Just 5 trans women in women’s jails - Inside Time article

[IwantToRetire]

The latest figures, from the Offender Equalities Annual Report, related to March 2023. In March 2022 there were 162 trans women in male jails and six in female jails. Trans women who have had their new gender legally recognised with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are not included in the figures. There were 13 prisoners with GRCs, but the report did not specify whether they were trans women or trans men.

https://insidetime.org/newsround/just-5-trans-women-in-womens-jails/

Old men, young men and disabled men may not be classed as vulnerable prisoners. The mean age of male prisoners in the UK was 21-29 until 2018 and is now 30-39 due to a large number of adult males entering prisons for historical sexual offences. The questions that you have asked indicate you have know sense of hirachy of age and offences in prison. Disabilities is very much dependant, most will be in general population.

The idea that because women were exchanging hair accessories with a man means they were happy with his presence is both hilarious and terrifying coming from someone who seemingly has a role in these women’s welfare. It’s doesn’t take a huge leap of common sense that keeping him happy and onside would be a valuable survival strategy for women with no choice but to make do with the situation.

I just can't understand why you would uniquely be concerned about the vulnerability of trans identifying males in the male estate, over and above other very vulnerable groups of male prisoners in the male estate - very young men, men with learning difficulties, men with physical disabilities, men who are care experienced etc etc. Nor why the solution for this particular group for males is to put them in the female estate, when other solutions to mitigate the vulnerability of other groups of men is found within the male estate. And why the small numbers of trans identifying males in the female estate are treated so differently to the trans identifying males in the male estate. And why you are ok with that?

The risk assessment idea falls apart very quickly when you consider the woeful reporting, charging and conviction rates for sexual offences. It is a fact undenied by all agencies that many many many perpetrators of sexual crimes against women are never convicted. Relying on history of conviction for assessing whether a male is a risk is naivety at best.

And the real question is, why do we sex segregate prisons at all? Why do we not risk stratify and segregate all prisoners based on convictions, histories etc instead? You either think it is important, in which case stick to it. Or you don't in which case follow your logic to it's natural conclusion. There will be many many males in the male estate convicted of non violent, non sexual crimes. Why can't women mix with them too?

'Classed as' is not necessarily the same as 'are'. But the question stands - why would the methods used to keep safe the 210 TW (and any other men who are likely to be vulnerable for whatever reason) currently held in the male estate not work for the small number who are sent to women's prisons?

And here's some research from Scotland that (despite being carried out by a less than impartial researcher) shows that not all women are delighted to have TW to share makeup with. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239?

(Incidentally, when you get to the woman who thinks she could hold her own if it came to a fight, bear in mind the recent survey showing how many people also think they could win a fight against a lion.)

The report says:

"All participants identified as white, some identified as lesbian, some bisexual, others as heterosexual."

This shows how definitions have become so confusing that it's hard to know what this actually means.

Does it mean heterosexual as their natal sex (so a man attracted to women) or heterosexual as the sex they identify as (so a woman attracted to men)?

Without knowing this, it's hard to say who that category is attracted to.

Language matters.

I remember reading that study before and noting that statements that the researcher approved of stood alone but statements they didn't approve of were annotated or commented on negatively. But they're still there, in fairness.

I note that the discussion about prisoners that detransitioned after leaving prison is way down at he bottom as a buried short section, so it can't be linked easily with the super supportive long section about the 3 participants the researcher approved of. And yet it looks as if the lovely person who benefited from emotional and practical support from prisoners was also one of those who detransitioned as soon as they left prison.

I really enjoyed reading that study.

Regardless of any bias of the researcher, I came away thinking: so the transwomen who perform a particular version of femininity (no penis, visual presentation and softer, kinder, less abrasive in relationship, vulnerable and needing support) are more accepted and seen as less threatening than those who don't. And the actual women who are in prison are diverse and female in a wide range of ways.

i keep coming back to wondering who gets to decide a trans identified male is enough of a "woman" to be in a female prison? It seems a lot of work to say any man can declare himself a woman and then the system must both verify that (because of "false" claims) and risk assess it (because of potential harms).

Exactly. I don't think anyone in their right mind would support someone with a penis being in female estate. Nobody with a penis has been housed in female estate for a while, as outlined at www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force

There's a whole PSI written on how the decision is made, you can find it here.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659e906fe96df5000df843e2/transgender-pf.pdf

I think you are struggling to understand because you have not met the prisoner in question!

A man with no penis is not a woman FFS.

We are talking about women in their most vulnerable state. I don't believe the poster who says that they can refuse/ say no to a TW.

Putting men in a woman's prison can never ever be justified. It runs contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Women who support this are losing their minds. Women are not human shields to vulnerable males. Even ones who've done acts of extreme body modification.

It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you think he was lovely or if others thought he was lovely. You have no way of knowing if all the women thought he was lovely and were happy to have him there.

