Transwomen in women's prisons - what's the problem?

[HeadAboveHeadBelow]

This is one of the many fraught conversations I've had with a friend recently. She acknowledges incidents happen where a TW harms a female inmate, and agrees that is terribly wrong. However, where I say the problem is that the TW s claimed gender identity is prioritised over their sex, she says the prison system should be better at screening prisoners as often these incidents involve a TW who has previously been a risk to women, so, why were they housed with women?
She does have a point, but I think that gender identity based policies makes it hard to put this kind of screening in place... I'm finding it hard to argue it though, so maybe I'm just wrong. Thoughts?

ScrollingLeaves "Does she know the trans woman might be a paedophile?"... yes, and she'd argue that person would be weeded out by an appropriate risk assessment, and therefore wouldn't be in a female prison.
I guess the problem with that is that not all pedophiles hAve been convicted.

ImherewithBoudica, she isn't a male supremacist boor though. I've known her for 30 years, we have rarely disagreed on anything, both being left wing, feminist in a general sense, and (I thought) on the same page about anything important. That is why it's so frustrating. But I will continue to chip away.

Datun, there obviously isn't anything in it for women directly. But there can be a general principle of trying to meet everybody's needs as much as possible .

At the expense of women in prison, who really are one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our society? These are not people who can afford to lose any rights at all to meet someone else's needs. Needs which if they exist as "needs" at all (and not all the motivations of prisoners claiming to be transgender are easily classified as "needs" - see retired governor Rhona Hotchkiss' presentation above) could be met in some other safer way, if there was any interest in protecting vulnerable women.

Fwiw there is a trans prison wing in France. It does mean trans prisoners are incarcerated far from their families, which isn't best practice from what I understand.

There's plenty of easy answers to that one too that doesn't involve putting male sex offenders in amongst trapped, non consenting females and watching the rapes pile up.

Small, local wings across multiple prisons instead of one big one. Better support and links with families for those specific prisoners. However every male TQ+ prisoner has the choice: sex based vulnerable prisoner situation in the male estate with easy family contact and support/inclusion there, or specialist provision which isn't perfect and doesn't allow for as easy family contact.

It's way, way more choice and privilege and options than any support human in female prisons is being permitted, isn't it?

There have been enough offenders who have been let off a custodial sentence because… you know the reasons.

it’s a joke, it really is.

But there can be a general principle of trying to meet everybody's needs as much as possible.

How are female women's needs being met at all? In any way? Never mind as much as possible?

If we're bringing it down to the absolute rock bottom it's the same reason we don't have mixed sex prisons.

That male offenders in prisons for non violent non sexual offences, are not allowed in female prisons as there is a risk of harm, sexual abuse and developing problematic relationships.

Men, including trans men are much more likely to do this than lesbians. We don't isolate lesbians on separate wings. The issue is men, and trans men, are still men.

And when we add in men who've committed sexual offences against women that's just a whole other ball game.

They're not allowed to live with women in the community without disclosure and consent from the woman. Female prisoners are being deprived of their right to consent. I am sure all of them would refuse to put themselves at risk sharing their safe space with trans men who've committed sexual offences against women. They are not being kept safe.

It's a disgrace putting the wants of men above the needs of women, yet again.

They're not allowed to live with women in the community without disclosure and consent from the woman. Female prisoners are being deprived of their right to consent.

I wonder whether all the voices in favour of females just accepting all this as their lot would be equally in favour of sad and distressed men rapists and sex offenders having the right to demand to be locked up with non-consenting TW and share the showers with them.

Somehow I don't think TW would be told it was about 'balancing needs', or see potentially being raped and assaulted as just a bit of a downside to the wonder of helping males to live their best lives.

Ask her why she thinks that the idea that male people shouldn't be in a female prison has become such an extreme view.

It would take them all of 2 minutes to produce the new risk assessment tool.

All you do is get a copy of the male guide & replace each mention of man/male etc.. with man who says he is not a man & you have the perfect tool tailormade for them.

I'd even send them a pen if they need to update a paper copy.

There must be many difficulties when it comes to intimate body searches, too.

