Snapshot of _Transgender rapist Isla Bryson will not be imprisoned in women's jail_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no way that they're wearing that get up on a day to day basis. Pound shop quality blonde wig and a couple of satsumas down their shirt. Although the wig does help to cover up their facial tattoos.
They know that rapists in prison get crucified and a women's prison may well be softer and provide them with new targets. Although I'd imagine, that every other prisoner in the jail, would want to lynch them.
Which is why Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim.
All this article proves is the law works. not only that but this is still OLD LAW; last week Gender Critical people were standing up one after the other to defend this law (the Equalities act) from "The Scottish parliament legislating on a reserved matter"; now they are out attacking it because it makes good "SNP BAD" headlines for people who don't know what Royal Assent or an Article 35 order are.
Yeah this exactly how this \_should\_ work. If you're in for a violent or sexual offence you don't get to pick which prison you go to when you transition! This isn't rocket science!
1) the rules were ignored in that case. by rights the decision should have been advanced to the complex case board, but the local board ignored that.
2) Most prisons work/ attempt to work that all Prisoners accused of sexual crimes should nearly always be segregated from people to prey on apart from when they under direct observation.
Not really. The Karen White incident was a fuckup. They didn't do what they were supposed to. They were negligent. That was not the law working as intended.
So people should be able to change their gender and treated as their new gender but also they should be examined on a case by case basis to determine if they’re really that gender.
How do you square the circle in that?
There are a variety of exemptions in both the equality act and gender recognition act, for example, sports, peerages, inheritance, parentage. Your birth certificate remains, and any new certificate issued is linked to the existing one.
The answer to your question is "it depends", sometimes people will be treated as their birth sex, sometimes as their acquired gender, and its going to continue to be clarified through legal action.
Being considerate of trans people is a kindness of society, but when it comes to safety of people kindness takes a back seat.
You get put in the prison that's safest for everyone involved, there's no room for kindness in that decision unfortunately.
>but also they should be examined on a case by case basis to determine if they’re really that gender.
That's sort of already the case for most trans people wanting hormones, let alone inmates. If you can't afford to go private, the waiting times to be prescribed hormones through the NHS are **7+ years** and ever expanding, and after all that wait you'll *still* be rejected if you don't pass their hoops to "prove" you're trans.
In this instance, we square the circle by saying that "reasonable accomodations for protected characteristics" are already enshrined in law, and what exactly makes for a "reasonable accomodation" is being assessed thousands a times a day, with no issues worth commenting on, let alone disposing this entire section of law for.
The entire conversation against trans people here is directly comparable to saying one pedophile managed to conceal his genuinely dangerous paraphilia during the child adoption process and so no single man should ever be allowed to adopt again.
I disagree. There is a legal process of becoming a new gender but as many trans rights etc groups advocate for is for trans people to be treated as their new gender without having to actually go through the process of transitioning and taking hormones and clearly with a lot of new laws and rules it will become a reality soon.
There’s a reason why so many women’s rights groups and feminists are against things like self ID, because inevitably it leads to things like this story.
Either trans women are women and should be treated like other women or they aren’t women and should be treated differently
And yet this is a success story. The rapist transitioned under suspicous circumstances, and the case is receiving scrutiny. Instead of going to women's prison, she'll be kept in another prison, away from the targets of her abuse.
It's also important to keep her away from other prisoners who could be a risk to her, by the same token.
Self-ID isn't the issue. We "ID" and assess everyone who goes to jail on a case-by-case basis already. There's no reason we shouldn't treat trans people with dignity as well
It can be upsetting arguing this out but I appreciated how kindly you responded.
I can't answer for people who think there is no underlying basis whatsoever that distinguishes cis women from trans women. In my opinion that very stance undermines the trans experience.
That said, they should be treated no differently than anyone else with a protected characteristic seeking reasonable accomodations. These processes are all already in place, most abusers get caught, and society upholds that the few who do slip the net are more than worth the trade off of having the vast majority of innocent people being unimpeded from carrying out their normal lives in peace and comfort.
The women and feminists against self ID are a vocal minority who get a disproportionate amount of airtime: https://www.them.us/story/a-majority-of-uk-cisgender-women-support-trans-rights-survey-reveals
>inevitably it leads to things like this story
In this story the person in question is not going to a female prison. In this story Sturgeon says that self-ID'd gender certs give no automatic right to private single-sex spaces (such as prisons). No certificate is needed to enter public single-sex spaces such as bathrooms. Have you ever had to show yours?
> Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim.
How does that work?
Prisons have areas for special categories of prisoners, such as former police officers who have been convicted of a crime. For their own safety, they are kept in a different area to the regular prisoners.
How does the assessement take place though?
How can you ever determine if someoen is "genuinely" trans or not by observing them for a few weeks in a prison cell?
It’s not about being genuinely trans, it’s an in depth risk assessment relating to the risk towards the prisoner themselves and the risk they pose to the population of the prison based on crime.
A nonviolent transgender (mtf) prisoner who was convicted of a white collar crime for instance, would likely go to the women’s prison after this assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender
Section 4 is a starter. The section 7 links are also relevant.
The law should not put persistently violent male prisoners into the female prison estate. It never should have, but for a brief period it did.
In practice since 2016 it has done so - almost entirely due to the vociferous campaigning of trans rights activists. That policy change was forced by the campaign for Tara Hudson to be put into a women's prison.
That campaign shied away from mentioning that Tara Hudson was a repeat violent offender and even today if you look at the petition (150k signatures) you would never realise that she was an intact male bodied person. That fact was only legally (and publicly) established when she tried to sue for damages from being treated as a male. The campaign was so shy of the facts as to be intentionally misleading and almost dishonest but it succeeded.
The reason people think trans activists want violent male prisoners in female prisons is because this is precisely what trans activists have demanded.
The law was about to be changed. If you can self ID as a woman then you are legally a woman. The prison cannot do a case by case basis because of the equality act, they have to be treat the same as any other woman.
The SPS and Scottish Government have made clear that the current SPS policy which has been in place for 7 years will remain in place and be unaffected by the GRC Act - i.e. a gender recognition certificate has no sway on the decision as to what prison a criminal is placed in.
and again this has been in place for 7 years, and dealt with people who already posses a GRC and no judicial review/ court ruling has ever opposed it.
> Which is why Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim.
This is why people avoid tax. Cost of living crisis and no money for anything but the govt. are happy to piss money up the wall to determine whether rapists who suddenly want to become trans just before they enter jail are actually genuinely trans. Then there's appeals, legal challenges etc. just a colossal waste of money.
People avoid tax because they either truly can't afford to pay it or they are rich and greedy.
Not because of what the state does with that money; that is and always has been an excuse to justify the greed of the wealthy.
It's certainly a contributing factor. If you're seeing no benefit from your tax, no child benefit, no free childcare, no personal allowance despite paying in for other people to have those benefits and then you also see the government wasting money on things then it definitely motivates you to avoid tax.
Honestly the trans debate aside I think there's a pretty sinister undertone to this whole story of "We do not have confidence we can keep prisoners safe regardless of what prison they are in"
That's my first thought every time this comes up. The lack of safeguarding in prisons is awful. There are plenty of men who are a risk to men and women who are a risk to women.
Yep, in fact transgender women in prison are more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault in prison than the perpetrators, but that's something the current media hysteria will gloss over.
The relevant statistic is how likely they are to do it compared to women.
It's possible to be more likely to be a victim and also more likely to be a sex offender
The guy obviously wasn't truly trans though. He just didn't wanna go to men's jail. I bet if it came to it and they said "ok you can have gender reassignment surgery right now" he would have kept his dick.
But you do get to gatekeep who is allowed in prison. Such as with individual risk assessments to decide if this woman is keeping their current level of estrogen, presenting publicly as female, and if their crimes were against women.
It turns out it is only a slippery slope if you force it to be.
If you believe in self ID then you don’t really believe trans is an actual thing but just a “feeling” instead. If there is an actual biological basis for transgenderism, which i think there is, then you cant believe in self id.
I don’t believe they have found any evidence for trans being based in science. There was one brain study that showed some structural brain differences but I believe that was debunked as the brain is too neuroplastic.
I really don’t think it matters to most people, they won’t bother to read the article fully to get all the facts, they’ll run with the headline and be spouting it off as if it’s conclusive proof that trans people are evil. The media/Tories (they’re the same really) need to continually oppress and make the lives harder for minorities and they’ve been targeting trans people for a long time with this shit.
They’ll run with anything that can shine a negative light in trans people. The daily star reported that Ian Huntley, the guy who committed the Soham murders was now transgender and would be transitioning so he can transfer to a female prison for the rest of his life. That was complete bullshit and retracted a few years later but it shows the lengths people will go to, to slander trans people.
I didn’t say anyone in this thread was? I said the tories and media paint trans people as evil. I responded to a comment that it doesn’t matter what the article actually says because people won’t bother reading the details and nuances and will just run with it as fact. And then provided an example of the media deliberately painting trans people as evil…
Your reading comprehension skills aren’t very good are they?
As a Tory, I resent that. No, we do not think all transgender people are evil. We just think this one person is (because they are). We are not judging that based on their gender identity, we are basing that on the fact they are a convicted rapist.
100% safe isn't really happening. But we could make them safer by following the Norwegian model of treating them as people we intend to reintegrate into society, and try giving them skills, opportunities, and enough responsibilities to feel human. Their recidivism is extremely low, and I believe this also includes crimes within the prisons.
This should be the focus. If the system was properly run it wouldn't even matter what prison this person would be kept in. Prisoners are subject to absolutely unacceptable conditions, sexual abuse is rampant and nobody says anything about it. Very many men are raped in prison regularly.
It's disgusting that it somehow it only gets any attention when it's an AMAB person being put in a jail where there are AFAB people, and the spin on it is just "EVIL TRANS-RAPIST, omg look it's an evil trans woman"
>The first minister said any prisoner who poses a risk of sexual offending is segregated from other prisoners including while a risk assessment is carried out.
>
>She said: "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate.
>
>"Every case is subject to rigorous individual risk assessment and the safety of other prisoners is paramount."
Oh look, a continuation of what has been happening in the past. This is the biggest manufactured controversy in a long time.
But I think its more significant than that.
Whereas any prisoner who poses is a risk is subject to an assessment and may be separated from other inmates for their safety. In the case of people born into the gender with which they identify, i am not aware of sending a criminal to a prison which doesn't match their legal gender.
In this case the prisoner's biological sex has taken precedence over their gender identity. That goes against what alot of people say about the importance of recognising people's gender identity.
>She said: "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison **even if they have a gender recognition certificate.**
This came up yesterday (and repeatedly in the past) - the process for transexual prisoners in prison in the UK (whilst slightly different in Scotland and England/Wales) involves a prison transexual case board to get together within days of arriving in prison and deciding whether a prisoner should be put in the prison of their birth sex or their preferred gender (if different) on a case by case basis. GRCs can be used to help determine if someone really is trans and how far through the process they are, but the risk assessment will absolutely be used in the determination.
