Transgender Thread.

[Touring Mars]

A case that has had pretty big ramifications for Scottish politics recently...

Trans woman Isla Bryson jailed for eight years for raping two women

Bryson, 31, committed offences in Clydebank and Glasgow in 2016 and 2019 before transitioning

www.theguardian.com

Sadly, although this kind of nasty piece of work is very rare, this is exactly the kind of person who can set back transgender rights in one fell swoop.

This issue, and some similar cases that have come to light during the GRR bill debate and vote in the Scottish parliament recently, may well have proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of Sturgeon's premiership.

I hope that this isn't a major set back for trans rights, but at the same time, it does highlight the (somewhat obvious) problem of sending people who have committed very serious sexual violence as a male to a female-only prison.

 

[TexRex]

Sadly, although this kind of nasty piece of work is very rare, this is exactly the kind of person who can set back transgender rights in one fell swoop.

I disagree. As horrible as that is, it's still conservatives' transgender moral panic (among a plethora of moral panics including but not limited to those having to do with homosexuality and abortion) that leads to them denying individuals their fundamental rights.

 

[Touring Mars]

I disagree. As horrible as that is, it's still conservatives' transgender moral panic (among a plethora of moral panics including but not limited to those having to do with homosexuality and abortion) that leads to them denying individuals their fundamental rights.

I honestly don't think this is the case here in Scotland.

Scotland is far from a conservative country, but the Gender Recognition Reform bill has angered alot of people - not because it strengthens transgender rights (it doesn't...), and nor because it doesn't - but because of the effect on women's rights and other legal and social protections for women that have been hard fought for decades, only to be jeopardised by what many people consider to be rushed, sloppy new legislation.

Allowing male rapists to be incarcerated in a woman's jail is an extreme but real example of where the limits lie with the general public in Scotland. Hence, legislation that makes this easier (or even makes it legally difficult to prevent) is a sure-fire vote loser.

 

[TexRex]

I honestly don't think this is the case here in Scotland.

Scotland is far from a conservative country, but the Gender Recognition Reform bill has angered alot of people - not because it strengthens transgender rights (it doesn't...), and nor because it doesn't - but because of the effect on women's rights and other legal and social protections for women that have been hard fought for decades, only to be jeopardised by what many people consider to be rushed, sloppy new legislation.

Allowing male rapists to be incarcerated in a woman's jail is an extreme but real example of where the limits lie with the general public in Scotland. Hence, legislation that makes this easier (or even makes it legally difficult to prevent) is a sure-fire vote loser.

I'm not familiar with the bill, but opposition to transgender rights is certainly conservative in nature even if those opposed don't align with other conservative ideology. Rare bad acts are frequently used as a cudgel by bad faith actors to "justify" opposition, and that's what I was addressing in my response to the portion of your post that I quoted.

I take (and genuinely appreciate) your word that the bill doesn't do what it's purported to do, and I'm certainly familiar with poorly drafted legislation, whether it's founded on good intentions but flawed in how it addresses an issue or whether it's rotten all the way down.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not familiar with the bill, but opposition to transgender rights is certainly conservative in nature even if those opposed don't align with other conservative ideology. Rare bad acts are frequently used as a cudgel by bad faith actors to "justify" opposition, and that's what I was addressing in my response to the portion of your post that I quoted.

Conservatives (and there are plenty in Scotland) can and do behave this way, but they always have and likely always will.

What's happening in Scotland right now, however, doesn't appear to be 'opposition to transgender rights' at all - indeed, it's almost the other way around. Non-transgender people are being vilified and literally shouted down, screamed at, bullied and threatened by transgender groups for showing any opposition whatsoever to any changes in the law that might undermine existing legal and social protections for women. Opponents are labeled a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) or worse - and if you don't agree with the current dogma that there is (or ought to be) zero distinction between biological females and transgender females, then you are an anti-transgender bigot.

This isn't the case though. I am absolutely not 'anti-transgender' - I whole-heartedly believe that anyone should be allowed to identify as whatever gender they like, and live their lives accordingly... but I don't accept that there is no distinction between biological females and transgender women, and I suspect that most people in the country don't either. Ironically, the sheer, visceral hatred leveled at those who dare to publicly share this view from the transgender community in recent years has undoubtedly set their cause back - arguably more so than the individual horror stories like that I linked to above have done. The inability / unwillingness of certain transgender people and groups to recognise the distinction between being in favour of protecting women's rights and being a transphobe is not going to help advance transgender rights IMHO.

