Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

The fact that some providers aren't applying these allowed exemptions, including sadly the Scottish prison service, is neither here nor there. Hard to think of something more 'proportion and legitimate' than keeping male and female prisoners apart though.

It's not that straightforward.

A Transwoman in the Male estate is at risk too; cells are often shared. That's why there's a risk assessment. Once a decision is made whether to place in Male or Female estate residual risk can be managed in the same way as other issues; how cell time and isolation are used.

England/Wales seems to be working towards a headline oriented policy where prisoners are allocated to the male or female estate based on their genitals. One of the few things you and I agree on is that there are a lot of transwomen out there, otherwise fully transitioned, who still have a penis simply because 'bottom surgery' is too expensive to consider.

So you have somebody with breasts and who, pinching your phraseology, performs femininity well, in a male prison because they cannot afford to lose their male genitals.

That doesn't look right and I suspect their Human Rights are in play. But when you've got Ministers like Braverman and Raab who don't want those rights it all looks a bit like a conspiracy.

 

[jowwy]

I just noticed that the word peanut was substituted for my original word ars*hole. Makes even less sense than the original.
I rarely swear and didn't realise we had a swear filter.

Its been added recently….. due to people using the C word i think, but maybe wrong.

 

[multitool]

You really have go a high opinion of yourself……just a shame its only your opinion though. The rest just think your an idiot and when you type, they are proved right.

I must confess that on occasion your théâtre de l'absurde living art installation goes over my head, but this time I've understood what you are doing. You are fashioning a reply to a given person's post, but choosing to post it quoting a random person's post (in this instance, me) thus provoking both chaos and unintended and undirected introspection.

It's genius.

A kind of post post-modern commentary on meaning(lessness), whilst also touching on both the ephemeral and socially disconnected nature of modern communication and the fragilité of human relationships. Would I be correct in thinking that it is perhaps also a coquettish nod to the Sisyphean nature of this thread, hmmmm?

I have literally no idea of where you plan to take us on this anarchic journey, but I must tell you I am excited. This is the best thing to happen on cycling fora for some time!

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's not that straightforward.

A Transwoman in the Male estate is at risk too; cells are often shared. That's why there's a risk assessment. Once a decision is made whether to place in Male or Female estate residual risk can be managed in the same way as other issues; how cell time and isolation are used.

If they are at risk in the male estate then surely that risk should be managed in the male estate? There are many vulnerable men in prisons who would be safer in a women's jail - disabled men, gay men, mentally vulnerable men - but we don't move them there because women aren't shields for vulnerable men.

England/Wales seems to be working towards a headline oriented policy where prisoners are allocated to the male or female estate based on their genitals. One of the few things you and I agree on is that there are a lot of transwomen out there, otherwise fully transitioned, who still have a penis simply because 'bottom surgery' is too expensive to consider.

So you have somebody with breasts and who, pinching your phraseology, performs femininity well, in a male prison because they cannot afford to lose their male genitals.

That doesn't look right and I suspect their Human Rights are in play. But when you've got Ministers like Braverman and Raab who don't want those rights it all looks a bit like a conspiracy.

I agree that new policy makes no sense. They are still male and should still be in male prisons, regardless of surgery. If they are vulnerable they should be accommodated in the same way as other vulnerable males are - special unit or wing.

Neither performing femininity nor surgery can make you a woman. You can't move a male to a female prison on the grounds of 'looks like a woman' surely (even if you believe there is such a thing). Most choose not to have surgery - I don't blame them, those surgeries have a high risk of complications - so the fairest and safest thing is to keep prisons strictly segregated. Just like the Geneva Convention suggests. It's worked for 200 years.

 

[Ian H]

Neither performing femininity nor surgery can make you a woman.

A trans-female friend of mine is one of the most unselfconscious people I know. The idea that she somehow 'performs femininity' is as grossly insulting as it is untrue.

 

[classic33]

If they are at risk in the male estate then surely that risk should be managed in the male estate? There are many vulnerable men in prisons who would be safer in a women's jail - disabled men, gay men, mentally vulnerable men - but we don't move them there because women aren't shields for vulnerable men.