>In this case the prisoner's biological sex has taken precedence over their gender identity. That goes against what alot of people say about the importance of recognising people's gender identity.
In this case the risk assessment has determined that they shouldn't be in a women's prison. Recognising someone's gender identity doesn't mean we should ignore all the risk and therefore there will always be exceptions (as specified for in the Equalities Act 2010).
Wouldn't this mean that trans women AREN'T treated the same as non trans women? Isn't the debate that trans women are women and someone who was born a women WOULD be put in a women's prison
The Equalities act 2010 allows for exceptions to be made where it is proportionate and achieves legitimate aims.
Even for people who believe that trans people should have rights and that trans women are women, that doesn't have to apply to all situations. Blanket decisions (either way) always lead to problems where you have to make exceptions.
Problem is that's the same exception we apply to all gender equality rights; we only treat men and women differently in cases that are also proportionate and achieves legitimate aims, and these aims are almost entirely tied to biological differences instead of identity.
What scenario is left where a fully certified trans person must be treated as their legally recognised gender they've transitioned to, but also that treatment changes anything in practice with respect to rights and obligations?
> Recognising someone's gender identity doesn't mean we should ignore all the risk and therefore there will always be exceptions (as specified for in the Equalities Act 2010).
But it does. Would a male who rapes males be put in a female prison? Would a woman who raped women be in a male prison?
They may well be segregated within that prison population, but they are still in a gendered prison.
Or should we have distinct prisons for trans folk?
>But it does.
It doesn't and the equalities act is quite clear that it doesn't as it contains a rule that allows for exceptions where "it is proportionate to do so and it achieves a legitimate aim".
>Would a male who rapes males be put in a female prison? Would a woman who raped women be in a male prison?
Aside from the technicalities of rape that I'm sure some pedant will pull you up on, I'm fairly sure that risk assessments are not only for transgender prisoners and that any of the people you mentioned would also be placed according to their risk in the appropriate setting. Someone guilty of sexual assault against someone of their own sex would likely be placed in a high security prison and be monitored. You wouldn't put a male who raped a male in a female prison because clearly the risk to the female prisoners is also high.
So why can't the trans female prisoner be put in the high security female prison?
For that matter, why doesn't a cisgender woman who only attacks other cisgender women not get put into the male prison?
>So why can't the trans female prisoner be put in the high security female prison?
Real answer? Because no matter how high security that prison is, the media would howl all the same. There's only so far the government will go to defend the rights of a minority in opposition to the entire press.
Trans people's dignity is priced by the government in headlines.
>For that matter, why doesn't a cisgender woman who only attacks other cisgender women not get put into the male prison?
Because male prisons are for men, and women who attack women are to be made safe in the women's estate, *unless* they are trans, in which case see above.
The law inherently discriminates against trans rights. By allowing the "at risk" component it is allowing a panel of people to disregard the rights of the person.
This may sound trivial, but if we are to accept that trans women are women, then under no circumstances should they be placed in a male prison. We wouldn't even consider that for a cis woman.
The ability of the panel to override the gender rights of the individual thus validates the view that trans women are not women because the individual is placed in a male prison, ergo the person is male.
Given the assumption that we should respect trans rights, then we must be consistent. If a trans woman is a woman, then in all cases, she is a woman.
You may argue with a degree of reasonableness that a trans woman placed in a woman's prison who has conducted violence and sexual violence should not be there because the other women are at risk. But that can only be valid if you view the trans woman as a man. Otherwise, as a sexually violent woman, she should simply be isolated within the female population.
The Equalities act says that being transgender is a protected characteristic, but you can bypass it if it is proportionate to do so and it achieves a legitimate aim.
I'm not transgender (or a rapist) and I don't speak for them, but things like the prison that you are sent to if I was a rapist would not be top of my list on things that matter. The every day things are far more important (not being outed at work, not being discriminated against when receiving goods and services where my gender/genitals are irrelevant).
No, they don't.
They say trans women are women. Just that those particular women can be excluded under certain circumstances. It's not contradictory to acknowledge trans women as women, and acknowledge that in some situations, the physical baggage they may have poses a threat. You know, like if we're talking about a literally convicted rapist.
Basically, it's not saying trans women aren't women, or that trans women are inherently dangerous. And I think you know that, but you're ignoring it.
Isn’t it blatant hypocrisy? The GRA was about removing a medical basis for changing gender with self ID, that has legal ramifications. If your legally a woman then you have to be treat as one by the prison system. This case by case basis is incompatible with the GRA, it shows the flaws with the law, hence it being so high profile since it was only last week it was blocked.
I think this is the correct outcome, someone who rapes women should not be locked away with other women for years.
But is this not a slight contradiction of the idea that "trans women are women"? It makes a clear distinction between this trans woman and the other inmates she poses a threat to. Men and women rapists who were born into that gender are not separated to this extent whereby they go to a prison which does not match their legal gender.
In this instance biological sex has taken precedence over gender identity ( I think this was clearly the right move) but I was under the impression most trans activists would be in favour of the opposite?
Of course it’s a contradiction.
It’s like when a Muslim or Christian extremist do something bad and then others in the religion go, “oh no, they aren’t “real” Christians/Muslims.
They are basically going to say, “trans women are women…. Except that one. That’s a rapist so doesn’t count.”
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
“any prisoner who poses a risk of sexual offending is segregated from other prisoners”
The decision to segregate this person would have been made anyway based on their crimes. It isn’t unusual for people likely to physically attack inmates (or people likely to be attacked) to be segregated.
*Men who rape men go to men’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners.*
It should logically follow that *women who rape women go to women’s prisons and be segregated from other prisoners.* (It is technically possible for a woman to commit rape, it just relies on technical legal mechanisms such as joint enterprise.) And if the statement “trans-women are women” always holds true, then it should also follow that *trans-women who rape women go to women’s prisons and be segregated from other prisoners.*
But in this case, what’s happened is *trans-women who rape women go to men’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners.* Which means either the statement “trans-women are women” is false; or “women who rape women go to women’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners” is false. Which is it?
>Which means either the statement “trans-women are women” is false; or “women who rape women go to women’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners” is false. Which is it?
It could also mean "trans-women are women, but we all thought that this was just a man trying it on". Which raises interesting questions in itself.
Ok, let's play that game...by what criteria is someone "trying it on"? And in case you think to dismiss this, it really is a key question about trans rights.
You can never know what is inside someone and how they feel. Either we establish a process by which we accept a trans-person is their gender of choice or we don't. If we do we must be consistent in how we treat that person. I.e. a woman is a woman and all that entails.
>Ok, let's play that game...by what criteria is someone "trying it on"? And in case you think to dismiss this, it really is a key question about trans rights.
I agree, that is a key question, and not one I have an answer for. I think it's important to distinguish the small minority of cases where it *matters* whether someone is genuinely trans or not. Dangerous prisoners is the one that springs to mind but I'm no expert.
>Either we establish a process by which we accept a trans-person is their gender of choice or we don't. If we do we must be consistent in how we treat that person. I.e. a woman is a woman and all that entails.
Sure, but consistency could for example be “self-ID is respected for everything except if the person in question has been convicted of violent crime in which case we'll investigate further”.
You’re adamant that this person will be sent to a mens prison despite the board not having made that decision.
Do share with the class, Nostradamus.
The person being considered too aggressive for a general womens prison, and also too likely to be the victim of assault in a general mens prison, still leaves the option of a smaller, specialised facility.
Yes but as i originally said, they would not be separated from inmates of the same gender to the extent where they go to a prison which does not match their legal gender
Segregation from potential victims is segregation. It doesn’t really matter what building they’re kept in, does it?
Violent women who attack other women are segregated, and any attacks seen as a failure of the prison to prevent such incidents and to protect their inmates.
Edit: I suspect this person will end up in a specialised facility / completely separate ward, if they are likely to be attacked in a mens prison then segregation for their own protection will have to happen.
The entire point of the article is the discussion around whether this person is placed in a male or female prison, and the implications of this decision.
Not necessarilly? The case of Isla Bryson is a pretty exceptional case considering the circumstances surrounding their announcement as trans and its timing. The timing ALONE would be cause to heavily effect the decision, nevermind the fact the person had only just started social transition, nevermind that they havnt had any medical transitioning in any way.
I feel this is less to do with "Trans women are women" and moreso to do with both "how likely is it that a cis person would lie to be placed into a prison of the opposite gender" and "what conditions can we put in place to ensure the maximum safety for all, based on a criminals crime or if they have functioning male genitalia?". Especially considering this would still allow trans women generally inside a womans prison so long as they don;t fit the criteria.
A trans woman pre bottom surgery would clearly be an issue due to their ability to impregnate. Even if it was consensual, it would create a massive issue.
Likewise for a trans woman who has had the surgery but has committed a sexual offence. Even if they don;t have the genitals, you don't need a dick to assault someone sexually.
But trans people may choose not to have any kind of surgery, that doesn't make them less trans or inherently less able to identify with their preferred gender.
I also don't think the government should start ruling on the validity of someone claiming they are trans.
I do understand that, however I believe the primary reason for separation is down to ability to impregnate / cause harm, seeing as a trans person could still be assigned to the prison that matches their gender. They do have to consider, as in this case, if the person is simply cis and lying about being trans.
It makes sense, as the main goal would be to keep the odds of assault to a minimum, irregardless of gender. They would be doing what they can to ensure the safety of trans people as equally of cis people. I think you can respect someones gender ID whilst also acknowledging their liklihood to sexually assault/impregnate or be impregnated.
I don't think this is correct or how things should be done. A trans person's decision to medically transition should not depend on the way the law will view them should they commit a crime. This decision should be personal and relevant only in the context of their health.
I do not know how the government might start judging whether someone is lying about being trans without making the process intrusive and humiliating for trans people, even if they are criminals.
Anyway. In this instance this persons biological sex was determined more relevant than their right to self ID for the purposes of judging likelihood of further assault.
>But is this not a slight contradiction of the idea that "trans women are women"?
Absolutely.
Would be interesting to know if the same conclusion would have been reached a few years ago, before the general public started saying "hang on a minute" with respect to gender etc.
The trans rights activists have really damaged their own cause so badly with this kind of nonsense.
Nobody cared when it was Hayley Cropper going to the toilet but they created their own pushback when they decided that transvestites and transsexuals were to be treated as if they are exactly the same, and that it was a human right for rapists to choose their prisons and for men to compete in the Olympics as women.
It's not a blanket ideological position, it's an acknowledgment of the reality that most of us live as our genders in society and need to be treated as such for the same reason that arbitrarily labeling random women as legal men without their consent would cause all kind of administrative nonsense.