 

[Scaff]

Scotland is far from a conservative country, but the Gender Recognition Reform bill has angered alot of people - not because it strengthens transgender rights (it doesn't...), and nor because it doesn't - but because of the effect on women's rights and other legal and social protections for women that have been hard fought for decades, only to be jeopardised by what many people consider to be rushed, sloppy new legislation.

Out of interest, which women's rights, etc does the proposed bill affect and in what way?

From what I'm aware of it was supported by a number of women's right groups and is similar to the legislation in place in Norway and Ireland, neither of which have had an effect of weakening women's rights that I'm aware of.

 

[TexRex]

Conservatives (and there are plenty in Scotland) can and do behave this way, but they always have and likely always will.

What's happening in Scotland right now, however, doesn't appear to be 'opposition to transgender rights' at all - indeed, it's almost the other way around. Non-transgender people are being vilified and literally shouted down, screamed at, bullied and threatened by transgender groups for showing any opposition whatsoever to any changes in the law that might undermine existing legal and social protections for women. Opponents are labeled a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) or worse - and if you don't agree with the current dogma that there is (or ought to be) zero distinction between biological females and transgender females, then you are an anti-transgender bigot.

This isn't the case though. I am absolutely not 'anti-transgender' - I whole-heartedly believe that anyone should be allowed to identify as whatever gender they like, and live their lives accordingly... but I don't accept that there is no distinction between biological females and transgender women, and I suspect that most people in the country don't either. Ironically, the sheer, visceral hatred leveled at those who dare to publicly share this view from the transgender community in recent years has undoubtedly set their cause back - arguably more so than the individual horror stories like that I linked to above have done. The inability / unwillingness of certain transgender people and groups to recognise the distinction between being in favour of protecting women's rights and being a transphobe is not going to help advance transgender rights IMHO.

While there certainly is a distinction between biological females and transgender women, why should the distinction be recognized by law? Do biological females collectively retain rights of which the transgender woman should be deprived?

Equality before the law should be sought. No group's or individual's rights should be weighted disproportionately by the state, either by dictate or by public vote, against the rights of any other group or individual.

It's true that public perception of a group may be harmed by a vocal and perhaps irrational activist subset--however prevalent it may be--of that group, but that doesn't make the refusal to acknowledge the rights of the individual any less irrational.

Does Bryson's incarceration among biological females itself represent a violation of those biological females' rights? Does the preservation of rights of those with whom Bryson is incarcerated--rights that are not forfeited upon conviction and through incarceration for unlawful acts--not fall on the carceral system regardless of Bryson's gender?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I'm assuming TM is referring to the right to single sex spaces, which I'm not sure only applies to cis-women (or even if such a right exists in the first place). I'm using this as a starting point but maybe I'm on the wrong track:

Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions | Equality and Human Rights Commission

www.equalityhumanrights.com

 

[Scaff]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I'm assuming TM is referring to the right to single sex spaces, which I'm not sure only applies to cis-women (or even if such a right exists in the first place). I'm using this as a starting point but maybe I'm on the wrong track:

Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions | Equality and Human Rights Commission

www.equalityhumanrights.com

Such a right doesn't exist in the UK, its also a common anti-trans dog whistle.

The act already has provisions that more than cover is.

"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."

 

[Danoff]

Currently in the US we incarcerate people in gender-specific prisons. In general, there far fewer female prisons in the US, and almost none of the offenders incarcerated there are violent offenders (because few women are violent offenders). Female prisons tend to have much lower security levels in general, and have to face fewer violent incidents among the inmates.

The characteristics of prisoners does make sense to consider. It's why we have minimum, medium, and maximum security prisons in addition to gender-specific prisons. I can see problems with integrating trans individuals into the prison of the gender of their choice. I suppose it might make sense to create areas within prisons that handle trans individuals. Trans individuals in prison seem to face higher rates of abuse from both inmates and guards. So it might be necessary for multiple reasons.

In general, I can see a lot of motivation for offenders to announce a gender change motivated by which prison they might be assigned.