Why should female prison officers have to handle the bodies of men who claim to be women? TiM can insist on having female officers search them. (I understand that there are always two officers present at a body search).

Men, including trans men are much more likely to do this than lesbians. We don't isolate lesbians on separate wings. The issue is men, and trans men, are still men.

Apparently TM are accommodated in the female estate because they would be at risk in the male estate TM are not considered to be men for incarceration purposes.

I think the PP was referring to men/males with a trans identity, aka transwomen.

But it's a good point. Trans men (aka females) are in the female estate, funnily enough they don't seem to be campaigning to be in the men's. Almost as if biology does actually matter just a little, when they'd be in physical danger...

Perhaps we should start a campaign to make sure transmen are in the "correct" male estate? Would be great to see the mind bending explanations given to justify why they shouldn't be there, but are totally men in every way...
(Obviously not actually a good idea as we'd probably succeed, sacrificing vulnerable females seems to be fine in this ideology to prove a point).

I think the PP was referring to men/males with a trans identity, aka transwomen.

Ah ok fair enough. A case of the importance of language with a shared meaning. 6 years ago I would have understood TM as meaning men but I've been conditioned into understanding TW as meaning men. It's a stark reminder of how we've all been forced into using ideological language!

Perhaps we should start a campaign to make sure transmen are in the "correct" male estate? Would be great to see the mind bending explanations given to justify why they shouldn't be there, but are totally men in every way...
(Obviously not actually a good idea as we'd probably succeed, sacrificing vulnerable females seems to be fine in this ideology to prove a point).

Both very good points, Mornington!

The vast majority of female inmates are also victims of male violence.

Just having a male bodied person in there, in a situation where they cannot remove themselves as they would be able to outside the prison context, is likely to be traumatising for many of them, regardless of whether the TW actually tries to harm them or not.

Transgender moved prison wings after relationship with female inmate
mol.im/a/11268259

Sorry yes! I meant men who now identify as women. In my logical brain I see that as trans men, as they're biologically men. But totally right they are actually trans women by current language.

The confusion, and often deliberate obfuscation, of language has caused a lot of the problems @middleofthelittle.

This is why I prefer the terms Trans-identifying Male (TiM) and Trans-identifying Female (TiF) because it is clearer.

If we were able to refer to male people who transition accurately as trans men, and females who transition as trans women, there'd be no need for 'cis' at all.

'Trans' would just be an adjective. As we are always being told. Trans men, tall men, red-haired men, Spanish men.

A tall, short or one eyed man is biologically a man. A Manatee is not.

PermanentTemporary · Today 19:26
If we were able to refer to male people who transition accurately as trans men, and females who transition as trans women, there'd be no need for 'cis' at all.

'Trans' would just be an adjective. As we are always being told. Trans men, tall men, red-haired men, Spanish men.

What a good point you make.

If trans man as you put it uses trans as an adjective, what part of speech is trans in ‘transwoman’ or ‘trans woman’ in the current meaning of a man who identifies aa a woman?

Initially they said trans was a prefix and used it as a prefix, as the original Latin (which they kept telling us was accurate - it meant the 'other side of', and is used in chemistry, though I'm not a chemist, and can't recall its function in chemistry). Trans identified people described themselves as "transwomen" and "transmen" (note - a single word).

Lately there has been a distinct shift way from "transwoman/transman" to "trans woman/ trans man" - it is being employed now as an adjective. That subtle space which has crept between the two parts of the word has been introduced deliberately.

If "trans" becomes an adjective, then it describes a type of woman, in the way tall, or blonde, or slim, or black describes a type of woman. The implication is that these are real women - biologically female - and that only a bigot would treat them any differently from other women.

There is now great insistence on this space - suddenly "trans" is no longer a prefix, modifying the word (which is in some ways accurate - eg, happy/ unhappy; sane/insane etc, where the prefix actually indicates the opposite to the root word); using it as an adjective means that it now describes the word.

This might look nothing, but it is a huge linguistic leap.

Language does change as we all know - but natural linguistic changes come gradually over centuries with common consent to the change; they aren't pushed on a reluctant population in the space of a few years.

Very clearly said, Emotionalsupportviper - thanks!