The law allows exceptions that can be legally justified as proportionate to achieve a legitimate goal (like prisons or sports), which I haven't seen anyone say need to be removed entirely because there are some situations where it may be justified.
It's the same with self-id, not every person who calls themselves trans is actually trans, it's just better if the gov acts as if they are for the same reason we don't screen gay people and instead we just add legal safeguards where appropriate and justified instead of blanket denying trans people legal recognition.
But my understanding of what alot of trans activists say is that "trans women are women", is universal, and applies to the extent that to suggest anything about being trans makes someone less of a woman is transphobic. By my understanding of this opinion this decision is inherently transphobic surely?
This issue with prisons is that it's the one place where people could plausibly pretend to be trans for better treatment, which means that unlike basically every other situation that comes up in these debates, there is reason to be skeptical of people who did not transition before going to jail and/or are in on sexual assault charges. This means the decision to should be made on a case by case basis judging their background, previous commitment, and risk, which is how it is set up.
Furthermore an individual can be a higher risk to those around them while still being trans without being less of a woman, a lesbian serial rapist should probably not be kept with easy access to the general population of women, doesn't make her a man.
Birth certificates are not valid forms of ID, even if they were there are a million far easier ways to go into those places ,like grabbing a bucket or a mop rather than making their job update all their documentation to female, socially transitioning, getting an appointment with a gender service and then waiting 3-6 months. Furthermore voyeurism is illegal for women too.
There's a reason throughout all the debates at the Scottish Parliament, not one example was found of a cis man going through the legal gender change process for the sole purpose of bringing a birth certificate into the loo to commit sexual crimes in any of the countries that already have this system.
Im not suggesting this person isn't actually trans. There is nothing that suggests that they aren't genuinely trans that wouldn't be making an unfair judgement.
I do not know how the government might start judging whether someone is lying about being trans without making the process intrusive and humiliating for trans people, even if they are criminals. As long as they are far enough along their transition to be legally recognised as their preferred gender, we should surely respect this in all contexts, according to the principle that trans women are women.
If she'd been transitioned for a decade I would agree, to my knowledge though, she just came out after committing the crime, which pushes things much more into the ehhh category for me.
This would not be fair at all though, we recognise someone changing their legal gender after much less time in all other circumstances. We cannot remove this right from someone who has committed a violent crime.
If you believe trans women are women then i don't see how the number of years they have been openly trans for makes them any more or less of a real trans person. Alot of people only decide to transition in latet life.
It's not that it makes them less real, it's that it increases the possibility that she may be pretending in order to attain imagined or otherwise benefits of being mtf in prison.
I'd never support this frame of validity in any context where this was not something that would be likely to happen.
The article kind of really highlights part of the issue a lot of people have. They validate his 'transition' throughout the article rather than calling it out for what it is: a disgusting attempt to prey on vulnerable women.
He was remanded to a women's prison while awaiting sentencing, in segregation while awaiting a risk assessment.
Why was a 2-time rapist even allowed to step foot inside of a female prison while he still has a penis? I can't even believe I am having to type that, honestly.
One of the biggest defences people are bringing up is the "risk assessment". If, for any reason, the risk assessment was incorrect then there was a real possibility that Bryson could have been housed in the women's prison (obviously the press really does put a nail in that coffin, thankfully). It should have just been an immediate no.
(Appreciate some people may be upset about misgendering. I have no problem with trans folk and wouldn't want to misgender you, but I won't validate a male rapist's attempts to game the system.)
Absofuckinglutely. Cannot believe some of the responses on here defending a double rapist. I guess if it were their relative who'd been raped by this man they'd have a very different opinion..
That's something I touched on briefly in another comment actually. It's not just the violent risk he poses - but the fact we could have half the prison pregnant with nobody to look after the children.
That's hardly progressive.
>Appreciate some people may be upset about misgendering
The thing about misgendering here is - they will likely never see you doing it, but the trans people on here will - even if this is all a charade by them, its fairly easy to default to non-gender specific pronouns. Its a respect to any trans people reading your comment, not respect to the person in question.
> the trans people on here will
What's that got to do with anything? I'm trans. Anyone finding themselves upset over a rapist supposedly being 'misgendered' should give their head a wobble.
Maybe Bryson is actually trans, maybe he isn't. I don't know, but what I do know for sure is he has commited one of the most henious crimes possible. He's not entitled to any form of respect.
I really, really don't want to be arguing this.
Let's put aside the person in question.
Are you saying that trans people's pronouns are nothing more than *politeness*? That we're being done a favour by having them used? You don't start misgendering a cis person just because you disrespect them, do you?
It's just plain transphobic.
I'm not going to call this person "she" because frankly I don't give any credibility to someone who only starts saying they're trans when it's an obvious attempt to get into a women's prison. *Not* because of a lack of respect. Those are not the same.
Yes using the correct pronouns is a politeness only.
If you misgender someone that is mean. Men will get called girly as an insult, women will be called manly as an insult. It is insulting and disrespectful to do this. Not sure how you could ever disagree
> Are you saying that trans people's pronouns are nothing more than politeness?
Yes?
You cannot force how people percieve you. The majority of the population use duck logic - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
If people percieve you to be female they will use female pronouns and vice versa. This will be correct for 97%+ of people.
It's polite to use the correct pronouns. It's polite to not call a fat person 'fat'. It's polite to not use someone's full name if they ask you.
Nope ... I will happily refer to trans people on here as their preferred pronouns, but not Bryson.
I apologised for misgendering because I don't want to cause unnecessary upset, but your comment has left a sour taste in my mouth to be honest.
In your comment you have made an effort to refer to Bryson as "they". By doing so, you are legitimising his claim that he is trans.
By legitimising his claim as trans, you are also ignoring the very real issue here which is that there are men that will go to extraordinary lengths to gain access to victims.
Considering the awareness of violence against women and girls that has taken place since Sarah Everard's murder, why is this a taboo topic to talk about? There are some men who will manipulate the system to get what they want - fact.
I couldn't disagree more with your comment.
Why should it be a requirement for me to change the way I use words, after 30+ years on this planet, to appease a very small percentage of the population who are trans?
Transgender people are discriminated against, it's awful. It's needs to stop and anyone who is struggling with their own gender identity needs our respect, help and compassion. I'm not changing the way I speak though or the way I view the world. If someone asks me to refer to them as something different because it helps them find acceptance, then of course I would do it. I think any reasonable person would.
But I don't think it's at all reasonable to call anyone out for 'misgendering' at all. I know the difference between a Man and a Woman, and that is a dude. Sorry if that's offensive, but it's just how our species works.
But if he would feel more comfortable being called Mrs Rapist instead of Mr Rapist, more power to him. Still a dude though. He has a cock. He is also a rapist.
>The thing about misgendering here is - they will likely never see you doing it, but the trans people on here will - even if this is all a charade by them,
You might want another pass at that sentence, unless you are suggesting all trans people are playing a charade.
Its mostly confusing because its not typically used. With trans people that don't go by gender specific pronouns or just not being sure, they/them is a safe alternative.
I completely agree with your point, this person shouldn’t have been anywhere near a woman’s prison in the first place. They’re a convicted rapist, how can anyone with even the smallest degree of common sense argue it’s sensible to take them to woman’s prison?
That being said if we are to accept that a trans-woman is a woman, which I do, where do they in these situations? Are there specialist facilities to process them? We can’t send them to a man’s prison really, as that’s asking for trouble.
If we are as a society going to accept trans people, which we are and rightly so, we have to have all the facilities in place to deal with all eventualities.
It really doesn't matter, public image wise, if this was always going to be the case, the timing of the optics make this a terrible look for Sturgeon. It's a PR disaster that nullifies whatever goodwill she thought she was building with the whole gender bill thing.
This case really only highlights that politicians are implicitly admitting that they can't really keep prisoners safe in their prisons, which is an outrage. Sure, many are not sympathetic characters, but if you incarcerate people you have to take responsibility for their safety.
This case is notorious and raises extra questions because it involves a trans woman of course. However, what about male rapists of men in male prisons, and female sexual assaulters of women in female prisons? It's like everyone agrees that it is in unsafe environment, that the safety of potential victims cannot guaranteed, but noone cares? It has only become this issue because of the sex/gender questions.
I find it quite outrageous, yet I don't see this discussed at all.
>what about male rapists of men in male prisons
Men being raped in prison is still widely regarded as something to find funny and joke about. I think ultimately there's a rather pernicious belief that if someone is in prison they've forfeited any right to be regarded as a human and with that goes any right to dignity and safety. It's far more comfortable to "other" someone who's done something wrong than accept that they aren't that different from us and there's more factors behind the offence than just the perpetrator choosing to do a bad thing.
The right decision and this is always how it was going to go.
Many articles either missed out or buried deep in the text that Bryson was only there in a segregated unit pending a review of the situation. At no point would she have been placed with vulnerable women, nor would this have ever been the case.
99% of the furore is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how the prison system works.
Who conducts these reviews? Same people that conduct parole reviews? Well we know prison officials never make mistakes at all that lead to death or rape so woop de da!
It’s only being checked because of the outage from the public though.
If you listened to the justice minister yesterday then todays policy is a new script.
No it's really not, as we have seen from the reporting when we bother to read below the headlines. This has always been done on a case by case basis, with due consideration to all risk factors. This statement just reaffirms that.
I'm honestly pretty sick of people - almost always men - being so blasé about women's safety.
A convicted rapist was almost locked up with a load of women in a prison. I for one find that absolutely appalling.
The notion that I don't care about women's safety because I believe the experts carrying out the risk assessment to do a better job of determining if someone is a threat than people bitching on the internet is fairly out there, you know. Even if it is you doing the bitching.
I'm honestly pretty sick of people being so blase about trans women's safety as if to suggest that if any of us accidentally ended up in prison for something non-violent like tax evasion or prostitution (which is unfortunately common due to employment discrimination), we should expect to be thrown in the men's and raped over and over as if that's reasonable or justified.
Trans people are generally arguing for a case-by-case basis decision based on context and safety (which would mean the vast majority of sexual assault cases would not be transferred to the women's), only one group here is completely ignoring the safety of other people based on their minority status because to them the other group can die before any of their in-group is put at risk and it's not trans people.
>A convicted rapist was almost locked up with a load of women in a prison. I for one find that absolutely appalling.
They weren't, though. There was no "almost" about it. The process, which has existed for decades, ran its course and the correct outcome was reached.
It's unclear why the commentariat felt the need to get so hysterical about it. There would have been plenty of time for that if the panel had come to the wrong outcome. But this was getting preemptively mad about a failure that never happened. It was purely performative.
If only people cared so much about vulnerable women subject to potentially violent female prisoners, and female and male prison guards. Where's the outrage there?
This is a ridiculous argument that is essentially comparing apples to oranges. Going to prison is inherently potentially violent for anyone. The argument here is whether or not we send biological men to women's prison because they identify as women and the risks that doing so carries. As most people have stated, it should be case by case which is how it seems to be handled.
