This (prison rape of female by transgender prisoner) never happens ...

[Mumsnut]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10755219/Transgender-Rikers-inmate-incarcerated-assault-housed-womens-wing-RAPES-female-inmate.html

Indeed.

The misogyny involved in deliberately providing incarcerated women to rapists is genuinely horrific.

Especially as no one actually thinks these rapists are women.

Females are incapable of raping someone. It's impossible, they don't have the equipment. The only rapes that could possibly happen in the past in female prisons would have been committed by staff.

Females can commit sexual assault but while that is still upsetting for the victim the trauma isn't on the same scale, and doesn't carry a risk of pregnancy.

The issue isn't whether or not the person is trans. The issue is that sex offenders are not being housed appropriately according to risk - both risk to others as well as themselves. A convicted sex offender should not be housed with people of the group they offend against. Their rights to be kept safe do not trump other people's rights to be kept safe.

A lot of rape happens on men's wings, and trans women (SO or non SO) would be more vulnerable to that / perceived as an easy target if housed in men's wings.

The issue is that the Daily Mail etc love to stir up the whole trans topic and present trans women as some kind of threat to society.

Why are they seen as such a threat? Do the women who say they feel threatened by a trans woman using a toilet cubicle next to them never have workmen in their home, never go on blind dates with strangers or take a lift that has a man in it?
I understand that trans women have access to more intimate female only spaces than men do, but is the fear that people feel really, genuinely proportionate to the risk, or is it plain prejudice and scare mongering?

In the same way that we stopped using race or age to describe a situation if the person's race or age is irrelevant to the story, it is time to stop using trans unless relevant. The issue is a sex offender was housed in prison with the group they offend against and raped someone.

The other issue is that there is a difference between someone who is genuinely trans and lives as a woman, to someone who is 'trans for the stay' and the latter are lumped in with the former in the media.

So what we see here is:

1. Change the definition of rape so it masks rape by penis by expanding the definition in order to do that
2. Pretend the new (non-existent) definition means that women have been raping women for years anyway
3. Add males to female spaces by expanding the definition of "woman" to include males who say they're women
4. Hey presto! You've proved 2! Women are sexual predators! Best be careful with all these women raising safeguarding concerns and banging on about their "boundaries"

Yeah, I ain't buying it.

Men commit 98% of all sex crimes. That includes any and all that identify as women. In fact, statistically, of all the transwomen in prison, over half of them are there for sex offences. So a statistically higher likelihood than men who don't identify as women.

Which is why we need single sex facilities.

Women are not a resource to validate the feelings of men in general, and sex offenders in particular.

ffs. The misogyny of this ideology is off the fucking scale.

it is time to stop using trans unless relevant

Indeed. The relevant thing here is that these prisoners are male and hence should not be in a female prison.

Whether a male prisoner is "trans" is irrelevant, at least in as much as any entitlement to being in a female prison. It may of course be relevant to safeguarding measures for them in a male prison.

@AMBE123 this is not about 'society in general ', this is explicitly about prisons. Transwomen in prison are much more likely to have been convicted of sex offences than either women or non-trans men. Therefore there is a greater statistical risk of them committing a further sex offence...so they are not safe to be in the womens estate.

You may wish to make the specious argument that if they offend against men and boys, that they shouldn't be held in the male estate either, as its also full of their preferred victims. Firstly, men are physically better able to defend themselves, and secondly, thats why we have VP units. Prisoners who are at risk from other prisoners are kept away from them.

Also, of course its relevant to include the trans descriptor. Non-trans men might want to be held in the womens estate, but its not up for discussion. Men who say they're trans, have a raised possibility of going there.

I wish there were some updated stats available on the presence of biological men in the womens estate in E&W.

it is time to stop using trans unless relevant

I'd type man every time. But it's often reported, deemed to be rude and against the specific t+cs here.

You have to be quite careful when correctly sexing some people here.

All forms of rape are equally heinous, however this thread is specifically about rapes perpetrated by trans men housed in women's prisons. The issue absolutely is that the person is trans. If they were not trans they would be in a male prison and the opportunity to rape a female prisoner would not exist.