 

[Liquid]

In general, I can see a lot of motivation for offenders to announce a gender change motivated by which prison they might be assigned.

And that is what a lot of common opposition to the GRR bill in Scotland was based on, spearheaded by the case @Touring Mars mentioned.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Such a right doesn't exist in the UK, its also a common anti-trans dog whistle.

The act already has provisions that more than cover is.

That's what I thought after looking at the Equality Act for 2 minutes.

Is the problem that people are worried the exceptions won't be exercised when dangerous individuals self identify?

 

[Scaff]

Is the problem that people are worried the exceptions won't be exercised when dangerous individuals self identify?

That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.

But didn't we see it before?

Trans prisoners ‘switch gender again’ once freed from women’s units

Female prisoners in Scottish jails have told how transgender inmates serving sentences alongside them switched back to their male birth gender after being rele

www.thetimes.co.uk

Not necessarily violent outcomes, but unease among some cis-women about certain behaviours/comments.

However, if people really did care about all women's (cis/trans/other) safety in female prisons they should be pushing for no male guards in the units.

 

[Scaff]

But didn't we see it before?

And what percentage of trans people does that account for?

The fact very much remains that trans people are far, far more likely to be the victims of crime.

However, if people really did care about all women's (cis/trans/other) safety in female prisons they should be pushing for no male guards in the units.

Indeed, and a better approach to prisons and rehabilitation full stop.

 

[TexRex]

The act already has provisions that more than cover is.

I wonder if you might elaborate on said provisions? I scanned the bill but an awful lot of it refers to 2004 law to be amended by the act and it's all pretty convoluted for the amount of time I'm prepared to commit right now.

Derp. You did.

The characteristics of prisoners does make sense to consider. It's why we have minimum, medium, and maximum security prisons in addition to gender-specific prisons. I can see problems with integrating trans individuals into the prison of the gender of their choice. I suppose it might make sense to create areas within prisons that handle trans individuals. Trans individuals in prison seem to face higher rates of abuse from both inmates and guards. So it might be necessary for multiple reasons.

This is logical. It's also above allegations of being "anti-trans"; it explicitly accommodates transgender individuals.

 

[Touring Mars]

Out of interest, which women's rights, etc does the proposed bill affect and in what way?

It doesn't change women's rights directly, but it does make it far easier for a person to legally change gender - including fraudulently. I think it should be as easy as possible for trans people to change gender legally, but I draw the line at dispensing with what safeguards were in place to prevent abuse of the system, abuses that give violent and predatory men legal access to otherwise single-sex spaces and services. Whether it is a 'rights' issue is a moot point, but the GRR bill will certainly make it easier for men to access female-only spaces and services, and could also make it legally more difficult to even provide such services at all. As alluded to elsewhere, there are good reasons why certain things remain segregated by gender, and hence while it should be as easy as possible for a fully transitioned person to live as their chosen gender, it should not be made too easy to abuse the system at the same time.

From what I'm aware of it was supported by a number of women's right groups and is similar to the legislation in place in Norway and Ireland, neither of which have had an effect of weakening women's rights that I'm aware of.

Indeed, it's not so much about 'weakening women's rights' as weakening protections for women from predatory or violent men. Countries like Ireland and Norway already have similar legislation, but it is not clear how they record violence against women perpetrated by men who have transitioned, not least because transgender women are considered as women, so it is not recorded as male violence against women - hence any uptick in violence against women as a result of weakening safeguards against predatory males transitioning fraudulently or to gain easier/better access to vulnerable women may not be being recorded in many places.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And what percentage of trans people does that account for?

I've skim read the paper:

‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate

Abstract. The subject of transgender rights has recently come under increasing scrutiny in many parts of the world. Despite this, there has been no researc

academic.oup.com

I can't see figures (it's research conducted by interviews and interestingly he's done another on the view of trans prisoners), and the figures in the Times article come from FOI requests.

I really can't see a solution as it looks like you're going to end up having to assess case by case and hope for the best.

 

[Scaff]

It doesn't directly change women's rights at all,

Yet that's the claim being made by some with significant platforms.

but it makes it far easier for a person to legally change gender - including fraudulently. I think it should be as easy as possible for trans people to change gender legally, but I draw the line at dispensing with what safeguards were in place to prevent abuse of the system, abuses that give violent and predatory men legal access to otherwise single-sex spaces and services.

