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"

What I mean is, not that men should go to women's prisons, but that logic is just dodgy. Not having many actual rapes convicted or even charged does not mean most or many criminals are probably also rapists. There is a lot of missing content there.

That would be my guess as to why this is restricted to criminals who have used violence / sex crimes rather than all criminals.

If it goes to court, the argument then becomes about proportionality / privacy / dignity balanced up against women's right to privacy / dignity/ right to be safe.

If it's only for violent / sex crimes therefore constituting a clear risk factor for women, it becomes much harder to argue it's a disproportionate response which violates trans women's rights.

It means they'd be much more likely to win any legal challenges and get a legal precedent which works in women's interests. What they don't want is to set themselves up for a case which could roll back on women's rights hard.

This is a step in the right direction. Thank fuck for that.

DemiColon · Today 23:06
That doesn't mean that we can assume that most men convicted of other crimes have also committed rape

Given the rape statistics, yes we can be sure that some of them have.

I am just wondering….
So how will they tell if a TW has retained male genitalia?
Will TRAs be raging about “genital inspections” - because how else will they verify intactness?
Surely it is appropriate that all males are housed in the male estate, with TW in a designated unit to ensure their safety?
No need for differentiation and verification of genital status to decide which estate, just housing in male estate, general or transgender unit?

Absolutely! Screenshot this.

If it is coming in today, then if Labour get in then they would have to positively reverse the measure.

So they would need to stand up and say ‘we want violent men in women’s prisons’ or ‘we want fully intact men in women’s prisons’. And I say men, because without a GRC that is what they are.

Would they really want to do that?

is it not much more likely that Labour think ‘excellent, now when we push ahead with self-ID we can say we will keep this particular policy in place, and then we don’t get [quite as many] awkward situations as the SNP did?

I suppose the worry is that the policy can be quietly dropped - but there would need to be a minister that approved, because if a minister is required to overrule, that couldn’t be dropped without that minister agreeing that they didn’t need to, I presume?

Absolutely. It hamstrings attempts to have blanket self ID across the board, making it effectively political suicide.

Legally speaking I think if any trans prisoner takes it on to asset their human rights, it would probably fail this strengthening women's position.

And if you have one 'legitimate exemption' it creates a situation where trans women are not women in terms of political speak. This also opens the door to other legitimate exemptions being in play, considered both reasonable and proportional.

If trans women are not women in prisons the bubble bursts. You always have it as an argument to put forward which comes under the label 'legitimate concerns'.

This is also ultimately why TRAs will have a shit fit over it because it breaks their thought terminating cliche TWAW and in doing so starts to make people think. That's how you break cultish thinking and just going along with the Stonewall brainwashing.

Politicians of all stripes will be much more likely and willing to talk about those exemptions or avoid using the phrase TWAW because if this does indeed go through, it makes TWAW as a phrase one that's growing politically toxic.

I hope there's a few people out there going 'we are all JKR now'.

So how will they tell if a TW has retained male genitalia?

Medical records?

This ^^

I would imagine it will be a required question if a male prisoner requests the female estate, with proof required in the medical records of what surgery has taken place. Much as someone with a disability would be required to share their medical records to demonstrate the evidence to back up their request for particular accommodations.

As every prisoner is strip searched at induction, they wouldn't even need records. As long as the screws aren't blind!

@DemiColon
I agree with @ScrollingLeaves.
Even if the men have not so far raped or assaulted anyone, I would assume that they would be very likely to take the opportunity if presented with potential victims who cannot leave. They may call it having sex, but because the women cannot escape the situation or object to his presence, it is rape/SA. Some inmates in the US and Scotland have boasted about making a transfer request in order to have access to women. And of course even deploying the threat of rape or SA against his female cellmate could enable a male prisoner to control her.
Remember that the majority of male inmates are in prison for crimes of violence. A man who has been violent or coercive in one way is very likely to be like that when it comes to sex.

@Snippit
Does the absence/presence of genitalia make any difference? I don't think so. Getting full GRS may be good evidence of genuine, chronic and debilitating gender dysphoria, but the individual remains male.
And male-pattern criminality and behaviour persists if it was there before.

Getting full GRS may be good evidence of genuine, chronic and debilitating gender dysphoria, but the individual remains male.

Exactly. The diagnosis doesnt make them the opposite sex. It doesnt change how they look or how they behave.

So any policy that isnt outright sex segregated, is just a policy waiting for abuse to happen. Any change is dependent on press coverage, the political situation and politicians wanting to do something about it. In the meantime womens saftey and dignity is compromised in favour of mens wants.

Making small amendments to faulty legislate is never going to work more than just saying no to men is.

The press release/policy (can't see more detail than this):

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force

Can't see the KPSS statement but expect it'll be online later as they said they'd comment in more detail today.

Thanks, Rex. In force already, which just shows what is possible when the political will is there.

Oops, I meant to add - slightly off-topic - that marriages and unbinding betrothal ceremonies for under 18s also comes into force today in England and Wales. (Child marriage is something else that "progressive" Scotland is an outlier on in the UK - NI has expressed a desire to follow England and Wales, but cannot because of the situation with the Stormont Assembly.)

D'oh that a ban* on marriages...

Can't see this on the BBC yet.

Do we reckon they will just ignore it?

I know they are saying this new prison policy will be regardless of a GRC, but they could be open to a legal challenge with the way the Equality Act interacts with the GRA.

More evidence that the GRA should be repealed, it is a dogs dinner of legislation, it's muddled and regressive and it's interaction with the EqA and any other legislation is causing problems - get rid of it.

Sex Matters have posted on searches on prison, which is a sobering read:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/searching-for-a-simple-answer/

If courts decide that uk law doesnt permit single sex prisons, i cant see any other option but for the law to be changed.

Which prime minister is going to stand up and say that there is no circumstance where women have sex segregate spaces?

No exceptions

This.

And when the law is changed, I shall have no sympathy, because this needn't have happened. It was a quite staggeringly misogynist political movement that pushed this until it broke and then danced on the pieces. All it would have taken was reciprocation of care for women, some understanding and support of women's needs, some intersectionality and inclusive thinking, and willingness to seek answers that worked equally for all and it might have worked.

But all of this seems absolutely beyond the capacity of the movement as a whole, there isn't even evidence of faint voices somewhere in it. Which begins to lead the layman to the conclusion that this was never so much about wanting equality of access for T people as a bandwagon for the abuse and oppression of women.