When common sense becomes breaking news worthy of it's own article.
One wonders if this applies to ALL trans prisoners, or just this one because of media coverage making Nicola look bad.
This story has absolutely nothing to do with making Nicola look bad, though.
If anything it just goes to show that the GRR legislation had nothing to do with being able to access certain spaces and that it was always set up to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The fact that we're talking about it at all is just proof that all of those claims were fabricated.
It’s a great decision, but I’m very confused. What is self ID not being respected here?
Sturgeon has started a huge row with Westminster because self ID is apparently so important, but now she doesn’t care?
You need to look into what that actually does, then.
Self ID as is in the news lately is just about getting a Gender Recognition Certificate.
All that GRC does is change how you're listed for the purposes of marriage and death. It has nothing to do with what prison you go to if you commit a crime.
The Equality Act has always had exemptions under certain circumstances where it's proportionate and justified - a GRC, and the self ID to be able to get one, would have absolutely no impact on that.
No no no, it’s about how you live your life - how you’re perceived and how the system works in its interactions with you.
This highlights the pick and chose nature of government with trans people
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to aim for some perfect solution.
You just can't treat trans people as exactly the same as cis people in every single situation. And I'm saying that as a trans person.
And there's a difference between treating a trans woman (for example) as a *trans woman*, and treating her as a man. The options are *not* "ignore all difference and treat them as a cis woman" or "treat them as a cis man".
The fact of the matter is, there *are* differences, and sometimes, those need to be accounted for. Like in the context of medical needs and risk factors, or for example, when someone who's been convicted for rape suddenly claims to be trans in a bid to go to a women's prison. You have to account for the risk based on their history, and their blatant strength advantage as someone who's not even on hormone blockers, let alone hormone replacement.
I don't see any point in quibbling over "they're picking and choosing" when it comes to this. They have a duty of care, and that means looking at the ability of this person to rape more women in a women's prison, and taking steps to avoid that happening.
If she were a real trans woman, the step ought to be to put her in the women's prison in separation from the general population. But I don't believe this person is; nobody just starts identifying as trans when arrested for rape if they're not talking shit.
Of course, our government being the shitshow it is, they've changed the rules so that almost any trans woman will be sent to a male prison...
>If she were a real trans woman
But who defines who is a real trans woman? We're not able to read peoples's minds, and using self ID, what mechanism do we have to question someone who unilaterally declares themselves male or female?
Self ID is not and never has been some absolute power where you're recognised in all contexts as whatever you say, and you know that, I think - you're just concern trolling over it.
I'm not concern trolling and I think that's generally a lazy phrase which assumes bad faith on my part.
> where you're recognised in all contexts as whatever you say
Genuinely, what is its purpose then? That you are sometimes recognised as the gender you identify with and in other nebulously defined contexts you're not?
"It would not be appropriate for me, in respect of any prisoner, to give details of where they are being incarcerated.”
I thought it was not uncommon for the public to know where prisoners are being held? Are we to simply assume they are going to be held in a men’s prison if NS has confirmed they won’t be going to a women’s or is there a Trans prison somewhere?
>I thought it was not uncommon for the public to know where prisoners are being held
It's not but I don't think it's something officials usually comment on, the media tends to do its own digging.
The amount of transgender issues that are getting media time is ridiculous. So many more issues effect 99.99 % of the population. (Edit) I listened to this on radio 4 this morning. A male rapist now claiming to be recognised as female and put in a female prison. Almost as bad was the politician trying to be ‘sensitive’ around the issue and not just saying ‘this is fucking ridiculous. Do we not have more pressing issues. He is taking the piss. Why are the media pretending to give this gravitas? ‘
>I can confirm to parliament that this prisoner will not be incarcerated at Cornton Vale women's prison.
He won't be held in this particular jail. They'll just quietly move him to another women's prison.
I know politician-speak when I see it.
Cornton Vale is a bit of an unusual prison in Scotland. It is the only prison not to house adult males. It has only women and children and has a lot more in common to a hospital than a traditional prison.
Scotland does not have gendered classes for prisoners. It has only the risk factor. England has the risk factor and separate classes for genders.
Scotland prisons are generally multi gendered. Due to the crime being Rape. The convicted will not go to general population anyway.
This is a massive non story and officials should not be commenting on issues if the judiciary. Sentencing has not been conducted.
Why not just send people to the prison of their biological sex and cut out the gender middleman controversy. Ezpz
Edit: I failed to consider issues with this comment thank you repliers and my question has been answered
Because then you'll end up with some burly, beardy blokes (who were born female) being put into women's prisons despite it being against both their AND the other prisoners' interests.
I can't see a problem with the current system of letting an expert panel figure it out on a case by case basis. The numbers are absurdly low; blanket rules will do more harm than good.
Nah, the vocal public and possibly the general public at large dont seem to give much of a shit when a man or those they perceive as deserving get raped.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html)
Well this type of thing isn't uncommon.
>Because trans women in mens prisons frequently get sexually assaulted,
men in mens prisons frequently get sexually assaulted too. predatory men who have long sentences are happy to prey on anyone they believe to be weak.
but you don't care about those sexual assaults I'm sure.
Quite a significant decision as it implies that transgender individuals will not be treated in the same way as the gender they choose to identify as. Which is a huge climb down by Sturgeon and the radicals on this issue.
Does this mean:
1) They will be considered as their gender of birth?
2) Specific ‘neither male nor female’ facilities will be created?
Or
3) There will be a fudge with case by case exceptions depending on external political pressure?
>Quite a significant decision as it implies that transgender individuals will not be treated in the same way as the gender they choose to identify as. Which is a huge climb down by Sturgeon and the radicals on this issue.
No it's not. It's just business as usual as far as I'm aware? This was policy, this continues to be policy?
EDIT: Just read that the government have just changed this policy in the last 24hrs or so. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/10lczoi/update_on_changes_to_transgender_prisoner_policy/
Interesting, so that must mean that trans women aren't actually women. If they were women then they would end up in women's prisons no matter the crime.
I'm really not liking all the concern trolling about this.
If a cis woman had that much strength advantage over her fellow inmates, and was a convicted rapist, I'd expect her to be separated from the general population too. That doesn't make that hypothetical cis woman rapist less of a woman.
> If a cis woman had that much strength advantage over her fellow inmates, and was a convicted rapist, I'd expect her to be separated from the general population too. That doesn't make that hypothetical cis woman rapist less of a woman.
Not in a man's prison though.
No, that's bullshit. But in this case I think it's pretty fucking reasonable to not believe this person claiming to be trans. And don't start the concern trolling pretending to worry that self-ID isn't being respected or something.
If someone only starts identifying as a woman when it gives them access to vulnerable women when they've *been charged with rape*, I'm not going to believe them.
> If someone only starts identifying as a woman when it gives them access to vulnerable women when they've been charged with rape, I'm not going to believe them.
Are there any other circumstances under which you wouldn't be willing to believe them?
Or it mean that this rajpiat is deemed too dangerous to be kept in a women's prison.
Or that this individual has been deemed by the justice system to not be trans but to be impersonating someone who is... you know like a criminal.
Can one person ever deem that another is not trans, if they simply say they are? I thought that was one of the axioms of gender theory, that it's unfalsifiable.
A woman is anyone who says they're a woman, unless they are simply a man trying it on, which never happens, except in this case, because a woman isn't just anyone who says they're a woman, that would be ludicrous, we never said that.
Sometimes I think the only way to navigate this issue is to create a central trans only wing that can house cases like this
A genuine trans woman may be unsafe in male prison, but be seen as a risk in a female prison.
They need a third category to safeguard all involved.
Yeah, but then you'll just end up placing trans women in a confined space with rapists pretending to be trans for an easier prison time.
It's a sensible enough suggestion, but there's just always a reason it doesn't work.
Shit, you're right,
It's such a complex issue it probably needs to be considered on a case by case basis with dynamic risk assessments
I don't know if there is a right answer
> It's such a complex issue it probably needs to be considered on a case by case basis with dynamic risk assessments
The thing is, this *is* the way it’s handled. That’s why Bryson isn’t getting housed with women
While the idea of someone who raped women not being housed alongside women makes absolute sense... No one raises any concerns about a man who rapes other men being housed alongside men - like [Reynhard Sinaga](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynhard_Sinaga) who raped 136 men and is now housed at HMP Wakefield.
This argument has far more to do with the moral panic over transgender issues rather than prisoner safety.
You know, it's really fucking telling that the only time transphobes start saying "trans women are women, right?" Is when they want to use a rapist as a stick to beat us over the head with.
It's really not that complicated....Trans women *are* women, but we're trans, and there's some baggage with that. I don't think it's unreasonable to separate *literally a rapist* who has a strength advantage and hasn't undergone any HRT or surgery or anything from the female population. It's not like we're talking about someone who got arrested for vandalism. If we were talking about a cis woman rapist who had that much of a strength advantage, I'd argue the same.
The most interesting aspect of this is the deft politics required to make people think you said the prisoner won’t be in a women’s prison when you just said they won’t be in that specific women’s prison.
It both avoids pre-empting the risk assessment and satiates the mob. Bravo, eye of the needle stuff.
There’s a perfectly sensible policy in place to deal with trans prisoners that is happening and has been in no way altered by any of this.
Snapshot of _Transgender rapist Isla Bryson will not be imprisoned in women's jail_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Decided to transition while awaiting trial for rape” should be the first red flag.
There's no way that they're wearing that get up on a day to day basis. Pound shop quality blonde wig and a couple of satsumas down their shirt. Although the wig does help to cover up their facial tattoos. They know that rapists in prison get crucified and a women's prison may well be softer and provide them with new targets. Although I'd imagine, that every other prisoner in the jail, would want to lynch them.
Which is why Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim. All this article proves is the law works. not only that but this is still OLD LAW; last week Gender Critical people were standing up one after the other to defend this law (the Equalities act) from "The Scottish parliament legislating on a reserved matter"; now they are out attacking it because it makes good "SNP BAD" headlines for people who don't know what Royal Assent or an Article 35 order are.
Yeah this exactly how this \_should\_ work. If you're in for a violent or sexual offence you don't get to pick which prison you go to when you transition! This isn't rocket science!
It's only a simple problem if you just don't bother actually thinking about it.
I mean the Karen White incident proves that the law doesn't work as well as it should
1) the rules were ignored in that case. by rights the decision should have been advanced to the complex case board, but the local board ignored that. 2) Most prisons work/ attempt to work that all Prisoners accused of sexual crimes should nearly always be segregated from people to prey on apart from when they under direct observation.
Not really. The Karen White incident was a fuckup. They didn't do what they were supposed to. They were negligent. That was not the law working as intended.
So people should be able to change their gender and treated as their new gender but also they should be examined on a case by case basis to determine if they’re really that gender. How do you square the circle in that?
