Scotland and the trans issue

[bunnypenny]

Hello all

longtime lurker on mumsnet, especially this board.

I was having a chat last week on a WhatsApp group I’m on (with friends) about sturgeon resigning and someone said she’s a decent person. I replied and said “a decent person doesn’t sent a rapist to a women’s prison”.

well. Let’s just say that to one person basically I’m now a terf etc. I said it was nothing to do with trans issues because even Sturgeon had said Bryson was “almost certainly” not trans. However, he (for it was a he who took against me) has asked his VAWG safe guarding lead about the Scottish issues and she said:

"a number of consultations (both public and a number targeted at professionals) have taken place since the Scot Gov announced their intention to reform the GRA 5 years ago, and I know that people who are pro-reform often highlight it is the most consulted on piece of legislation in the Scottish Parliament's history. To me, and this is is just a personal opinion, there have been two big issues with the debate. Firstly, I think the Scot Gov has done quite a poor job (exacerbated by lobbying groups sharing misinformation) in explaining what changes the reforms actually create as in reality, it has little to no impact on access to VAWG services, women's toilets etc etc. as there is absolutely nothing to stop trans people seeking to access these services/ facilities at the moment and GRA won't change that. Secondly (and I think this is on the Scot Gov) I think they've done a poor job of consulting with frontline services to fully understand what they see the risks to be and how they can be mitigated. If they had done this from the start (rather than just going through national VAWG organisations then I think a lot of people who are now raising concerns about GRA would have actually championed these changes. Which is just so sad, and I can't help but think it's trans people who are continuing to be harmed by all this toxic debate and for an already vulnerable group to be portrayed in the media as 'deviants' rather than the spotlight being placed on the men who are actually the ones causing harm to women. "

And she said this on the point about prisons "I struggle to understand if people genuinely think that the FM has a hands on role in setting Scottish Prison Service policy or they're deliberately choosing to believe what they want to believe. And also, again, the fact that there are trans women in Corton Vale at the moment (and there have been historically) means it has very little to do with GRA. Similarly, I'd be shocked if there aren't some trans men in male prisons, and I'm not sure if people would really want these offenders moved to a women's prison."

please can I have your thoughts on this as honestly I feel it’s quite dismissive of legitimate concerns.

thank you ❤️

Where to start

Sorry your friend doesn't give a fuck about women.

Sure others will be much more coherent.

OP, your friend is partly right. Current issues are not wholly of the SNP or Sturgeon's creation - they have happened largely under the radar, due to both pressure and threats from vested interests like Stonewall. Many ordinary people thought the cultural change was wrong but didn't much affect them, or they didn't want to speak up as the narrative has been "if you oppose this you're a bigot, a transphobe, you might even lose your job". Others thought the changes were right but hadn't given too much thought to the implications. The press has been very unhelpful here, particularly the Guardian. The Times has done noticeably better.

Adam Graham came along in his pink leggings at just the right time and people realised that while they were asleep the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The GRR bill would be enshrining this madness into policy and people have finally woken up.

The Scottish Prison Service is an Executive service of the Scottish Government and it's Chief Executive reports to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, who is responsible for the Scottish Prison Service within the Scottish Government. It is not, as many seem to wish to claim, an organisation independent of the Scottish Government and is why, the SG was forced to temporarily amend the existing policy in order to remove a double rapist from continuing to remain in Cornton Vale on remand, after a public outcry. The SPS (and by extension the SG) were heavily influenced in their policy by political lobby groups, in particular, Scottish Trans Alliance, and openly admit that they did not consult with women's groups or female prisoners for their policy set in 2014 which is essentially a 'before the law' application of self id. Introducing self ID via the GRC process will only make an existing situation even worse.

As far as I am aware, there is one transman in a male prison. Unsurprisingly, females (however they identify) are generally placed in the female estate for their own safety. Males are being placed in the female estate with no consideration for the safety of the female prisoners in the female prison estate.

In terms of services, many are now not offering the single sex service exemptions they are entitled to offer under the EQA 2010. Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre offers no single sex rape crisis groups and the male CEO (who got the role despite the organisation invoking an occupational exemption for the application process) has talked about women seeking such a service as being bigots. Funding from the Scottish Government under the 'Equally Safe' funding stream requires organisations to submit a LBTI Inclusion (Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex) Plan to show how their services will include all those groups. Beira's Place (funded by JK Rowling) is being challenged as being transphobic for being the only organisation in the Lothians to provide a single sex service.

People may talk about the GRR Bill not affecting the single sex exemptions and occupational exemptions in the EQA 2010 but in practice, it already is.

And in terms of consultations, the first showed 60% agreement with the changes proposed in the GRR Bill. The second consultation showed lower agreement and many more concerns identified and the Call for Evidence showed a clear majority against the changes. And that was before the revelations that convicted male sex offenders were being routinely placed in the female prison estate. It was also before suggested amendments to restrict sex offenders from changing their gender were voted down. Women tried to raise concerns and were told, by Nicola Sturgeon, that their concerns 'aren't valid'. The SG haven't just simply failed to address concerns - they have gone out their way to ignore and dismiss them. They even voted down a fairly non controversial amendment that the effects of the GRA Bill on women and girls be yearly monitored.

