OK, if that is the case then the most reasonable course of action would be to study this in much more detail and find out exactly what the facts are and what the risk may be before committing to a course of action.
When I talk about the ease of application it was in reference to the move to self-identification in Scotland. Under those rules it would be much easier to get a GRC. The more stringent rules you link to are those currently in place in the UK. They do set a much higher bar in order to be considered genuinely transgender. I’d not be opposed to retaining that much higher bar in respect to the housing of transwomen.
You’ve fundamentally misunderstood my point. The above is not it at all.
If there is to be a policy of housing transwomen in female prisons (something I am absolutely open to) then it is critical to be aware of the risks that come with that.
One of which is that predatory males will seek to be placed in female prisons by means of identifying as women. Which has happened. The most recent furore in Scotland was based on precisely that scenario.
As for independent data, the figures given are in the very table from the MOJ that you yourself pasted. The title of the data tables strongly suggests that both the total number of transgender prisoners and the number of those with sexual offences against them are a snapshot at that March/April 2019 timestamp. It would be a deeply weird way of compiling a table if it were not.
As many official figures tend to be, I see no reason to assume they are an inaccurate picture of what was going on then. Could matters have changed greatly in the interim? sure, can’t rule that out. Further data would confirm this.
I need to reiterate that the “evidence” that was cited earlier in the thread was provided to support the argument made by Professor Freedman in the select committee that that trans prisoners "are predatory males and predatory trans women”. The numbers were produced as part of an OIA from Fair Play for Women: but they only posted part of the written response from the MOJ but for some reason didn’t post the rest, even in a redacted form. This BBC fact check makes the following points (not directly related to this particular OIA, so I’ll just quote the general parts)
So if we assume the raw numbers say what Fair Play claims they say, then the statement “76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%” is highly (and deliberately) misleading. Because that number only includes inmates who have had a prison case conference. It likely won’t include short-stay inmates, won’t include transgender people who didn’t identify themselves to the prison service, or who already had a GRC.
So TLDR: I call bullshit on the evidence provided belatedly by Professor Freedman to the select committee. It doesn’t bring anything to the table and shouldn’t be considered as part of this debate.
As for the GRC: yeah, there is zero evidence to support the idea that male prisoners would firstly decide that they would want to transition if the GRC were relaxed, and secondly, there is no evidence that a person who changes their gender identity for the purposes of getting into a womens prison would be able to easily fool the prison services when they do their risk assessments.
For every Isla Bryson we have to also consider the “Mary’s”, who are just as an important part of this debate.
Transgender people also deserve to be protected in prison. They also should be allowed to be safe, to be kept away from predators. Allowing transwomen to be housed in womens prisons isn’t just about “being woke.” Its a matter of public safety and human rights.
All this “concern” about supposed lack of awareness on the part of legislators regarding potential risks to cisgender women from predatory males abusing the system is a red herring, AFAICT. There is no realistic likelihood that the proposed laws will actually open the door to masses of male sexual predators proclaiming themselves transgender as soon as the judge pronounces sentence and getting a free pass to women’s prisons on the strength of it.
The risk awareness of the original legislators was not high enough to include such safeguards from the off, a rather obvious amendment had to be drafted and put forward.
And existing safeguards were not strong enough to prevent male rapists from being placed in female prisons, until a short few weeks ago.
So I suggest that concern about this policy area in general is far from a red herring. If the heightened awareness of the potential risks and publicity about the mistakes made has ensured that the rules are tightened and better decisions are being made then I’m all for it.
If we can now honestly say that the potential risk has now been reduced to near zero then that is a good state of affairs.
What are you talking about? There are dozens of male rapists employed at prisons. Hence why there are many, many more cases of male guards raping prisoners than trans female prisoners raping other female prisoners.
The “safeguards” you reference do nothing about this.
If that much larger issue had gotten, say, a quarter of the attention that the Trans issue gets, I’d maybe believe that this is about the safety of women. But you never, ever hear about this very real issue. Instead, you hear about hypothetical trans women committing hypothetical rapes. Why do you think this is?
It’s almost like this is not really about making women safer…
I don’t buy that you are in the slightest bit confused that I’m referring here to the prisoners. People with a known track record and convictions of sexual assault on women.
I’ll agree that employing a convicted male rapist as a guard in a female prison would be a terrible idea as well. If a thread was started with the intention of raising that as serious issue I would agree with it.
No, and that wasn’t the intention of raising them. The employment policy for prison guards is a separate issue.
I was talking about the risk of convicted known male sex offenders being placed in female prisons. Nothing to do with male prison guards.
If Babale wants to ask me a specific question about the risks from male guards in female prisons then I’d be happy to answer.
I have no problem accepting that in some places that will be a much bigger issue than placing transgender males in female prisons. I think the rape of women in society more generally is a bigger problem than either but I have not felt the need to refer to it.
What Babale said is an important issue but it was nothing to do with my point, is not the point of the OP and is a classic example of the fallacy of relative privation.
But the actual problem that currently exists has everything to do with male prison guards. There is a bull in the china shop, but you want everyone to focus on indirect evidence that a mouse might have visited.
No, no confusion. You were referring to a non-existent, hypothetical problem. Meanwhile, actual prison guards continue to rape actual women on a daily basis.
Yes, that DID happen. And guess what else happened? Just like any other prisoner who could be a threat to their fellow prisoners, the prison took special precautions to prevent this trans prisoner from hurting anyone else. So this wasn’t actually a problem in any way, shape, or form - was it?
If only prisons took similar precautions regarding rapists on their payroll…
No, thanks. It’s relevant to THIS thread, in that it demonstrates that opposition to trans women in women’s prisons has very little to do with the safety of women, and much to do with anti-trans bigotry.
My own view is that the housing of transwomen in female prisons can be done but only after very careful consideration and with strong safeguards in place.
That’s exactly the same position I hold on the concept of male guards in female prisons.
Where is the anti-trans bigotry in either of those positions?
Really? You don’t think anyone, anywhere, is bringing up “trans women in prison” solely out of animus against trans women, and not because of a genuine concern about sexual assault in prisons? You think there’s literally nobody this describes?
Considering how your only example is of a trans woman who had sexual assault convictions and who was housed in a female prison after very careful consideration and with strong safeguards in place, and who was housed with special accommodations in place to prevent them from hurting any of the other women they’re housed with, I really don’t understand what your issue is.
In the fact that the trans-related issue is getting a level of focus that’s enormously disproportionate to the size of the actual issue.
I think framing an absolutist question like you have done is not helpful.
I’m certain that it is a good description of some people arguing in this thread, I’m equally sure that is does not apply to others.
So, as I’ve answered you, will you do me the courtesy of answering my own equally unhelpful question?
Do you think that anyone raising any concern about transwomen in women’s prisons is not truly concerned with safety and is only doing so out of anti-trans bigotry?
Do you think it’s just random chance that “What about trans women in prison?” is frequently presented as an urgent question, while the issue of rape by prison guards is seldom discussed in public?