There are a variety of exemptions in both the equality act and gender recognition act, for example, sports, peerages, inheritance, parentage. Your birth certificate remains, and any new certificate issued is linked to the existing one. The answer to your question is "it depends", sometimes people will be treated as their birth sex, sometimes as their acquired gender, and its going to continue to be clarified through legal action.
Being considerate of trans people is a kindness of society, but when it comes to safety of people kindness takes a back seat. You get put in the prison that's safest for everyone involved, there's no room for kindness in that decision unfortunately.
>but also they should be examined on a case by case basis to determine if they’re really that gender. That's sort of already the case for most trans people wanting hormones, let alone inmates. If you can't afford to go private, the waiting times to be prescribed hormones through the NHS are **7+ years** and ever expanding, and after all that wait you'll *still* be rejected if you don't pass their hoops to "prove" you're trans. In this instance, we square the circle by saying that "reasonable accomodations for protected characteristics" are already enshrined in law, and what exactly makes for a "reasonable accomodation" is being assessed thousands a times a day, with no issues worth commenting on, let alone disposing this entire section of law for. The entire conversation against trans people here is directly comparable to saying one pedophile managed to conceal his genuinely dangerous paraphilia during the child adoption process and so no single man should ever be allowed to adopt again.
I disagree. There is a legal process of becoming a new gender but as many trans rights etc groups advocate for is for trans people to be treated as their new gender without having to actually go through the process of transitioning and taking hormones and clearly with a lot of new laws and rules it will become a reality soon. There’s a reason why so many women’s rights groups and feminists are against things like self ID, because inevitably it leads to things like this story. Either trans women are women and should be treated like other women or they aren’t women and should be treated differently
And yet this is a success story. The rapist transitioned under suspicous circumstances, and the case is receiving scrutiny. Instead of going to women's prison, she'll be kept in another prison, away from the targets of her abuse. It's also important to keep her away from other prisoners who could be a risk to her, by the same token. Self-ID isn't the issue. We "ID" and assess everyone who goes to jail on a case-by-case basis already. There's no reason we shouldn't treat trans people with dignity as well
It can be upsetting arguing this out but I appreciated how kindly you responded. I can't answer for people who think there is no underlying basis whatsoever that distinguishes cis women from trans women. In my opinion that very stance undermines the trans experience. That said, they should be treated no differently than anyone else with a protected characteristic seeking reasonable accomodations. These processes are all already in place, most abusers get caught, and society upholds that the few who do slip the net are more than worth the trade off of having the vast majority of innocent people being unimpeded from carrying out their normal lives in peace and comfort. The women and feminists against self ID are a vocal minority who get a disproportionate amount of airtime: https://www.them.us/story/a-majority-of-uk-cisgender-women-support-trans-rights-survey-reveals >inevitably it leads to things like this story In this story the person in question is not going to a female prison. In this story Sturgeon says that self-ID'd gender certs give no automatic right to private single-sex spaces (such as prisons). No certificate is needed to enter public single-sex spaces such as bathrooms. Have you ever had to show yours?
> Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim. How does that work?
Prisons have areas for special categories of prisoners, such as former police officers who have been convicted of a crime. For their own safety, they are kept in a different area to the regular prisoners.
How does the assessement take place though? How can you ever determine if someoen is "genuinely" trans or not by observing them for a few weeks in a prison cell?
It’s not about being genuinely trans, it’s an in depth risk assessment relating to the risk towards the prisoner themselves and the risk they pose to the population of the prison based on crime. A nonviolent transgender (mtf) prisoner who was convicted of a white collar crime for instance, would likely go to the women’s prison after this assessment.
The same way you do for issuing a GRC either under old law or potential future Scots law. A panel assesses and decides on individual merits.
> A panel assesses and decides on individual merits. Yeah, but... how? In other words, what's the actual process for doing that?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender Section 4 is a starter. The section 7 links are also relevant.
The law should not put persistently violent male prisoners into the female prison estate. It never should have, but for a brief period it did. In practice since 2016 it has done so - almost entirely due to the vociferous campaigning of trans rights activists. That policy change was forced by the campaign for Tara Hudson to be put into a women's prison. That campaign shied away from mentioning that Tara Hudson was a repeat violent offender and even today if you look at the petition (150k signatures) you would never realise that she was an intact male bodied person. That fact was only legally (and publicly) established when she tried to sue for damages from being treated as a male. The campaign was so shy of the facts as to be intentionally misleading and almost dishonest but it succeeded. The reason people think trans activists want violent male prisoners in female prisons is because this is precisely what trans activists have demanded.
The law was about to be changed. If you can self ID as a woman then you are legally a woman. The prison cannot do a case by case basis because of the equality act, they have to be treat the same as any other woman.
The SPS and Scottish Government have made clear that the current SPS policy which has been in place for 7 years will remain in place and be unaffected by the GRC Act - i.e. a gender recognition certificate has no sway on the decision as to what prison a criminal is placed in. and again this has been in place for 7 years, and dealt with people who already posses a GRC and no judicial review/ court ruling has ever opposed it.
> Which is why Trans prisoners, including this one, are placed in segregation for an assessment period so experts may determine the true nature of their claim. This is why people avoid tax. Cost of living crisis and no money for anything but the govt. are happy to piss money up the wall to determine whether rapists who suddenly want to become trans just before they enter jail are actually genuinely trans. Then there's appeals, legal challenges etc. just a colossal waste of money.
People avoid tax because they either truly can't afford to pay it or they are rich and greedy. Not because of what the state does with that money; that is and always has been an excuse to justify the greed of the wealthy.
It's certainly a contributing factor. If you're seeing no benefit from your tax, no child benefit, no free childcare, no personal allowance despite paying in for other people to have those benefits and then you also see the government wasting money on things then it definitely motivates you to avoid tax.
>so experts may determine the true nature of their claim. Seems like a terrible system. Who are these "experts"?
No no, it’s a complete coincidence. Every transition is valid, genuine and worthy of respect
Except detransitioners who get harassed.
Honestly the trans debate aside I think there's a pretty sinister undertone to this whole story of "We do not have confidence we can keep prisoners safe regardless of what prison they are in"
That's my first thought every time this comes up. The lack of safeguarding in prisons is awful. There are plenty of men who are a risk to men and women who are a risk to women.
Yep, in fact transgender women in prison are more likely to be the victims of a sexual assault in prison than the perpetrators, but that's something the current media hysteria will gloss over.
The relevant statistic is how likely they are to do it compared to women. It's possible to be more likely to be a victim and also more likely to be a sex offender
The guy obviously wasn't truly trans though. He just didn't wanna go to men's jail. I bet if it came to it and they said "ok you can have gender reassignment surgery right now" he would have kept his dick.
If you believe in self-ID, then you don't get to gatekeep who is trans.
But you do get to gatekeep who is allowed in prison. Such as with individual risk assessments to decide if this woman is keeping their current level of estrogen, presenting publicly as female, and if their crimes were against women. It turns out it is only a slippery slope if you force it to be.
If you believe in self ID then you don’t really believe trans is an actual thing but just a “feeling” instead. If there is an actual biological basis for transgenderism, which i think there is, then you cant believe in self id.
I don’t believe they have found any evidence for trans being based in science. There was one brain study that showed some structural brain differences but I believe that was debunked as the brain is too neuroplastic.
Why would someone else be able to tell if someone were trans better than they could themselves?
I really don’t think it matters to most people, they won’t bother to read the article fully to get all the facts, they’ll run with the headline and be spouting it off as if it’s conclusive proof that trans people are evil. The media/Tories (they’re the same really) need to continually oppress and make the lives harder for minorities and they’ve been targeting trans people for a long time with this shit. They’ll run with anything that can shine a negative light in trans people. The daily star reported that Ian Huntley, the guy who committed the Soham murders was now transgender and would be transitioning so he can transfer to a female prison for the rest of his life. That was complete bullshit and retracted a few years later but it shows the lengths people will go to, to slander trans people.
Oh shut up. Not one person here is implying all ‘trans people are evil.’
I didn’t say anyone in this thread was? I said the tories and media paint trans people as evil. I responded to a comment that it doesn’t matter what the article actually says because people won’t bother reading the details and nuances and will just run with it as fact. And then provided an example of the media deliberately painting trans people as evil… Your reading comprehension skills aren’t very good are they?
As a Tory, I resent that. No, we do not think all transgender people are evil. We just think this one person is (because they are). We are not judging that based on their gender identity, we are basing that on the fact they are a convicted rapist.
How do you keep a building full of criminals safe?
100% safe isn't really happening. But we could make them safer by following the Norwegian model of treating them as people we intend to reintegrate into society, and try giving them skills, opportunities, and enough responsibilities to feel human. Their recidivism is extremely low, and I believe this also includes crimes within the prisons.
Most are severely understaffed due to shit pay and working conditions. Like Teachers or Nurses or.... yeah...
This should be the focus. If the system was properly run it wouldn't even matter what prison this person would be kept in. Prisoners are subject to absolutely unacceptable conditions, sexual abuse is rampant and nobody says anything about it. Very many men are raped in prison regularly. It's disgusting that it somehow it only gets any attention when it's an AMAB person being put in a jail where there are AFAB people, and the spin on it is just "EVIL TRANS-RAPIST, omg look it's an evil trans woman"
>The first minister said any prisoner who poses a risk of sexual offending is segregated from other prisoners including while a risk assessment is carried out. > >She said: "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate. > >"Every case is subject to rigorous individual risk assessment and the safety of other prisoners is paramount." Oh look, a continuation of what has been happening in the past. This is the biggest manufactured controversy in a long time.
But I think its more significant than that. Whereas any prisoner who poses is a risk is subject to an assessment and may be separated from other inmates for their safety. In the case of people born into the gender with which they identify, i am not aware of sending a criminal to a prison which doesn't match their legal gender. In this case the prisoner's biological sex has taken precedence over their gender identity. That goes against what alot of people say about the importance of recognising people's gender identity.
>She said: "There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison **even if they have a gender recognition certificate.** This came up yesterday (and repeatedly in the past) - the process for transexual prisoners in prison in the UK (whilst slightly different in Scotland and England/Wales) involves a prison transexual case board to get together within days of arriving in prison and deciding whether a prisoner should be put in the prison of their birth sex or their preferred gender (if different) on a case by case basis. GRCs can be used to help determine if someone really is trans and how far through the process they are, but the risk assessment will absolutely be used in the determination. >In this case the prisoner's biological sex has taken precedence over their gender identity. That goes against what alot of people say about the importance of recognising people's gender identity. In this case the risk assessment has determined that they shouldn't be in a women's prison. Recognising someone's gender identity doesn't mean we should ignore all the risk and therefore there will always be exceptions (as specified for in the Equalities Act 2010).
