is there a thread for FWS / Prisons?

[weegielass]

Its live today on the scottish tribunals website and lasting for three days. Easy to join and good audio quality. I think that's marion on screen in the background. She seemed rather amused at the judge trying to understand the definitions.

I wonder if we will, given they seem to have overlooked women’s rights in general.

.........how do they advance the opportunities of equality to vulnerable, imprisoned women by forcing a man upon them who is there to use them as support animals?

Why is everything always and only about the man? Women's prisons apparently are all and only about opportunities for men. And as we repeatedly see no one for a moment thinks this man is a woman, if they did they would not even remember his existence, never mind care if he was suicidal or feeling safe.

the current JR will determine if its lawful or not.

Ethical for who? Its certainly not ethical to imprison women with men.

@ATranssexualWoman there is a really really really easy way for a TiM to keep themselves safe and out of the men's prisons. Its called obeying the law. Be a good law-abiding citizen and you'll never get locked up with the nasty men.

He may have more than a hypothetical interest given his previous stated disregard for the law.

Exactly the same risk as any other man.
(although wouldn't be able to rape with a penis if that's been removed but would be able to penetrate with other objects in serious sexual assault)

A man (SC definition) is still a man even if he's chosen to have parts of himself amputated. His strength may be moderately reduced by cross sex hormones but not enough to undo the strength and power advantages of going through male puberty.

But it's not just a threat issue. It's also dignity, privacy, religious observance, past trauma and a myriad of other reasons woman might want to not have men in their spaces.

You only have to look at Laverne Cox and Ellen Paige to know which one is male and which one is female, despite the best efforts of their plastic surgeons.

I’m glad someone said this, as it is the argument often used by TRAs when we say women should not be imprisoned with men; ‘don’t commit crime then’ they say.

Works both ways fellas, works both ways...

I really can’t tell 👀can you?

That’s certainly what the SG are attempting to argue. I don’t fancy their chances. The last time they tried to defend the indefensible they ended up with a Supreme Court ruling confirming that the meaning of woman in law was, well, woman/adult human female.

Even if this particular hearing doesn’t go that way, and the lower courts cant quite find it in themselves to face biological reality, then the Supreme Court eventually will do a repeat. If there’s a need snd legal reason for women’s prisons, then theres a need for single sex spaces, then men aren’t allowed (penis or no penis)

My ears pricked up at that, too.

I'm always amazed how often this needs to be said. Women are not -

Human shields
Emotional support humans
Resources to be utilised
Non player characters
Validation resources

Any issues for male prisoners (however they identify) is for male prisons to resolve. The Scottish Government are now openly saying that women's prisons (and the women inside them) are resources to be exploited for the benefit of men.

It's appalling.

Isnt it. Jaw dropping, really. They really are saying the quiet parts out loud.

Times article:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/8f5e88fa-394e-479c-8592-7df2aa6d86bb?shareToken=f368a65b247d44a678f52a52b552dc6b

'Janys Scott KC, representing the EHRC, said that in light of the judgment, a service that admitted biological men who claim to identify as women, alongside those born female, could no longer be considered “single sex” and would therefore lose protection against discrimination claims.'

So, any women prisoners who have been in with a male since last April, could and can now make a claim.

Oh. Wait.

Any man who has been in prison since last April and asks to be transfers to a women's prison but is refused, could now make a claim?

It's an interesting point. If the fact of being male doesn't disqualify a prisoner from being moved to a female prison because of a breach of their human rights ("I'll die by suicide if I don't") - there's nothing to say that any other human rights issue, like distance from home, might not also necessarily mean they could be moved to a female prison.

In theory then, any man (who by the SPS's criteria isn't a harm to women) could also demand to be in a women's prison.

There are two ways out of this for the SPS, neither of which is attractive.

Firstly they could say the human rights issue only for trans-identifying men is ameliorated by the presence of women. That would make explicit the women as support animals reasoning.

Secondly they could say that merely by virtue of being trans-identifying, a man is less of a danger to women. That would tie them up in knots having to define what precise element of a man being trans-identifying reduces the hazard to women compared to other men.

I have drawn the unsurprising conclusion that the respondents arguments are legally very flimsy, and are very apparently emotive.

its perfectly possible that the judge will come up with some bizarre ruling as did Hadalane, re GR exceptions, but since that was quashed in the SC ruling, it is hard to see what wiggle room this judge could possibly have.

https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/news/scottish-human-rights-commission-intervenes-in-judicial-review-brought-by-for-women-scotland-against-scottish-ministers-on-the-management-of-transgender-people-in-custody/

SHRC written submission

SHRC :

'... regrettably, it is not difficult to identify examples of transgender prisoners
who have died by suicide in Scottish prisons (see, for example, the recent Fatal Accident
Inquiry into the death of Sarah Jane Riley [2025] FAI 42 which records that the
deceased reported self-harm after being told she was to return to the male estate (at
paragraph 19))'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7771471.stm

Riley was imprisoned for attempted murder, but subject to a Lifelong Restriction Order:

'Riley has a long record which includes setting fire to public buildings and threatening teachers and care workers as well as members of his own family.
"He was effectively expelled from nursery," said an astonished judge.
Lord Uist had called for background reports before sentencing. He said: "They make alarming reading. It is clear to me from these reports that you represent a very serious risk to the public."
"You have fantasies which have intensified with your age," he added.
The court heard that Riley abused alcohol and drugs, experienced hallucinations and was given to explosions of anger and rage.'