I agree that new policy makes no sense. They are still male and should still be in male prisons, regardless of surgery. If they are vulnerable they should be accommodated in the same way as other vulnerable males are - special unit or wing.

Neither performing femininity nor surgery can make you a woman. You can't move a male to a female prison on the grounds of 'looks like a woman' surely (even if you believe there is such a thing). Most choose not to have surgery - I don't blame them, those surgeries have a high risk of complications - so the fairest and safest thing is to keep prisons strictly segregated. Just like the Geneva Convention suggests. It's worked for 200 years.

Who's advocating that they be moved to a women's prison?

Does the Geneva Convention apply to civilians in domestic non-wartime settings?

1779 was the earliest segregated prison (seperate male & female sections), at Bodmin.

 

[monkers]

My Part 4

Service provision for changing, toileting arrangements.

Like prison estate allocation for trans prisoners discussed by me above, these discussions tend to produce more heat than light.

In this piece I attempt some understanding of where equality law is unhelpfully silent, and where the courts have decided what parliament intends to produce case law.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 came about following a successful UK applicant (Godwyn) to the European Court of Human Rights after being unsuccessful, that is to use the legal parlance, having exhausted all means of finding effective remedy in the home state. The act makes clear that trans people having the permission of the state to have an amended birth certificate shall have the protection of the law to live permanently in their acquired gender.

This recognition included permission from the state that trans women could enter into marriage with a man, but not with a woman. Similarly a trans man could enter into marriage with a woman, but not with a man.

Later the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was introduced which allowed trans women to enter into marriage with another woman, and trans men to enter into marriage with another man.

I will say that from that background I think it clear that parliament had shown its intent that for all purposes trans people with an their acquired gender are on a similar footing for protection from discrimination under the law.

Between those dates the Equality Act 2010 was introduced intending to replace all prior anti-discrimination law. However, discrimination against trans individuals had not been adequately protected against and was introduced in the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act unfortunately is short of specifics relying as it does on perceptions of what is 'reasonable' and the extent to which 'discretion' can be applied.

Parliament has had two rounds of considering amendments to the 2004 Act and the 2010 Act by way of two All Party Select Committees reporting to government after some protracted investigations and involvement from the interested parties.

The first was chaired by Maria Miller. After considering the existing law and all contributions they reported thus ...

Exemptions in respect of trans people​

21.Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test. (Paragraph 132)

22.We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)


Government response on this specific recommendation ...

We agree with the principle of this recommendation, that those who sought and have completed a gender transition - and who have secured a Gender Recognition Certificate - should be afforded the full legal and social status of their acquired gender.

The above occurred in January 2016 while Cameron was PM and the country became under the grip of the EU referendum campaign and as we know, a period of political stagnation ensued leading to Cameron's next day resignation.

Theresa May stated that she would implement the recommendations, but as we know her tenancy at number ten was to end abruptly.

Nonetheless, this does provide a picture of what parliament and government intended if hadn't been for bloody Brexit.

I'm afraid that's not the end. During the considerations Caroline Dineage MP stated to the committee that a legal test case would have been useful to the considerations. It would be some time before this happened (2021).

R (on the application of Authentic Equality Alliance) v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2021] EWHC 1623, handed down on 6 May 2021 bore some further comment.

''The judge considered the particular parts of the EHRC Code of Practice which the Applicant singled out for especial criticism. This included guidance that strong reasons are required to treat trans people differently in the provision of services from non-transsexual persons of their acquired gender and exceptional reasons would be required for a denial of service. The guidance also made plain that a service provider can have a policy but it has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. The judge noticed that no evidence had been brought before him of the guidance giving rise to difficulties of application by service providers or that was liable to mislead or had misled service providers in a way to place women and girls at risk, at all.'' Robin White at Old Square Chambers.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A trans-female friend of mine is one of the most unselfconscious people I know. The idea that she somehow 'performs femininity' is as grossly insulting as it is untrue.

Anybody can perform femininity, Ian. Women do it all the time, sometimes willingly and at other times because of social pressure. Males and females can both do it. Anybody can perform masculinity too. Because the idea of what is feminine and masculine is just a load of stereotypes.

