with men just general on basis male before GRC, I'm sure would mean altering GRC laws. Minefield. Even if could would take ages. As they legally women.

Thinking any more.

Or abstain or not vote would be better.

I'm obviously but against the underlying gist but I'm also not for this proposed solution.

Need to have proper look at whole thing.

Would this have helped women in prison in the here and now? I've got a feeling not. Can't explain. Just feel... Something would have got in way. Well the GRC law change for a start that it's dependent on.

And I think the backlash hooha would have been massive. And activists find someone who will obv be instant target and that would have been awful. For the please women's stuff people, and of course for that person.

Feminist Claire on YouTube has clips of what was said in the Lords.

You can read whole lot on earlier link.

I always think best to get close to actual thing as possible.

Avoid any chance of not getting whole story.

Dunno about your Twitter person just know it's rife at the mo.