How's common are these abuses, or is this an assumption of significant risk?

Indeed, it's not so much about 'weakening women's rights' as weakening protections for women from predatory or violent men. Countries like Ireland and Norway already have similar legislation, but it is not clear how they record violence against women perpetrated by men who have transitioned, not least because transgender women are considered as women, so it is not recorded as male violence against women - hence any uptick in violence against women as a result of weakening safeguards against predatory males transitioning fraudulently or to gain easier/better access to vulnerable women may not be being recorded in many places.

That operates under the assumption this is a significant issue, and ignores the fast that the equalities act already provisions for this, as cited above.

I've skim read the paper:

‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate

Abstract. The subject of transgender rights has recently come under increasing scrutiny in many parts of the world. Despite this, there has been no researc

academic.oup.com

I can't see figures (it's research conducted by interviews and interestingly he's done another on the view of trans prisoners), and the figures in the Times article come from FOI requests.

I really can't see a solution as it looks like you're going to end up having to assess case by case and hope for the best.

Sorry, I was referring to the trans community as a whole.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yet that's the claim being made by some with significant platforms.

Well, it likely does, it just not the point I'm making here.

How's common are these abuses, or is this an assumption of significant risk?

That's a good question, but there is definitely a question mark as to how well understood and reported such abuses are. I also think that by making it far easier to legally change gender (with an anticipated ten-fold increase in Scotland), that it's a fairly safe assumption that cases of fraud will also increase dramatically as well.

That operates under the assumption this is a significant issue, and ignores the fast that the equalities act already provisions for this, as cited above.

Again, it depends on what you define as 'significant', and in the absence of proper data (or indeed a proper mechanism by which one collects such data), one can only go on the cases that are known about.

The Equalities Act does provide some safeguards for single-sex services and spaces insomuch as specific individuals can be restricted from accessing them for a legitimate reason, but this assumes a foreknowledge of a specific person's unsuitability for such a space - i.e. the presence of such provisions in the law doesn't prevent abuse of the system, it merely allows for something to (possibly) be done about known risks.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is how single-sex services and spaces etc. will be able to continue or be set up in the first place in the face of increasing activism and legal challenges. It may well be that vulnerable women and girls find it harder to access safe spaces and single-sex services as a result of it being harder in general for such things to exist at all.

None of this is helped by the vague language in the GRR bill itself of course, which leaves the door wide open to potential abuse, and also muddies the waters in terms of how anyone with a legitimate concern or grievance might challenge a suspected fraudulent gender change - or conversely, it will also make it much easier for a fraudulent person to challenge the decision of a single-sex service to deny them that service.

 

[Scaff]

Well, it likely does, it just not the point I'm making here.

It does, however, relate to some of the claims you made earlier, it's that rhetoric that is being pushed back on by the majority of the LBGT community and also many women's groups (many of whom in Scotland were in favor of the bill, including Scottish Womens Aid, the lead domestic abuse organization in Scotland).

That's a good question, but there is definitely a question mark as to how well understood and reported such abuses are. I also think that by making it far easier to legally change gender (with an anticipated ten-fold increase in Scotland), that it's a fairly safe assumption that cases of fraud will also increase dramatically as well.

That's an assumption you're better than, to even speculate that you would need to have something to support it, and even if the status quo remained the overall decrease in public harm would be the far more significant factor, given that the trans community is one of the most at risk groups in modern society.

Again, it depends on what you define as 'significant', and in the absence of proper data (or indeed a proper mechanism by which one collects such data), one can only go on the cases that are known about.

Which is an utterly tiny number in relation to the total trans community.

The Equalities Act does provide some safeguards for single-sex services and spaces insomuch as specific individuals can be restricted from accessing them for a legitimate reason, but this assumes a foreknowledge of a specific person's unsuitability for such a space - i.e. the presence of such provisions in the law doesn't prevent abuse of the system, it merely allows for something to (possibly) be done about known risks.

That's not correct and I've already cited the relevant section in this thread, here it is again...

"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."

