Scotland - New prison rules on housing trans inmates

[Igneococcus]

This was even a news item just now on the Radio 3 news.
Why they can't just say that no man no matter how we identifies should ever be placed in a women's prison, I don't know.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/72168d7f-1bde-4cac-8aff-fe3a0e37f72d?shareToken=2156479f381bbf74631154c5eef0f276

Was just about to post that too.

He's terrifyingly violent. But had been approved for transfer to the female estate.

The Scottish Government and the SPS (an executive department of the Scottish Government) do not give one single fuck about women. It's actually astounding.

ArthurbellaScott · Today 09:35

'It was also reported that female prison officers at Low Moss have been ordered to carry out intimate searches of the offender despite him still having male genitalia.

Wasn't there a case in Canada, where a female PO resigned and sued for stress, because women had been forced to be in such situations with male prisoners?

There is, afaik, one transman in a men's prison in Scotland. God knows how that works.

There’s nothing left-wing about extreme individualism or identity politics.

in your opinion. Tell me other things that aren’t left leaning. Socialism. Left leaning or no? Marxism. Left leaning or no?

When parties are openly and proudly abandoning women, disabled women, traumatised women, women needing refuge and rape crisis centres, BAME women, multi faith and multi culture women, women who need accessible provision, women with learning difficulties, homosexual people, child safeguarding....?

Leftist politics considers these groups important, and believes in accessibility and inclusion, multi culturalism, plurality. An equal accessible society. Fairness. Social justice. However the Labour/Green/SNP etc parties have abandoned these groups because they are incompatible with meeting the wishes of men and their supporters in identity politics.

Those parties may still identify as being left, and in part it's this peculiar delusion that 'left' now means 'good person' and 'my gang' and nothing else. But the facts and reality don't line up. Image and a lot of clownfish burbling and saying the words does not, in reality, a leftist party make.

The SPS will no longer provide data how many transwomen are in women's prisons, data protection reasons, they say:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d53cc33f-f3f0-448d-8548-323f9a3f1662?shareToken=486c912cf1df8c98b6cedb1ab762819c

Data protection, my foot. It’s a blatant cover-up.

They want to protect the data from sunlight, they mean.

It isn't the data that they're protecting, it's arses. This is a blatant misuse of that phrase to avoid difficult conversations and facts coming to light.

Next step: they'll feed the data to the Welsh government's dog that eats their impact assessments.

This has got to stop. If they're making decisions they can't stand behind and justify then they know those decisions are FUBAR.

Fucking liars.

'The figures showed there were 19 trans women in custody at the end of March, with seven being allowed to serve their sentences in the female estate' (Times article)

There are only (very roughly) 250 women in prison at any one time in Scotland.

The thing that strikes me is how often they use the phrase "unacceptable risks"

This implies that there exists a level of "acceptable" risk.

I want to know how they define an "acceptable" risk given that the people making the decision sure as fuck won't be the same people that will bear the consequences when an "acceptable" risk turns out to have been a bad call.

They’re saying the quiet bit out loud. That in order for male criminals to feel happy, there is a degree of risk to women that will be judged ‘acceptable’. If the acceptable risk of a female inmate being murdered, raped or beaten is judged to be around 0.1%, what will their excuse be if the unthinkable happens? Oh, lessons will be learned, etc. Sod off. You could have fixed it before it happened by saying no risk is acceptable, no males in female prisons, no loopholes. Why? Because women are people too, with their own wants and needs, and they are not emotional support animals or gender validation props.

It's even worse, even the ones who are actually considered an unacceptable risk still get to visit for hair braiding groups or whatever sexist shite they come up with so they can "practise being a woman" 🤬🤬🤬

https://twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1733224318664896844

Would it be possible to FOI what the acceptable risks are? Or have they not spelled them out?

"practise being a woman"? . But surely they don't need practice, if they are women...

The concept of practising to be a woman is so unbelievably offensive.