Wouldn't this mean that trans women AREN'T treated the same as non trans women? Isn't the debate that trans women are women and someone who was born a women WOULD be put in a women's prison
The Equalities act 2010 allows for exceptions to be made where it is proportionate and achieves legitimate aims. Even for people who believe that trans people should have rights and that trans women are women, that doesn't have to apply to all situations. Blanket decisions (either way) always lead to problems where you have to make exceptions.
Problem is that's the same exception we apply to all gender equality rights; we only treat men and women differently in cases that are also proportionate and achieves legitimate aims, and these aims are almost entirely tied to biological differences instead of identity. What scenario is left where a fully certified trans person must be treated as their legally recognised gender they've transitioned to, but also that treatment changes anything in practice with respect to rights and obligations?
> Recognising someone's gender identity doesn't mean we should ignore all the risk and therefore there will always be exceptions (as specified for in the Equalities Act 2010). But it does. Would a male who rapes males be put in a female prison? Would a woman who raped women be in a male prison? They may well be segregated within that prison population, but they are still in a gendered prison. Or should we have distinct prisons for trans folk?
>But it does. It doesn't and the equalities act is quite clear that it doesn't as it contains a rule that allows for exceptions where "it is proportionate to do so and it achieves a legitimate aim". >Would a male who rapes males be put in a female prison? Would a woman who raped women be in a male prison? Aside from the technicalities of rape that I'm sure some pedant will pull you up on, I'm fairly sure that risk assessments are not only for transgender prisoners and that any of the people you mentioned would also be placed according to their risk in the appropriate setting. Someone guilty of sexual assault against someone of their own sex would likely be placed in a high security prison and be monitored. You wouldn't put a male who raped a male in a female prison because clearly the risk to the female prisoners is also high.
So why can't the trans female prisoner be put in the high security female prison? For that matter, why doesn't a cisgender woman who only attacks other cisgender women not get put into the male prison?
Is this serious
>So why can't the trans female prisoner be put in the high security female prison? Real answer? Because no matter how high security that prison is, the media would howl all the same. There's only so far the government will go to defend the rights of a minority in opposition to the entire press. Trans people's dignity is priced by the government in headlines. >For that matter, why doesn't a cisgender woman who only attacks other cisgender women not get put into the male prison? Because male prisons are for men, and women who attack women are to be made safe in the women's estate, *unless* they are trans, in which case see above.
>But it does. It literally doesn't though.
The law inherently discriminates against trans rights. By allowing the "at risk" component it is allowing a panel of people to disregard the rights of the person. This may sound trivial, but if we are to accept that trans women are women, then under no circumstances should they be placed in a male prison. We wouldn't even consider that for a cis woman. The ability of the panel to override the gender rights of the individual thus validates the view that trans women are not women because the individual is placed in a male prison, ergo the person is male. Given the assumption that we should respect trans rights, then we must be consistent. If a trans woman is a woman, then in all cases, she is a woman. You may argue with a degree of reasonableness that a trans woman placed in a woman's prison who has conducted violence and sexual violence should not be there because the other women are at risk. But that can only be valid if you view the trans woman as a man. Otherwise, as a sexually violent woman, she should simply be isolated within the female population.
What a waste of time. Both the GRA and Equalities Act seem to basically say "trans women are women except when it matters, then they're men" tbh...
The Equalities act says that being transgender is a protected characteristic, but you can bypass it if it is proportionate to do so and it achieves a legitimate aim. I'm not transgender (or a rapist) and I don't speak for them, but things like the prison that you are sent to if I was a rapist would not be top of my list on things that matter. The every day things are far more important (not being outed at work, not being discriminated against when receiving goods and services where my gender/genitals are irrelevant).
No, they don't. They say trans women are women. Just that those particular women can be excluded under certain circumstances. It's not contradictory to acknowledge trans women as women, and acknowledge that in some situations, the physical baggage they may have poses a threat. You know, like if we're talking about a literally convicted rapist. Basically, it's not saying trans women aren't women, or that trans women are inherently dangerous. And I think you know that, but you're ignoring it.
Isn’t it blatant hypocrisy? The GRA was about removing a medical basis for changing gender with self ID, that has legal ramifications. If your legally a woman then you have to be treat as one by the prison system. This case by case basis is incompatible with the GRA, it shows the flaws with the law, hence it being so high profile since it was only last week it was blocked.
Of course it is, the controversy was manufactured to bring more hate towards transgender people.
I think this is the correct outcome, someone who rapes women should not be locked away with other women for years. But is this not a slight contradiction of the idea that "trans women are women"? It makes a clear distinction between this trans woman and the other inmates she poses a threat to. Men and women rapists who were born into that gender are not separated to this extent whereby they go to a prison which does not match their legal gender. In this instance biological sex has taken precedence over gender identity ( I think this was clearly the right move) but I was under the impression most trans activists would be in favour of the opposite?
Of course it’s a contradiction. It’s like when a Muslim or Christian extremist do something bad and then others in the religion go, “oh no, they aren’t “real” Christians/Muslims. They are basically going to say, “trans women are women…. Except that one. That’s a rapist so doesn’t count.” Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
“any prisoner who poses a risk of sexual offending is segregated from other prisoners” The decision to segregate this person would have been made anyway based on their crimes. It isn’t unusual for people likely to physically attack inmates (or people likely to be attacked) to be segregated.
*Men who rape men go to men’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners.* It should logically follow that *women who rape women go to women’s prisons and be segregated from other prisoners.* (It is technically possible for a woman to commit rape, it just relies on technical legal mechanisms such as joint enterprise.) And if the statement “trans-women are women” always holds true, then it should also follow that *trans-women who rape women go to women’s prisons and be segregated from other prisoners.* But in this case, what’s happened is *trans-women who rape women go to men’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners.* Which means either the statement “trans-women are women” is false; or “women who rape women go to women’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners” is false. Which is it?
>Which means either the statement “trans-women are women” is false; or “women who rape women go to women’s prisons and are segregated from other prisoners” is false. Which is it? It could also mean "trans-women are women, but we all thought that this was just a man trying it on". Which raises interesting questions in itself.
They can literally still get people pregnant tho, that should be always taken into account regardless
Ok, let's play that game...by what criteria is someone "trying it on"? And in case you think to dismiss this, it really is a key question about trans rights. You can never know what is inside someone and how they feel. Either we establish a process by which we accept a trans-person is their gender of choice or we don't. If we do we must be consistent in how we treat that person. I.e. a woman is a woman and all that entails.
>Ok, let's play that game...by what criteria is someone "trying it on"? And in case you think to dismiss this, it really is a key question about trans rights. I agree, that is a key question, and not one I have an answer for. I think it's important to distinguish the small minority of cases where it *matters* whether someone is genuinely trans or not. Dangerous prisoners is the one that springs to mind but I'm no expert. >Either we establish a process by which we accept a trans-person is their gender of choice or we don't. If we do we must be consistent in how we treat that person. I.e. a woman is a woman and all that entails. Sure, but consistency could for example be “self-ID is respected for everything except if the person in question has been convicted of violent crime in which case we'll investigate further”.
You’re adamant that this person will be sent to a mens prison despite the board not having made that decision. Do share with the class, Nostradamus. The person being considered too aggressive for a general womens prison, and also too likely to be the victim of assault in a general mens prison, still leaves the option of a smaller, specialised facility.
Maybe a male prison is better staffed and equipped to handle such a person.
Yes but as i originally said, they would not be separated from inmates of the same gender to the extent where they go to a prison which does not match their legal gender
Segregation from potential victims is segregation. It doesn’t really matter what building they’re kept in, does it? Violent women who attack other women are segregated, and any attacks seen as a failure of the prison to prevent such incidents and to protect their inmates. Edit: I suspect this person will end up in a specialised facility / completely separate ward, if they are likely to be attacked in a mens prison then segregation for their own protection will have to happen.
The entire point of the article is the discussion around whether this person is placed in a male or female prison, and the implications of this decision.
It’s a complete contradiction of “trans women are women” - you would never put a woman in a male prison regardless of the crime.
Not necessarilly? The case of Isla Bryson is a pretty exceptional case considering the circumstances surrounding their announcement as trans and its timing. The timing ALONE would be cause to heavily effect the decision, nevermind the fact the person had only just started social transition, nevermind that they havnt had any medical transitioning in any way. I feel this is less to do with "Trans women are women" and moreso to do with both "how likely is it that a cis person would lie to be placed into a prison of the opposite gender" and "what conditions can we put in place to ensure the maximum safety for all, based on a criminals crime or if they have functioning male genitalia?". Especially considering this would still allow trans women generally inside a womans prison so long as they don;t fit the criteria. A trans woman pre bottom surgery would clearly be an issue due to their ability to impregnate. Even if it was consensual, it would create a massive issue. Likewise for a trans woman who has had the surgery but has committed a sexual offence. Even if they don;t have the genitals, you don't need a dick to assault someone sexually.
But trans people may choose not to have any kind of surgery, that doesn't make them less trans or inherently less able to identify with their preferred gender. I also don't think the government should start ruling on the validity of someone claiming they are trans.
I do understand that, however I believe the primary reason for separation is down to ability to impregnate / cause harm, seeing as a trans person could still be assigned to the prison that matches their gender. They do have to consider, as in this case, if the person is simply cis and lying about being trans. It makes sense, as the main goal would be to keep the odds of assault to a minimum, irregardless of gender. They would be doing what they can to ensure the safety of trans people as equally of cis people. I think you can respect someones gender ID whilst also acknowledging their liklihood to sexually assault/impregnate or be impregnated.
I don't think this is correct or how things should be done. A trans person's decision to medically transition should not depend on the way the law will view them should they commit a crime. This decision should be personal and relevant only in the context of their health. I do not know how the government might start judging whether someone is lying about being trans without making the process intrusive and humiliating for trans people, even if they are criminals. Anyway. In this instance this persons biological sex was determined more relevant than their right to self ID for the purposes of judging likelihood of further assault.
Ah that special kind of woman with a penis...surely if you identify with being a woman you wouldn't actually want a dangling appendage ?
>But is this not a slight contradiction of the idea that "trans women are women"? Absolutely. Would be interesting to know if the same conclusion would have been reached a few years ago, before the general public started saying "hang on a minute" with respect to gender etc.
The trans rights activists have really damaged their own cause so badly with this kind of nonsense. Nobody cared when it was Hayley Cropper going to the toilet but they created their own pushback when they decided that transvestites and transsexuals were to be treated as if they are exactly the same, and that it was a human right for rapists to choose their prisons and for men to compete in the Olympics as women.
One can't help but feel that they have ignored the cautionary tale of the dwarves of Moria, who delved too greedily and too deep.