This is not to say that rape does not happen in male prisons, or indeed female prisons. The point is that by granting males access to female prisons the risk of male to female rape is introduced. This is a preventable risk. A risk which has not been prevented for the sole reason of accommodating trans men who want access to female spaces. Claiming sex is not a relevant factor neglects to recognize that biological sex (and the existence or not of a penis) is a relevant factor in rape. I also don't agree that only trans sex offenders present a risk. Because a man has never raped does not men he will never rape. This is entirely different to race and age, which are not relevant factors in any given situation. It is precisely this view point that sex is an irrelevant factor like age / race that has enabled trans individuals to claim right to women's spaces while others stand by fearful of being perceived as bigoted. So much so that the safety of women and girls has all but been completely disregarded.

This is about risk and safeguarding. It would appear that either no risk assessment was done, or the risks to female inmates were simply put aside to accommodate the preference of male criminals to be housed with women. Their preferences should not trump the safety of female inmates.

I'm certain there are genuine trans men living as women, people who present no risk. However, we cannot build a safe society based on the notion that trans men do not present a risk - some do and identifying which do is impossible. Risk management has to consider the worst case scenario in order to mitigate it. The only way to mitigate male prisoner rape of female prisoners is to exclude males from female prisons - including trans males. I recognize trans male are also at risk in male prisons therefore measures ought to be taken to safeguard them, through housing them on a separate wing for example. Removing all risk is not a realistic outcome in anything, but that does not mean steps should not be taken to remove risk that can be influenced. Trans men can and should be excluded from female prisons.

I find some of the views on this thread really hard to get my head around. I have no issue sharing toilets or (cublicled) changing rooms with transwomen, none at all. Yes there is a risk that some perverts might try to take advantage of that, but that is not the fault of transwomen and I believe we should all work together to make that not happen.

Housing transwomen with penises in women's prisons is another matter all together. it is just completely negligent of women's safety. If that makes me a transphobe, then so be it.

The other issue is that there is a difference between someone who is genuinely trans and lives as a woman, to someone who is 'trans for the stay' and the latter are lumped in with the former in the media

It was stonewall who had the slogan " acceptance without exception "

What is genuine trans anyway? You wouldn't be gate keeping trans would you? How transphobic of you.

No males In womens prisons. Ever.

Hmmm, well this is a rum thread. I have only read two pages (its tough going for anyone who gives a shit about women or even other human beings).

And now Im musing on the nature of belief, politics and the young.

Heres my theory; I think our society in general has lost touch with the reality of life as we are getting further and further away from the physical reality of staying alive, ie we dont need to grow our own food, death and illness is kept away from most people ect. we now have a generation who genuinly believe reality can be constructed, they literally believe they can create reality by believing and speaking.

This thread highlighting facts that contradict this belief has brought about a panic in some people, and this is why this thread has attracted so many posters with a certain idological viewpoint.

What do others think?

The one which is self-contained behind a locked floor-ceiling door?

A judicial review concluded that risk of harm and fear to women was less important than the validation of transwomen in the female prison estate. Women are currently being housed with males who have committed sexual offences in Scottish prisons. Scottish female prisoners (80% of whom have previously suffered head injuries due to domestic violence and are very vulnerable) are currently being put at risk.

This isn't hypothetical or a 'moral panic' 🙄

It's happening, right now, due to an ideology which sees women as collateral damage.

And due to self id in Scottish prisons, wildly unsurprisingly, most of the transwomen revert back to men the moment they leave the female estate. SPS ignore this, of course. And who's to say who is actually trans? Whole point of self id isn't it?

Not sure the women at risk of fear or harm care very much if the male they are incarcerated with is trans or not. But gender ideology couldn't give a flying shite about them.

But what about the transwomen that are proven predators? Katie Dolatowski for example, who sexually assaulted two children in toilets? It’s not just people who might take advantage, it’s also the males who are trans who pose a threat too. How do you tell the difference between the three groups (nice trans, dangerous trans, and men taking advantage)?

When you say “we should all work together to make that not happen” could that take the form of, say, segregating spaces by sex and legally and socially enforcing that rule?

Iv lived half a human lifespan, I have been many places, and in many situations.
I have seen women be cruel, violent, irresponsible and stupid, I have never heard of or seen a woman sexually assult another women (I have heard of one case of rape by a woman against a man, it was in the early 1970s, thats how rare it is)

Never ever, until it has become politically convienient for the trans movement has the 'problem' of women sexually assulting each other been a thing.

Thats because this is yet another made up issue to support an unreality, it seems you need lots of lies to support one big lie maybe?