Do you think these things are innate? Wasn't it you that talked about copying female mannerisms? Some might find it insulting that you think there is some sort of criteria for being a woman that people can be judged against to decide their womanly-ness.

 

[multitool]

Somebody will be along shortly to tell you that you must discount anything that Robin White says, as she is a trans woman, and therefore inadmissible, whilst simultaneously quoting an anti-trans commentator whose authority you must, of course, accept.

 

[Ian H]

Anybody can perform femininity, Ian. Women do it all the time, sometimes willingly and at other times because of social pressure. Males and females can both do it. Anybody can perform masculinity too. Because the idea of what is feminine and masculine is just a load of stereotypes.

Do you think these things are innate? Wasn't it you that talked about copying female mannerisms? Some might find it insulting that you think there is some sort of criteria for being a woman that people can be judged against to decide their womanly-ness.

Some might find it insulting to be told what they (allegedly) think.

 

[multitool]

A trans-female friend of mine is one of the most unselfconscious people I know. The idea that she somehow 'performs femininity' is as grossly insulting as it is untrue.

I'm afraid, Ian, you've made this comment without first consulting the official Voice of All Women and Arbiter of Things Feminine.

That you have the temerity astounds me.

 

[monkers]

It's not that straightforward.

A Transwoman in the Male estate is at risk too; cells are often shared. That's why there's a risk assessment. Once a decision is made whether to place in Male or Female estate residual risk can be managed in the same way as other issues; how cell time and isolation are used.

England/Wales seems to be working towards a headline oriented policy where prisoners are allocated to the male or female estate based on their genitals. One of the few things you and I agree on is that there are a lot of transwomen out there, otherwise fully transitioned, who still have a penis simply because 'bottom surgery' is too expensive to consider.

So you have somebody with breasts and who, pinching your phraseology, performs femininity well, in a male prison because they cannot afford to lose their male genitals.

That doesn't look right and I suspect their Human Rights are in play. But when you've got Ministers like Braverman and Raab who don't want those rights it all looks a bit like a conspiracy.

Quite.

However there is a reason that many trans women retain their penis. The part that the media love to ignore is that like much of the NHS, the specialist services for trans people are in crisis. Although the 2004 Act detail how transition takes place over 2 year, the real picture is that trans people can be left on waiting lists for three years for their initial appointment - at which point the system starts, but little happens at the first appointment. Six months are scheduled between appointment.

In the case of trans women they may eventually begin a hormone regime after some years. One effect of the hormones is drastic astrophy of the penis and testes over time. This is where the very worst effects of service shortage are felt. If the patient is left waiting years for gender confirmation surgery while taking hormones it becomes too late. The astrophy of the penis becomes so drastic that the surgeon will declare that the operation can not go ahead due to shortage of donor material.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Who's advocating that they be moved to a women's prison?

Does the Geneva Convention apply to civilians in domestic non-wartime settings?

1779 was the earliest segregated prison (seperate male & female sections), at Bodmin.

If you advocate for self-ID then isn't that by default saying they should be treated as a woman in all circumstances? It's not self-ID otherwise. They can't be treated as a woman on Monday sitting at home, but treated as a man on Tuesday when they are arrested. If that's the case (a) you don't really want self-ID, and (b) you don't actually think they are a woman.

Why do you think they segregated prisons in the first place?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Some might find it insulting to be told what they (allegedly) think.

Well clarify then, Ian.

I asked you previously to list what these feminine mannerisms were. Do you think there are male and female mannerisms that are innate? And as such, that when you exhibit these mannerisms it's not a performance? You tell me I'm insulting someone. Well I think it's pretty insulting to suggest there are female mannerisms - because the implication would be that someone not exhibiting them is somehow less female than other females. And that's not really possible is it?

 

[multitool]

<Ponders for a moment that mannerisms appear to be largely culturally-based (see Indian head-wobble, for instance) are therefore a social construct and thus are performed by both males and females. Realises that selective accusations of performativity are ridiculous in the context of considering what a 'genuine' woman might be>