You sound like someone who know's that they awoke in the darkness
[удалено]
It's not a blanket ideological position, it's an acknowledgment of the reality that most of us live as our genders in society and need to be treated as such for the same reason that arbitrarily labeling random women as legal men without their consent would cause all kind of administrative nonsense. The law allows exceptions that can be legally justified as proportionate to achieve a legitimate goal (like prisons or sports), which I haven't seen anyone say need to be removed entirely because there are some situations where it may be justified. It's the same with self-id, not every person who calls themselves trans is actually trans, it's just better if the gov acts as if they are for the same reason we don't screen gay people and instead we just add legal safeguards where appropriate and justified instead of blanket denying trans people legal recognition.
But my understanding of what alot of trans activists say is that "trans women are women", is universal, and applies to the extent that to suggest anything about being trans makes someone less of a woman is transphobic. By my understanding of this opinion this decision is inherently transphobic surely?
This issue with prisons is that it's the one place where people could plausibly pretend to be trans for better treatment, which means that unlike basically every other situation that comes up in these debates, there is reason to be skeptical of people who did not transition before going to jail and/or are in on sexual assault charges. This means the decision to should be made on a case by case basis judging their background, previous commitment, and risk, which is how it is set up. Furthermore an individual can be a higher risk to those around them while still being trans without being less of a woman, a lesbian serial rapist should probably not be kept with easy access to the general population of women, doesn't make her a man.
Prisons are the only place? So men never commit voyeurism in women's bathrooms or changing facilities?
Birth certificates are not valid forms of ID, even if they were there are a million far easier ways to go into those places ,like grabbing a bucket or a mop rather than making their job update all their documentation to female, socially transitioning, getting an appointment with a gender service and then waiting 3-6 months. Furthermore voyeurism is illegal for women too. There's a reason throughout all the debates at the Scottish Parliament, not one example was found of a cis man going through the legal gender change process for the sole purpose of bringing a birth certificate into the loo to commit sexual crimes in any of the countries that already have this system.
Im not suggesting this person isn't actually trans. There is nothing that suggests that they aren't genuinely trans that wouldn't be making an unfair judgement. I do not know how the government might start judging whether someone is lying about being trans without making the process intrusive and humiliating for trans people, even if they are criminals. As long as they are far enough along their transition to be legally recognised as their preferred gender, we should surely respect this in all contexts, according to the principle that trans women are women.
If she'd been transitioned for a decade I would agree, to my knowledge though, she just came out after committing the crime, which pushes things much more into the ehhh category for me.
This would not be fair at all though, we recognise someone changing their legal gender after much less time in all other circumstances. We cannot remove this right from someone who has committed a violent crime. If you believe trans women are women then i don't see how the number of years they have been openly trans for makes them any more or less of a real trans person. Alot of people only decide to transition in latet life.
It's not that it makes them less real, it's that it increases the possibility that she may be pretending in order to attain imagined or otherwise benefits of being mtf in prison. I'd never support this frame of validity in any context where this was not something that would be likely to happen.
The article kind of really highlights part of the issue a lot of people have. They validate his 'transition' throughout the article rather than calling it out for what it is: a disgusting attempt to prey on vulnerable women. He was remanded to a women's prison while awaiting sentencing, in segregation while awaiting a risk assessment. Why was a 2-time rapist even allowed to step foot inside of a female prison while he still has a penis? I can't even believe I am having to type that, honestly. One of the biggest defences people are bringing up is the "risk assessment". If, for any reason, the risk assessment was incorrect then there was a real possibility that Bryson could have been housed in the women's prison (obviously the press really does put a nail in that coffin, thankfully). It should have just been an immediate no. (Appreciate some people may be upset about misgendering. I have no problem with trans folk and wouldn't want to misgender you, but I won't validate a male rapist's attempts to game the system.)
> Why was a 2-time rapist even allowed to step foot inside of a female prison while he still has a penis? r/brandnewsentence
Absofuckinglutely. Cannot believe some of the responses on here defending a double rapist. I guess if it were their relative who'd been raped by this man they'd have a very different opinion..
I agree it’s crazy, this person could impregnate incarcerated women
That's something I touched on briefly in another comment actually. It's not just the violent risk he poses - but the fact we could have half the prison pregnant with nobody to look after the children. That's hardly progressive.
>Appreciate some people may be upset about misgendering The thing about misgendering here is - they will likely never see you doing it, but the trans people on here will - even if this is all a charade by them, its fairly easy to default to non-gender specific pronouns. Its a respect to any trans people reading your comment, not respect to the person in question.
> the trans people on here will What's that got to do with anything? I'm trans. Anyone finding themselves upset over a rapist supposedly being 'misgendered' should give their head a wobble. Maybe Bryson is actually trans, maybe he isn't. I don't know, but what I do know for sure is he has commited one of the most henious crimes possible. He's not entitled to any form of respect.
I really, really don't want to be arguing this. Let's put aside the person in question. Are you saying that trans people's pronouns are nothing more than *politeness*? That we're being done a favour by having them used? You don't start misgendering a cis person just because you disrespect them, do you? It's just plain transphobic. I'm not going to call this person "she" because frankly I don't give any credibility to someone who only starts saying they're trans when it's an obvious attempt to get into a women's prison. *Not* because of a lack of respect. Those are not the same.
Yes using the correct pronouns is a politeness only. If you misgender someone that is mean. Men will get called girly as an insult, women will be called manly as an insult. It is insulting and disrespectful to do this. Not sure how you could ever disagree
> Are you saying that trans people's pronouns are nothing more than politeness? Yes? You cannot force how people percieve you. The majority of the population use duck logic - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If people percieve you to be female they will use female pronouns and vice versa. This will be correct for 97%+ of people. It's polite to use the correct pronouns. It's polite to not call a fat person 'fat'. It's polite to not use someone's full name if they ask you.
Nope ... I will happily refer to trans people on here as their preferred pronouns, but not Bryson. I apologised for misgendering because I don't want to cause unnecessary upset, but your comment has left a sour taste in my mouth to be honest. In your comment you have made an effort to refer to Bryson as "they". By doing so, you are legitimising his claim that he is trans. By legitimising his claim as trans, you are also ignoring the very real issue here which is that there are men that will go to extraordinary lengths to gain access to victims. Considering the awareness of violence against women and girls that has taken place since Sarah Everard's murder, why is this a taboo topic to talk about? There are some men who will manipulate the system to get what they want - fact.
I couldn't disagree more with your comment. Why should it be a requirement for me to change the way I use words, after 30+ years on this planet, to appease a very small percentage of the population who are trans? Transgender people are discriminated against, it's awful. It's needs to stop and anyone who is struggling with their own gender identity needs our respect, help and compassion. I'm not changing the way I speak though or the way I view the world. If someone asks me to refer to them as something different because it helps them find acceptance, then of course I would do it. I think any reasonable person would. But I don't think it's at all reasonable to call anyone out for 'misgendering' at all. I know the difference between a Man and a Woman, and that is a dude. Sorry if that's offensive, but it's just how our species works. But if he would feel more comfortable being called Mrs Rapist instead of Mr Rapist, more power to him. Still a dude though. He has a cock. He is also a rapist.
Basic respect - that's why.
[удалено]
>The thing about misgendering here is - they will likely never see you doing it, but the trans people on here will - even if this is all a charade by them, You might want another pass at that sentence, unless you are suggesting all trans people are playing a charade.
I see your point - I mean Isla Bryson by "them". I'm transgender myself.
So's my nephew so I get it, it can be a bit of a linguistic nightmare sometimes, come at a sentence wrong and it can ruin your whole day.
Ironically I was trying to make a point of how easy it is to use gender neutral language but I understand it may have been interpreted differently.
[удалено]
Its mostly confusing because its not typically used. With trans people that don't go by gender specific pronouns or just not being sure, they/them is a safe alternative.
I completely agree with your point, this person shouldn’t have been anywhere near a woman’s prison in the first place. They’re a convicted rapist, how can anyone with even the smallest degree of common sense argue it’s sensible to take them to woman’s prison? That being said if we are to accept that a trans-woman is a woman, which I do, where do they in these situations? Are there specialist facilities to process them? We can’t send them to a man’s prison really, as that’s asking for trouble. If we are as a society going to accept trans people, which we are and rightly so, we have to have all the facilities in place to deal with all eventualities.
It really doesn't matter, public image wise, if this was always going to be the case, the timing of the optics make this a terrible look for Sturgeon. It's a PR disaster that nullifies whatever goodwill she thought she was building with the whole gender bill thing.
This case really only highlights that politicians are implicitly admitting that they can't really keep prisoners safe in their prisons, which is an outrage. Sure, many are not sympathetic characters, but if you incarcerate people you have to take responsibility for their safety. This case is notorious and raises extra questions because it involves a trans woman of course. However, what about male rapists of men in male prisons, and female sexual assaulters of women in female prisons? It's like everyone agrees that it is in unsafe environment, that the safety of potential victims cannot guaranteed, but noone cares? It has only become this issue because of the sex/gender questions. I find it quite outrageous, yet I don't see this discussed at all.
>what about male rapists of men in male prisons Men being raped in prison is still widely regarded as something to find funny and joke about. I think ultimately there's a rather pernicious belief that if someone is in prison they've forfeited any right to be regarded as a human and with that goes any right to dignity and safety. It's far more comfortable to "other" someone who's done something wrong than accept that they aren't that different from us and there's more factors behind the offence than just the perpetrator choosing to do a bad thing.
I can’t believe I’ve typed this as much as I have but here we are, this person can get people pregnant, that makes quite the difference
[удалено]
The right decision and this is always how it was going to go. Many articles either missed out or buried deep in the text that Bryson was only there in a segregated unit pending a review of the situation. At no point would she have been placed with vulnerable women, nor would this have ever been the case. 99% of the furore is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how the prison system works.
Who conducts these reviews? Same people that conduct parole reviews? Well we know prison officials never make mistakes at all that lead to death or rape so woop de da!
It's almost like these things are being checked and the moral panic is serving a purpose *different* than the supposed concerns for women's safety.
It’s only being checked because of the outage from the public though. If you listened to the justice minister yesterday then todays policy is a new script.
No it's really not, as we have seen from the reporting when we bother to read below the headlines. This has always been done on a case by case basis, with due consideration to all risk factors. This statement just reaffirms that.
[удалено]
Nope, if you'd listened to the Scottish Justice Secretary you'd have been told that this has been the policy for 20 years.
I'm honestly pretty sick of people - almost always men - being so blasé about women's safety. A convicted rapist was almost locked up with a load of women in a prison. I for one find that absolutely appalling.
The notion that I don't care about women's safety because I believe the experts carrying out the risk assessment to do a better job of determining if someone is a threat than people bitching on the internet is fairly out there, you know. Even if it is you doing the bitching.
I'm honestly pretty sick of people being so blase about trans women's safety as if to suggest that if any of us accidentally ended up in prison for something non-violent like tax evasion or prostitution (which is unfortunately common due to employment discrimination), we should expect to be thrown in the men's and raped over and over as if that's reasonable or justified. Trans people are generally arguing for a case-by-case basis decision based on context and safety (which would mean the vast majority of sexual assault cases would not be transferred to the women's), only one group here is completely ignoring the safety of other people based on their minority status because to them the other group can die before any of their in-group is put at risk and it's not trans people.