The only reason the GRR will make little difference to the current situation is because self-ID has been brought in already, “ahead of the law” and under the radar.

The Equality Act allows for, but does not mandate, single sex spaces under certain circumstances. This creates a loophole that allows women’s single sex spaces and services to be removed or discontinued and for mixed sex spaces and services to be brought in instead.

Trans lobby groups and government influencers in Scotland have been very effective in undermining the provisions that previously existed for women and have already largely removed all the spaces and services that were restricted to the female sex. They have been replaced with spaces and services that allow men in if they claim they are women.

These changes were made without any scrutiny, often by manoeuvres made within the services themselves (e.g. appointing a male who claims he is a woman to run a rape crisis service).

Because of this stealth introduction, there has been no real consultation with women’s groups - I see that has been acknowledged in the response. However, I disagree with the conclusion that, had this been done, a satisfactory compromise might have been reached, which I think is what was implied in the text you received. It might have been possible, but I can’t actually envisage any compromise that would actually work, and certainly not one that would appease transactivist groups as they exist now.

To be a reasonable statement, the response you received would have to contain acknowledgment of the fact that the current situation is untenable, and has at least in part been actively created by government (actively because services that were for women only have been denied funding and the government has also funded the lobby groups driving this change).

That the GRR will not change much is an untruth. While the current situation is technically legal, things that were changed in one direction can be changed back, given the will to do so. If the changes are enshrined in law, those changes will go from being changes brought in because of a loophole in the law to official rights enshrined in law. And that is a hugely significant change.

Nothing should be enshrined in law until the situation has been properly assessed with the rights of both groups being taken into consideration, including consideration of how much erosion to women’s rights has occurred due to the changes made.

Otherwise women will be starting the consultation at a disadvantage as they will already be in a profoundly compromised position before it starts. Being asked to compromise more when the position is already one where women are severely compromised (e.g. men being automatically placed in the women’s prison estate) is an appalling expectation.

It’s easy to be “free and easy” with other people’s rights until life wallops you in the chops and you have a “there but for the grace of God” moment.

I’m also in an area which has no single sex spaces for females - despite the services being 99.9% aimed at females.

Thank you for this excellent and crystal clear summation PriOn1.

I'm sure I read on here that the organisations who were consulted about the impact of the proposed GRR Bill had all received Scot Gov funding. In other words, organisations which already subscribed to the TWAW theory, because otherwise they would not have received SG Funding. It was an echo chamber.

As has already been noted, the Scottish Prison Service's own prisoner risk assessment considers risks only from the perspective of the prisoner (ie risks TO the prisoner), not risks the prisoner may pose to staff, volunteers/visitors, or other prisoners.
MurrayBlackburnMackenzie covered this in detail.

Yes, 12 out of 14 either partially or fully funded by the Scottish Government -

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-handed-millions-lobbyist-who-28996720?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

I think the Scot Gov has done quite a poor job (exacerbated by lobbying groups sharing misinformation)

I’d love to know what misinformation this person is talking about.

or is it the inconvenient truth, for example that the risk assessments done by the SPS concentrate on the safety of the transperson in a womens jail and give little weight to the women in that jail.

the brave women (because the membership of these groups is mainly women) who have stood up and said “wait a minute”, who have brought the dangers to the public attention, who have been pilloried for speaking out do not deserve to be negated in this offhand way. It’s condescending and demeaning.and bloody ignorant.

What happened with Isla Bryson and the others is a very neat demonstration of the problems with self-ID. The Scottish Prisons Service has been operating an arguably illegal policy of self-ID before the law has even changed, and the consequences have been seen in a number of violent male sex offenders being placed in women's prisons. Actually introducing self-ID into law simply exacerbates the problem.

Apart from which, even if we ignore all the problems caused to women, the very idea that people should be allowed legally to change something as fundamental as their sex is ludicrous. Why on earth would we allow people to falsify their birth certificates? Anyone who can't see a problem with that wants their head examining.

Our ex first minister said the below

But there are people who’ve have opposed this Bill that cloak themselves in women’s rights to make it acceptable. But just as they’re transphobic you’ll also find they are deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.’

that was womens groups she was talking about 🤦‍♀️

And they kick puppy dogs…

Wow. I’ve learnt a lot from this thread. Thanks, all you PPs who know or have researched the intricacies of this issue. All I knew before was that women had appealed for the right to speak to the consultation and had ben refused.

The fact that an injustice is being routinely committed is not a reason to enshrine it in law.

Bear in mind as well that Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, was invited for the first time in the whole process to a hastily arranged emergency evidence session of the EHRCJ Committee the evening before Parliamentary discussions began on Stage 3.

forwomen.scot/18/12/2022/emergency-evidence-session-by-ehrcj-committee/

By comparison, Victor Madrigal - Borliz, the UN Independent Expert on Protection against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity had been invited during Stage 1. and was invited again for Stage 3.