...it's not limited to specific individuals.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is how single-sex services and spaces etc. will be able to continue or be set up in the first place in the face of increasing activism and legal challenges. It may well be that vulnerable women and girls find it harder to access safe spaces and single-sex services as a result of it being harder in general for such things to exist at all.

Both Scottish women's aid and Rape Crisis Scotland disagree as both backed the bill, and no evidence for such a claim exists. That something 'might happen' based on no evidence is not a reasonable position from which to limit people's rights, particularly when groups who would be directly impacted if it were true aren't making any such claim (quite the opposite).

None of this is helped by the vague language in the GRR bill itself of course, which leaves the door wide open to potential abuse, and also muddies the waters in terms of how anyone with a legitimate concern or grievance might challenge a suspected fraudulent gender change - or conversely, it will also make it much easier for a fraudulent person to challenge the decision of a single-sex service to deny them that service.

It's no vaguer than the language used in the legislation in place in over ten counties, none of which have seen such claims come to be reality. The Scottish bill would have brought the country in line with the UNHRC's best practice, right now we are a long way from that, and the reality of that is 85% of young trans people in the UK have self-harmed, and 45% have tried to take their own lives, and the current GRA is a significant factor in that. Scotland's bill would have unquestionably saved a significant number of lives, and reduced the risk of harm to many, many more.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I can see problems with integrating trans individuals into the prison of the gender of their choice. I suppose it might make sense to create areas within prisons that handle trans individuals. Trans individuals in prison seem to face higher rates of abuse from both inmates and guards. So it might be necessary for multiple reasons.

Over here there is a prison with such a wing (HMP Downview).

Reactions to it from the transgender community are mixed:

The transgender wing at HMP
Downview, proved to split
opinion amongst the
participants, although the
majority of participants viewed
this negatively largely as a
consequence of separating
transgender people from the
mainstream prisoner populations.
The discussion about where
transgender people feel they
should be housed in prison as well as the possibility of
specific transgender wings in prison goes to the core of
transgender identities in custody. For some participants
transgender identities were a specific, positive position,
while other participants viewed transgender identities
negatively, as they discussed wanting to be treated and
seen as male or female

Sorry, I was referring to the trans community as a whole.

My fault but I'm a bit confused - are you talking about detransitioning in the tran community? From memory it's very low, and I wouldn't be suprised if the "detransition" rate is much higher for prisoners once released compared to the trans community (I use quotation marks as these are more likely to be cis-males abusing the system, and so maybe aren't considered "real" trans individuals).

 

[Danoff]

Over here there is a prison with such a wing (HMP Downview).

Reactions to it from the transgender community are mixed:

That reaction is a bit odd. People aren't housed in gender-specific prisons in order to validate and recognize them according to their preferences. People are housed in gender-specific prisons because they're in custody for breaking the law and need to be processed institutionally in a way that is effective and efficient. I'm sure tons of the populations of both the female prisons and the male prisons would like to be mixed - it's not about what they want or why. So the question about how to imprison transgender criminals is really about what works well from the perspective of mitigating instances of violence and keeping people safe while incarcerated.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's an assumption you're better than, to even speculate that you would need to have something to support it, and even if the status quo remained the overall decrease in public harm would be the far more significant factor, given that the trans community is one of the most at risk groups in modern society.

Not sure about your first comment here - it is practically inevitable that incidences of abuse and fraud will increase in Scotland because of a change in the law here, especially without commensurate changes in the law elsewhere in the UK.

I do appreciate that transgender people are a high risk group, but so are vulnerable women. I don't think that the needs and rights of one outweigh the needs and rights of the other, but that the law needs to be balanced in order to address the key problems facing both groups. Arguably, making it easier to transition is not one of the main risk factors when it comes to the societal harms that transgender people face, but it is a factor when it comes to the risks posed to vulnerable women from violent and predatory men, even those who have (or claim to have) transitioned.

 

[Scaff]

My fault but I'm a bit confused - are you talking about detransitioning in the tran community? From memory it's very low, and I wouldn't be suprised if the "detransition" rate is much higher for prisoners once released compared to the trans community (I use quotation marks as these are more likely to be cis-males abusing the system, and so maybe aren't considered "real" trans individuals).

I'm talking about risks posed to others by the entire trans community, as the conversation tends to focus on a very small sample of cases and then get positioned as if it's a wider risk posed by the community.