From the FAI:

'Around February 2015, Sarah declared her wish to live as a female and began living as a female in adult male open conditions. SPS recognised her protected status as a trans woman from 9 March 2015. On 26 June 2015, Sarah transferred to Cornton Vale Prison. The transfer to the female estate was not successful and Sarah encountered many difficulties with other prisoners.
On 31 July 2015, the prison authorities became aware that Sarah had suicidal ideation. She was placed in segregation under Rule 95 after this and remained in the Separation and Reintegration Unit (SRU) for the remainder of her time at Cornton Vale.

During 2015 Sarah required medical attention on two occasions following self-harm incidents in response to being told she would be returned to the male estate.
On 28 October 2015 Sarah was returned to Perth Prison after indicating she would live as a male. She was removed from the suicide prevention regime then used by SPS in November.
She expressed anger and upset at the way she had been treated at Cornton Vale and claimed she was being forced to stop the transition from male to female. During her time in custody Sarah was subjected to lengthy periods of isolation.
Sarah was again refused parole in November 2015. In December she stated clearly that she wanted to live as a woman and believed she was being punished for being transgender.
In March 2016 she stated that she wished to be referred to as Sarah and in May she was moved to the mainstream conditions of Perth Prison.
The Risk Management Team at Perth carried out an assessment of Sarah using the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE) and Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R).
This work was completed in June 2016 when Sarah was 26 years old. It would not have been appropriate to carry out these assessments at a younger age.
The conclusion reached was that she met the diagnostic criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder, Emotionally Unstable (Borderline Type) Personality Disorder and Anxious Personality Disorder. There were also features of dissocial and schizoid personality disorders.
Sarah was again refused Parole in 2016 and 2017 but was transferred to the open estate in October 2017 and to Castle Huntly Prison with some home leave at Anchor House, Perth.
In July 2018 the Parole Tribunal decided to direct her release and she was released to Anchor House on licence. During the time she was residing at Anchor House, Sarah spoke regularly about the OLR and stated she would end her life if she was recalled to prison'

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/fai-determination-summaries/2025/11/04/fatal-accident-inquiry-in-to--the-death-of-sarah-jane-riley

Is the SHRC suggesting this very disturbed, violent man should have been put back in the women's prison?

https://www.sps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-09/HDC%20-%20Equality%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

SPS impact assessment.

And yet, no organisation or individual should be making a decision like this based on someone’s threat to commit suicide. If this man was known to have suicidal ideation, surely he would have been under specific care. But not in the women’s estate.

Its bloody barking. MANY vulnerable men in prisons commit suicide. What are they given as lifesaving measures? Are they all going to be handed women support animals? Why these men? Since when did provision of access to non consenting biological females become a mental health treatment?

How do the Scots govt intend to explain and hold a line that says yes this man but not that man?

And yes, the presence of a man in a single sex space does affect women's article 8 rights by the fact he's ended it being a single sex space.

If single sex spaces are fine, why are we bothering with single sex provisions at all?

And the SC was clear on this. If it's designated as single sex, you have invoked the legal discrimination. That means you cannot fuck about with just a few of the really special/needy/whatever of the other sex at will.

And this is solely about the interests of the men. The only mention of women is to insist there's no impact on them that really matters when you use them to salve a man's inner self expression.

Since it was established even in Kemp's absolute disaster of a judgment that as soon as a woman complains about a man in her single sex space it is harassment of her to continue to have them in the same space, how is that going to work?

Darlington case, again, yes, harassment of women to inflict men on them in a single sex space.

Secondly they could say that merely by virtue of being trans-identifying, a man is less of a danger to women. That would tie them up in knots having to define what precise element of a man being trans-identifying reduces the hazard to women compared to other men.

It would be interesting to see how they argue that a violent male murderer who murdered a cell mate is less of a risk than a man on remand for a fraud charge.

It really isn’t hard to understand.

One male person’s subjective belief that not based on material reality should not be considered material when safeguarding female people. If a male person is vulnerable, there are vulnerable male sections available. I don’t believe these will be with sex offenders, because that would be contradictory to put vulnerable male people in that situation.

There is even a male prisoner section for those with trans gender identities. It was initially rejected because it is not with female people but I believe it is now being used for purpose.

Any male person has a high likelihood of having their correct sex identified by female people. Therefore, it was never appropriate to lock female people, many who need space away from any male person, in with male people. That always had the potential, and we know it has indeed happened, to traumatise, or retraumatise, vulnerable female people.

No female persons is either a security shield, a validation resources (as we have seen from previous testimony) or therapeutic resources for any male person.

Depends how he looks. According to the SHRC.