Telegraph: MoJ to ban transwomen (male to female) from women's estate - links with specific details

[ResisterRex]

KPSS has provided an accessible link to the Telegraph story (see their tweet) and say they will comment on more detail tomorrow. Here's part of the Telegraph story:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/26/transgender-prisoners-convicted-violence-banned-womens-jails/

"The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is toughening its stance, meaning that not only transgender women convicted of sexual assaults but also those jailed for violence will no longer be able to be held in mainstream women’s prisons.
Violent offences will include murder, attempted murder, harming a child, assault with intent to cause serious harm or with injury, endangering life, and harassment.
The new rules will also cover all transgender women with male genitalia and will apply regardless of whether transgender prisoners have a gender recognition certificate.
The MoJ said exemptions would only be made in exceptional cases and would also have to be <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Iqojr/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/06/trans-prisoners-will-not-housed-women/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">signed off by ministerss."

Here's the KPSS short thread:

twitter.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1629768643780255744?s=46&t=p4GrD7xZK4xup2YXGSOk7w

"This is an incredible achievement & is testimony to @MoJGovUK, @DominicRaab listening.
The new policy is out tomorrow. It covers prisons & approved premises, with separate guidance to follow for Youth Custody Services"

I'm actually cautiously optimistic. I think it might be a bit like fox-hunting & the tories. A minority want to overturn the legislation, but wiser heads know the electorate as a whole aren't in favour.

Suddenly people against women's safety don't look quite so much like they are on the right side of history.

I think this is quite a clever move. To exclude all males is where we need to get but doing it this way makes anyone objecting look unhinged: 'what, you think sex offenders with male genitalia should have access to vulnerable women!?'

To be quite honest, given so many (about 60%) are sex offenders and so few (about 5%) have their penis cut off, I wouldn't be surprised if there are none left to put in with women anyway.

I found it a little unclear as to this will actually apply to. So in the following scenarios who will end up where?

A)violent intact male
b(violent post op male
C)non violent intact male
D) no violent post op male

Please note I am using post op to refer to male genitalia being removed - not Adams apple shaving or similar feminisation surgery..

I'd also hazard a prediction that once this is established policy, the number of transwomen in prison will magically fall as some realise their Corporal Maxwell T Klinger grift has run out of road.

Only (D) will still be eligible - and statistically there will be very few if any in that category.

I was trying to have breakfast in bed whilst watching this buffoon spouting his nonsense. I almost choked on my bacon butty shouting at the TV so hard!

My reading of it is any intact male, and any post-op male convicted of violent or sexual offences, would be barred

A, because they were intact and violent
B, because they were violent.
C, because they were intact.

Only D would be allowed into the female estate.

D) should not be allowed in. Think of someone like IW - stomps all over women's boundaries. Is entitled, verbally aggressive and unpleasant. Plastic surgery should not alter a males entitlement (or not) to be in a space.

Thank you, it's a start at least.

How's Lammy going to cope with this one. Listened to Kate McCann and Adam Boulton this morning when they asked Dominic Raab about this change but didn't ask David Lammy. McCann is rabid left and has been know to let Labour off very lightly. I'm a lefty so it must be really bad. However, not fond of Lammy and his dinosaur comments. Kate would have had a real coup if she'd been impartial and asked the right questions. She asked Rabb, in light of the change if it now meant that TWAW, I can't remember the answer but he certainly didn't say they were. Bit muddled but it is Sunday after lunch and the odd glass of wine

I agree that D) shouldn't be allowed in, but practically, at this point, I'm willing to concede that in order to get A, B, and C out of the way. Especially as from the stats I've seen hereabouts, there are pretty much zero Ds kicking about the prison system anyway.

Two hundred years ago, parliament passed the Gaols Act that states that male and females should not be imprisoned together.

I will just say that again

TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO

I remember learning about Elizabeth Fry at school, she was even honoured on a five pound note.

Does anyone actually know how we got to this state of affairs? When did the law change?

The anniversary of the act receiving Royal assent is 10 July 1823.

Remember the date. It is bloody ridiculous that two hundred years on we are still trying to achieve Elizabeth Fry's aim because of an ideology deemed as progressive but in reality taking us back two hundred years.

Sorry -thanks to everyone who answered.

I do agree none should be in but I think in some ways this is better in that it will show the figures so starkly. It points out the violence factor and how few are post op - the man in the street still thinks the majority of trans people have had the op.

I hate the poor women who are having to suffer through this experiment though and for their sake I hope the figures and publicity get out there loudly and quickly so there is a complete reversal and it goes back to purely single sex.

I suspect the number of violent male criminals discovering their feminine side is about to mysteriously plummet. After all, what’s the point now?

Oh I completely agree with you, I was just answering with my reading of the guidance.

There are still some benefits, especially for sex offenders, who get to be treated like extra special sex offenders and are allowed extra privileges such as showering alone and ordering female underwear from a catalogue (IIRC!)

the other good piece is that it will take an extremely special circumstance to even consider moving a man into the female estate, rather than needing exceptional circumstances to keep them out. That in itself is a monumental shift towards guarding for womens safety first, and mens needs second

the characteristics shown by IW are those shown by your common or garden narcissist. Unlikely to have been non violent if push has come to a shove

Yes, I think I would take that away, from this news.

Someone in office must put THEIR name to allowing a transgender male into the female estate.

Whilst I am sure there are some who would, it seems a risky move on their part, to have recorded that they approved this, if complaints or further evidence came to light.

Someone in office must put THEIR name to allowing a transgender male into the female estate.

I was thinking exactly this. Imagine it's Lammysaurus. He wouldn't last a week if he put males in with females.

NettleTea· Today 15:18

...it will take an extremely special circumstance to even consider moving a man into the female estate, rather than needing exceptional circumstances to keep them out.

Yes, it's a starting point, at least. How a rapist, or domestic violence perpetrator could whine that he's female and should be with women has to be just about impossible.

This.

Women prisoners are vulnerable and almost all have suffered at the hands of men. Female prisoners should not be forced to share their bedrooms and showers with men. This is not complicated.

I don’t give a shit if that hurts some man’s feelings. This is not being left out of a slumber party, this is being locked in a cage with someone much bigger and stronger than you.

KPSS say ‘The Raab policy will certainly face legal challenge. We will continue to monitor the situation & to push for there to be no males, ever, in women's prisons.’ twitter.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1629852342743887872?s=46&t=OiHII1QbievCQt7npvQR-Q

Is this likely to be reported anywhere else?

I think Helen Joyce, in her excellent Triggernometry interview made the point that as rape is virtually decriminalised, it's likely that men who have been convicted for something else have also committed rape.

No men should ever be sent to women's prisons, whatever they've been convicted of.