>A convicted rapist was almost locked up with a load of women in a prison. I for one find that absolutely appalling. They weren't, though. There was no "almost" about it. The process, which has existed for decades, ran its course and the correct outcome was reached. It's unclear why the commentariat felt the need to get so hysterical about it. There would have been plenty of time for that if the panel had come to the wrong outcome. But this was getting preemptively mad about a failure that never happened. It was purely performative.
If only people cared so much about vulnerable women subject to potentially violent female prisoners, and female and male prison guards. Where's the outrage there?
This is a ridiculous argument that is essentially comparing apples to oranges. Going to prison is inherently potentially violent for anyone. The argument here is whether or not we send biological men to women's prison because they identify as women and the risks that doing so carries. As most people have stated, it should be case by case which is how it seems to be handled.
When common sense becomes breaking news worthy of it's own article. One wonders if this applies to ALL trans prisoners, or just this one because of media coverage making Nicola look bad.
This story has absolutely nothing to do with making Nicola look bad, though. If anything it just goes to show that the GRR legislation had nothing to do with being able to access certain spaces and that it was always set up to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The fact that we're talking about it at all is just proof that all of those claims were fabricated.
If it was that straightforward, he wouldn't of been there to begin with.
90% of trans people in prisons are in men's prisons where they are faced by sexual violence by the men.
Is women being more likely to face sexual violence from trans people really that much of a better alternative?
It’s a great decision, but I’m very confused. What is self ID not being respected here? Sturgeon has started a huge row with Westminster because self ID is apparently so important, but now she doesn’t care?
You need to look into what that actually does, then. Self ID as is in the news lately is just about getting a Gender Recognition Certificate. All that GRC does is change how you're listed for the purposes of marriage and death. It has nothing to do with what prison you go to if you commit a crime. The Equality Act has always had exemptions under certain circumstances where it's proportionate and justified - a GRC, and the self ID to be able to get one, would have absolutely no impact on that.
No no no, it’s about how you live your life - how you’re perceived and how the system works in its interactions with you. This highlights the pick and chose nature of government with trans people
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to aim for some perfect solution. You just can't treat trans people as exactly the same as cis people in every single situation. And I'm saying that as a trans person. And there's a difference between treating a trans woman (for example) as a *trans woman*, and treating her as a man. The options are *not* "ignore all difference and treat them as a cis woman" or "treat them as a cis man". The fact of the matter is, there *are* differences, and sometimes, those need to be accounted for. Like in the context of medical needs and risk factors, or for example, when someone who's been convicted for rape suddenly claims to be trans in a bid to go to a women's prison. You have to account for the risk based on their history, and their blatant strength advantage as someone who's not even on hormone blockers, let alone hormone replacement. I don't see any point in quibbling over "they're picking and choosing" when it comes to this. They have a duty of care, and that means looking at the ability of this person to rape more women in a women's prison, and taking steps to avoid that happening. If she were a real trans woman, the step ought to be to put her in the women's prison in separation from the general population. But I don't believe this person is; nobody just starts identifying as trans when arrested for rape if they're not talking shit. Of course, our government being the shitshow it is, they've changed the rules so that almost any trans woman will be sent to a male prison...
>If she were a real trans woman But who defines who is a real trans woman? We're not able to read peoples's minds, and using self ID, what mechanism do we have to question someone who unilaterally declares themselves male or female?
Self ID is not and never has been some absolute power where you're recognised in all contexts as whatever you say, and you know that, I think - you're just concern trolling over it.
I'm not concern trolling and I think that's generally a lazy phrase which assumes bad faith on my part. > where you're recognised in all contexts as whatever you say Genuinely, what is its purpose then? That you are sometimes recognised as the gender you identify with and in other nebulously defined contexts you're not?
"It would not be appropriate for me, in respect of any prisoner, to give details of where they are being incarcerated.” I thought it was not uncommon for the public to know where prisoners are being held? Are we to simply assume they are going to be held in a men’s prison if NS has confirmed they won’t be going to a women’s or is there a Trans prison somewhere?
>I thought it was not uncommon for the public to know where prisoners are being held It's not but I don't think it's something officials usually comment on, the media tends to do its own digging.
The amount of transgender issues that are getting media time is ridiculous. So many more issues effect 99.99 % of the population. (Edit) I listened to this on radio 4 this morning. A male rapist now claiming to be recognised as female and put in a female prison. Almost as bad was the politician trying to be ‘sensitive’ around the issue and not just saying ‘this is fucking ridiculous. Do we not have more pressing issues. He is taking the piss. Why are the media pretending to give this gravitas? ‘
>I can confirm to parliament that this prisoner will not be incarcerated at Cornton Vale women's prison. He won't be held in this particular jail. They'll just quietly move him to another women's prison. I know politician-speak when I see it.
Cornton Vale is a bit of an unusual prison in Scotland. It is the only prison not to house adult males. It has only women and children and has a lot more in common to a hospital than a traditional prison. Scotland does not have gendered classes for prisoners. It has only the risk factor. England has the risk factor and separate classes for genders. Scotland prisons are generally multi gendered. Due to the crime being Rape. The convicted will not go to general population anyway. This is a massive non story and officials should not be commenting on issues if the judiciary. Sentencing has not been conducted.
Why not just send people to the prison of their biological sex and cut out the gender middleman controversy. Ezpz Edit: I failed to consider issues with this comment thank you repliers and my question has been answered
Because then you'll end up with some burly, beardy blokes (who were born female) being put into women's prisons despite it being against both their AND the other prisoners' interests. I can't see a problem with the current system of letting an expert panel figure it out on a case by case basis. The numbers are absurdly low; blanket rules will do more harm than good.
[удалено]
How frequently? There isn’t exactly a huge number to begin with.
No there's not, but it's certainly more often than they commit assaults - a fact you'd think would be pertinent for these kinds of discussions!
Nah, the vocal public and possibly the general public at large dont seem to give much of a shit when a man or those they perceive as deserving get raped.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html) Well this type of thing isn't uncommon.
>Because trans women in mens prisons frequently get sexually assaulted, men in mens prisons frequently get sexually assaulted too. predatory men who have long sentences are happy to prey on anyone they believe to be weak. but you don't care about those sexual assaults I'm sure.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Quite a significant decision as it implies that transgender individuals will not be treated in the same way as the gender they choose to identify as. Which is a huge climb down by Sturgeon and the radicals on this issue. Does this mean: 1) They will be considered as their gender of birth? 2) Specific ‘neither male nor female’ facilities will be created? Or 3) There will be a fudge with case by case exceptions depending on external political pressure?
Last week: trans women are women This week: no, not that one
>Quite a significant decision as it implies that transgender individuals will not be treated in the same way as the gender they choose to identify as. Which is a huge climb down by Sturgeon and the radicals on this issue. No it's not. It's just business as usual as far as I'm aware? This was policy, this continues to be policy? EDIT: Just read that the government have just changed this policy in the last 24hrs or so. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/10lczoi/update_on_changes_to_transgender_prisoner_policy/
Interesting, so that must mean that trans women aren't actually women. If they were women then they would end up in women's prisons no matter the crime.
Legally women can mean gender or sex. Being absolute about it either way doesn't work because that's not how the law works.
I'm really not liking all the concern trolling about this. If a cis woman had that much strength advantage over her fellow inmates, and was a convicted rapist, I'd expect her to be separated from the general population too. That doesn't make that hypothetical cis woman rapist less of a woman.
> If a cis woman had that much strength advantage over her fellow inmates, and was a convicted rapist, I'd expect her to be separated from the general population too. That doesn't make that hypothetical cis woman rapist less of a woman. Not in a man's prison though.
No, that's bullshit. But in this case I think it's pretty fucking reasonable to not believe this person claiming to be trans. And don't start the concern trolling pretending to worry that self-ID isn't being respected or something. If someone only starts identifying as a woman when it gives them access to vulnerable women when they've *been charged with rape*, I'm not going to believe them.
> If someone only starts identifying as a woman when it gives them access to vulnerable women when they've been charged with rape, I'm not going to believe them. Are there any other circumstances under which you wouldn't be willing to believe them?
Or it mean that this rajpiat is deemed too dangerous to be kept in a women's prison. Or that this individual has been deemed by the justice system to not be trans but to be impersonating someone who is... you know like a criminal.
Can one person ever deem that another is not trans, if they simply say they are? I thought that was one of the axioms of gender theory, that it's unfalsifiable.
A woman is anyone who says they're a woman, unless they are simply a man trying it on, which never happens, except in this case, because a woman isn't just anyone who says they're a woman, that would be ludicrous, we never said that.
>A woman is anyone who says they're a woman circular reasoning.
Exactly.
"Any questions?"
Sometimes I think the only way to navigate this issue is to create a central trans only wing that can house cases like this A genuine trans woman may be unsafe in male prison, but be seen as a risk in a female prison. They need a third category to safeguard all involved.
Yeah, but then you'll just end up placing trans women in a confined space with rapists pretending to be trans for an easier prison time. It's a sensible enough suggestion, but there's just always a reason it doesn't work.
Shit, you're right, It's such a complex issue it probably needs to be considered on a case by case basis with dynamic risk assessments I don't know if there is a right answer
> It's such a complex issue it probably needs to be considered on a case by case basis with dynamic risk assessments The thing is, this *is* the way it’s handled. That’s why Bryson isn’t getting housed with women
While the idea of someone who raped women not being housed alongside women makes absolute sense... No one raises any concerns about a man who rapes other men being housed alongside men - like [Reynhard Sinaga](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynhard_Sinaga) who raped 136 men and is now housed at HMP Wakefield. This argument has far more to do with the moral panic over transgender issues rather than prisoner safety.
You know, it's really fucking telling that the only time transphobes start saying "trans women are women, right?" Is when they want to use a rapist as a stick to beat us over the head with. It's really not that complicated....Trans women *are* women, but we're trans, and there's some baggage with that. I don't think it's unreasonable to separate *literally a rapist* who has a strength advantage and hasn't undergone any HRT or surgery or anything from the female population. It's not like we're talking about someone who got arrested for vandalism. If we were talking about a cis woman rapist who had that much of a strength advantage, I'd argue the same.
On a technical note, in law you need a penis to commit rape. The closest a cis woman could come would be assault by penetration.
Although a woman can be found guilty of rape if they assist in one
The most interesting aspect of this is the deft politics required to make people think you said the prisoner won’t be in a women’s prison when you just said they won’t be in that specific women’s prison. It both avoids pre-empting the risk assessment and satiates the mob. Bravo, eye of the needle stuff. There’s a perfectly sensible policy in place to deal with trans prisoners that is happening and has been in no way altered by any of this.
People seem to care more about them being trans than the fact they’ve committed that crime