Woman is not a costume you can put on and keep tweaking it til you feel it fits.

I really hate the focus on transwomen with convictions for violence and sexual assault. I mean, obviously these men should never be in a women’s prison with no exceptions, but the assumptions seems to be that if you don’t have an actual conviction you must be totally safe, when we know that the vast, vast proportion of sexual offences and male violence do not end in conviction. Any male-bodied person could pose a risk to a woman, there is absolutely no way to know. So to put any transwomen in with women accepts that the safety of those women is not a priority. And that’s not even getting into how even if we could tell that a trans woman would never be a physical threat to a women, the psychological impact on women with histories of abuse in being locked up with them could be immense. It makes me so angry.

The Telegraph have published another article on this, including violent criminals, rapists, allowing to mix with support bipeds that share their gender identity

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/10/trans-criminals-serve-time-female-jails-scottish-guidance/

https://archive.ph/dhuXq archive link

They acknowledge that the support bipeds might be coerced into relationships, be impregnated but, heck, women can be violent too, bigots!

That’s horrific. Women can be made uncomfortable or scared, be forced to take part in a pretence with no evidence supporting it, and be basically used for the validation they give, all so a man, not just any man but a criminal man, can feel nice. What the actual fuck. What has gone wrong with the people in charge’s brains that they are taking these men seriously?! Even if they are “transgender” the FACTS are that does not change their sex and certainly does not change their offending rates and style. So they should be nowhere near a FEMALE prison which is about sex not gender. Which we know they understand because they put trans men there by default!

On top of that these are criminals, often sex offenders, to stand to gain from conveniently “identifying” as a woman. How can they not see that the whole thing is being abused and exploited exactly as self-ID obviously lays itself open to? FFS.

it’s not just that men’s feelings come before women’s rights and safety. It’s also that the wish of those in authority to appear woke and righteous according to a load of unevidenced guff comes before women’s rights and safety. That’s shameful.

What is this bullshit about 'share gender identity'?

I don't have a gender identity, I just have a physical reality of a female sexed body. That's it. That's all.

Let's be honest about this, a man who wishes to say that he 'shares a gender identity with me' has zero interest in my identity, my words for it, my feelings, or anything at all other than my female body. That is what he wants when he says he is coming in a space with me because we 'share a gender'. He is solely focused on my sex. No other part of me is in any way relevant to him. And his 'gender identity' in this sense is nothing more than saying he feels like he imagines being a biological woman might feel.

So he would like to use me as a prop in his self expression.

And unbelievably we have other men wibbling about the right of him to use me so long as his self expression doesn't break me to an extent that it would get inconvenient in the press. That is the only aspect they are remotely concerned with.

For those still dithering about whether or not sex is binary, fgs how much evidence do you need? There are two sexes. One gets to use the other freely without boundaries and to have identities and control everyone' s language and express themselves. The other gets to shut up and put up, and take the dirty end of the stick at all times, with bullying and worse if they fail to do this with a smile.
Just try saying 'I'm not 'cis'' or 'I'm a biological human female' and see what happens. If you're a man, people will applaud. If you're a female, the scolding, threats and worse start right here.

The assumption that the women in prisons share any kind of identity with these men is ridiculous.

I keep thinking about the oft-shouted TRA claims of erasure. But the only thing being erased seems to be the category of biologically female women. TRAs are determined to redefine women and female and anything else that biologically female humans might use to describe themselves (distinct from biological men) that it leaves no vocabulary. The concept of a woman or female is entirely appropriated and what it previously meant is actually erased, or at least renders impossible to articulate.

The SPS has decided that men get to decide what ‘female gender identity’ is - and women just have to play their part in the pantomime that ensues.

I'm fucking sick of these men being referred to as if I share anything in common with them apart from my species.

That men may have an existential crisis if not permitted to use women as a resource is pitiable and requires possible mental health services. It is not however the problem of imprisoned women. There is no human right of men to be provided with female humans.