Those links explicitly imply that there are male people with penises in the female estate for whom exemption from the new policy will be needed. And the policy changed less than a year ago - so plenty of people in their right minds thought it was ok for a long time.

The original court case leading to transwomen in female prisons was after all fought on the basis that the prisoner could not get genital surgery until they were living in the female estate - that being surrounded by women was the only way they could prove they were womanly enough for surgery. The use of female prisoners in that way by the legal system and the NHS still shocks me.

And prior to the changes in policy I could completely understand why people were outraged. Obviously I can only go on the female estate that I worked in, but I've never known anyone with a penis go to female estate in reality. There was one exception years ago, in an area I did not work in, which was widely publicised, for Tara Hudson. That is the only exception I am aware of in England. Clearly Scottish policy was too liberal previously and it's great the rules there have been tightened up.

Saying no-one with a penis belongs in the female estate is effectively the same as saying only transwomen who have had their penis removed can be in the female estate. Which is then portrayed as a demand that said transwomen sterilise themselves before they can be transferred to the female estate/treated as women. Which then becomes a human rights issue because forcing someone to sterilise themselves = obviously bad.
Much easier to say there is a woman's prison for women and a mans prison for men. A separate wing/prison/space for transwomen who would be vulnerable in the general male population.

It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you think he was lovely or if others thought he was lovely. You have no way of knowing if all the women thought he was lovely and were happy to have him there.

I wouldn't describe any prisoner as "lovely", that would be a gross neglect of boundaries.

Again, I don't think you are understanding the sense of community in female estates. They are nothing like male estates, which are rife with gang members, murderers, paedophiles and are inherently dangerous. Most women are in prison for non violent crimes and are victims of SA and DA. Most men in prison are imprisoned for SA, DA and other violent crimes. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Isla Bryson had a penis. As demonstrated by the infamous leggings shot.

Authorities had no issue with including Isla, Complete with penis and sex offending convictions, in the women's prison, UNTIL the general public said wtaf?!

As they would again if these decisions were made more public.

Isla was in Scotland, before they rightfully tightened the rules.

Your telling me they say no and no tw appears in their prison?

Frankly I dont believe you. There would be no tw in prison if all these women were asked. Remember it only takes one to refuse men in their space, that one who says no, cannot be overridden by anyone saying yes.

As for how to keep tw safe in prison, how do they keep any men safe? That's how. And now you'll tell me no men are safe in prison and then I'll say thats an issue for men and the prison service to solve.

Your telling me they say no and no tw appears in their prison?

No, you said that. I said nobody is being forced to share a spur or a cell, which is correct.

So if you won’t describe his as lovely, you’re describing that women had no problem with him based on

being as they were happily exchanging hair accessories and make up with them, the non verbal evidence was clear

and the sense of community in the female estate.

But it doesn’t matter if this male was a non-violent non-paedophile type prisoner. The dynamic of the community is changed with the presence of a male and it’s incredibly shallow to determine that no woman had a problem with him based on “happily exchanging hair accessories and make up with [them]”.

Stick any man, any man at all in any all female environment and the dynamic instantly changes. To not know this and to pretend it doesn’t matter and to be oblivious to this is pretty awful given your claimed expertise.

As for how to keep tw safe in prison, how do they keep any men safe? That's how. And now you'll tell me no men are safe in prison and then I'll say thats an issue for men and the prison service to solve.

They actually keep male prisoners as safe as possible by grouping them according to

Risk level
New receptions
Prisoners with substance misuse
Elderly prisoners
18-21 year olds
Prisoners with disabilities which make them more vulnerable.
Sex offenders.

The red herring is that the vulnerable prisoner wing is used exclusively for sex offenders, until they decide to stick a transwoman on it.

20% of adult male prisoners are sex offenders. Sex offenders are not usually a risk to adult male prisoners. They would however be a risk to trans women. Sex offenders are deemed vulnerable from other prisoners. I'm not sure why. I personally would throw them in with general population.

The Scottish rules are being changed again. I think there's something in the proposed new rules about 'acceptable risk'.

The problem, as I see it, with the lovely, vulnerable tw, totally lacking in genatalia, who is only interested in hair, does a lovely smokey eye (you do have to wonder how he wound up behind bars, perhaps he used to manage a post office...on a submarine?) is that he's holding the door for the less lovely types.

If a rule is broken a little bit, it's still broken, it's not as strong as it was and it can be broken some more, then more until there's no rule left.

And this is why I said I support the use of specialist trans wings. Transwomen may not like them, but it's tough. This would protect transwomen from general population whilst segregating them from women.

If I remember correctly, the FOI request to the MoJ (am I getting my acronyms right?) from 2017 showed that 48% of transwomen in prison were there for sexual offences.

So either transwomen are more likely to be sex offender OR sex offenders are more likely to claim a trans identity. (I favour the latter)