That reaction is a bit odd. People aren't housed in gender-specific prisons in order to validate and recognize them according to their preferences. People are housed in gender-specific prisons because they're in custody for breaking the law and need to be processed institutionally in a way that is effective and efficient. I'm sure tons of the populations of both the female prisons and the male prisons would like to be mixed - it's not about what they want or why. So the question about how to imprison transgender criminals is really about what works well from the perspective of mitigating instances of violence and keeping people safe while incarcerated.

I believe in Scotland the final decision is made on that basis by the prison commission.

The current number of trans prisoners is 11 out of roughly 7,500, so 0.0015%.

The current trans population in Scotland is put (by public health Scotland) at around 24,000. So those incarcerated account for 0.0005%.

Not sure about your first comment here - it is practically inevitable that incidences of abuse and fraud will increase in Scotland because of a change in the law here, especially without commensurate changes in the law elsewhere in the UK.

I acknowledged as much, but by what factor and based on what evidence.

I do appreciate that transgender people are a high risk group, but so are vulnerable women. I don't think that the needs and rights of one outweigh the needs and rights of the other, but that the law needs to be balanced in order to address the key problems facing both groups. Arguably, making it easier to transition is not one of the main risk factors when it comes to the societal harms that transgender people face, but it is a factor when it comes to the risks posed to vulnerable women from violent and predatory men, even those who have (or claim to have) transitioned.

I, and trans individuals I've spoken to would very much disagree with that assumption. As would (and I've already covered this) women's and sexual assault support groups.

What is being suggested as an almost certainty is, in reality, based on extreme outlier cases and assumptions based on pretty much zero evidence.

In contrast the studies on harm reduction as a result of easier transitioning, particularly under 18, are consistent and clear.

You can chose not to quote it, but an 85% self harm rate and a 45% suicide attempt rate are most certainly significant risk factors.

I'm of the view that the current trans fear mongering is no different to the same scare tactics used against the gay community, only that time it was children that needed protecting.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm talking about risks posed to others by the entire trans community, as the conversation tends to focus on a very small sample of cases and then get positioned as if it's a wider risk posed by the community.

Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison be "trans" inmates in jails/prisons? I'd presume this would have to be done using other countries' data.

That reaction is a bit odd. People aren't housed in gender-specific prisons in order to validate and recognize them according to their preferences. People are housed in gender-specific prisons because they're in custody for breaking the law and need to be processed institutionally in a way that is effective and efficient. I'm sure tons of the populations of both the female prisons and the male prisons would like to be mixed - it's not about what they want or why. So the question about how to imprison transgender criminals is really about what works well from the perspective of mitigating instances of violence and keeping people safe while incarcerated.

I don't really consider it odd. If there was a separate wing for black women that segregated them from all other races I assume there would be a similar reaction from black women, no matter if the segregation was instituted for their benefit (e.g. to protect from racist attacks).

EDIT: I don't know if the separation of trans individuals is mandatory at that prison, i.e. if trans prisoners can refuse to go to that wing.

 

[Scaff]

Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison be "trans" inmates in jails/prisons? I'd presume this would have to be done using other countries' data.

As long as the extreme outliers of trans prisoners convicted of violent offenses are being used to paint the whole trans community as dangerous, no I don't.

 

[Joey D]

Trans or not, I guess I don't understand why you'd send someone who's raped women to a women's prison? Here you have a convicted rapist who's preferred targets are women being put in a close proximity to a bunch of women who can't escape and many who are incredibly vulnerable. It seems like there should be some sort of separate area for people like that where you're limiting the danger to other inmates, especially since prison rape is very much a problem.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Trans or not, I guess I don't understand why you'd send someone who's raped women to a women's prison? Here you have a convicted rapist who's preferred targets are women being put in a close proximity to a bunch of women who can't escape and many who are incredibly vulnerable. It seems like there should be some sort of separate area for people like that where you're limiting the danger to other inmates, especially since prison rape is very much a problem.

I don't think they were sent. As @Scaff said, it's case by case here.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think they were sent. As @Scaff said, it's case by case here.

Yep, they didn't get sent.

The final choice of prison is down to the prison service, and in this case, as they were pre-surgical transition, they are in a men's prison.