I find some of the views on this thread really hard to get my head around. I have no issue sharing toilets or (cublicled) changing rooms with transwomen, none at all. Yes there is a risk that some perverts might try to take advantage of that, but that is not the fault of transwomen and I believe we should all work together...

Genuinely, the majority of posters here agree that the problem is not transwomen. The problem is men. All men, transwomen included.

Mixed sex facilities have been shown by many studies across the world to increase the likelihood of sexual assault by men upon women.

There are ways to provide UNI sex facilities that would cater for all and not increase the risk of violence to women but those are more expensive, especially if being modified from existing facilities.

That and many workplaces, public spaces don't seem to be aware of the laws around such spaces.

And many simply make female facilities mixed gender because that's the easiest way round the perceived issue. Leaving male facilities single sex.

So, lots of problems, not just a preference. And this is being repeated in all aspects of life. Medical care, , prisons, workplace, sports etc etc

Female provision is being made, effectively, free to all whilst male provision remains single sex, protected.

THAT is why so many here object to any and every male who encroaches upon female spaces. Many of us could and did type posts very similar to yours and have since hardened their stance due to an issue that made them re-evaluate their position. I did much the same a few years ago and was taken to task by a long gone poster who gave me some more information and a quick shove into less "be kind" waters.

I've been learning more and changing my mind, developing my own perspective, ever since.

That depends on the jurisdiction though. As this crime occurred in New York, I think the definition of "rape" is similar to the UK one, i.e. requires a penis.
In Pennsylvania, rape is defined differently and can include penetration by any body part or any object.
Perhaps the UK law definition is superior but we must bear in mind it isn't universally applied, especially when events in the US are under consideration. For statistical purposes, the definition applied federally by the FBI is similar to the Pennsylvania one. (There is no federal rape law, but there are federal statistics.)

Oh yes the 'workman in my home', exactly the same as being incarcerated with him.

Correct that it depends on jurisdiction. However in New York, no penis is required to commit rape, a woman can even rape a man with her vagina.
For example 3rd degree rape is
”A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
Who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than 17 years old;
Who is less than 17 years old, and the defendant is 21 years old or more; or
Without such person's consent, which is withheld for some other reason than incapacity to consent.”

2nd degree rape is:
“A person commits second-degree rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
Who is less than 15 years old and the defendant is 18 years old or more; or
Who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated”

1st degree rape is
”A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
By "forcible compulsion" -- compelling the victim through the use of physical force or the threat of immediate death, physical injury or kidnapping;
Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
Who is less than 11 years old; or
Who is less than 13 years old and the defendant is 18 years old or more.”
www.findlaw.com/state/new-york-law/new-york-rape-laws.html

‘ In the same way that we stopped using race or age to describe a situation if the person's race or age is irrelevant to the story, it is time to stop using trans unless relevant. The issue is a sex offender was housed in prison with the group they offend against and raped someone. ‘

Ok . Let everything be reported then by sex. Everything! No use of chosen pronouns, no use of ‘transwoman’. Male. Every single time.

Now, no male prisoner should ever be placed in a female prisoner.

No males in any role or any space where females have an expectation that it is single sex.

Easy!

Of course, this has been said and asked for all along.

Or. Are we waiting for the other shoe to drop which is that males can be females too, legally and biologically and socially…?

The issue isn't whether or not the person is trans. The issue is that sex offenders are not being housed appropriately according to risk - both risk to others as well as themselves. A convicted sex offender should not be housed with people of the group they offend against. Their rights to be kept safe do not trump other people's rights to be kept safe.

As I understand it, this male wasn't a convicted sex offender, he was imprisoned for robbery. He may well have committed rape in the past of course, as many don't get caught.

The risk factor that matters is that he was male.

Lucky you to never have been assaulted by a woman. My DD was raped by one at university. Perhaps take the time to read about the reality of this. The government doesn’t report on rape/sexual assault between women not because it doesn’t happen, but because they don’t care. And there is a social myth it doesn’t happen.

I’m a woman. I was raped by a woman. And I know what you’re thinking.
www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/95769958-f129-416c-9610-c8f96504ce77

No mention of female-on-female assaults then? That blows your earlier argument out of the water.

If you're so keen to prevent any female-on-male 'rapes', then the obvious answer is not to incarcerate males and females in the same estate.