As part of my work looking at legal cases involving Transgender Individuals , with a particular focus on those incarcerated, I came across this case of a female. The claimant is a Transgender Female who identifies as male. The case seems to have been brought because there was a belief that the clinicians were not proceeding to medicalise the Gender Identity at an appropriate speed. Ruth Hunt {Then Stonewall CEO) and Stephen Whittle {Transactivist key player in legislative change} gave statements. Full legal transcript of the case available here:
The prisoner was convicted of the grievous bodily harm of a 12 year old boy and a further offence against a female partner. They also have a plethora of complex mental health needs. As set out below:
The Claimant now identifies as a “Transman” and has a number of “male pattern” offences to her name. All of these things alienate support from women, looking out for females, in the judicial system. As a FTM help from radical feminists, who reject “gender identity” politics, will likely be rejected. As I read this case it shows that, whether they know it or not, they need their sex based rights even if they reject them.
Following their conviction the claimant was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and, in 2010, was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria.
Unusually the claimant has asked to be housed according to their “self-identified” gender. Reading the case this seems to be prior to any treatment for the Gender Identity issues. I assumed that females would always prefer to be housed with other females, or at least not with men. I think this is probably, largely the case, but , at least theoretically, not all FTMs.
Here are a few quotes from a Reddit thread where females, who identify other than their sex, discuss whether they wish to be located in the male estate, in the event of incarceration. Here’s a sample of responses. Some replies are more reality based than others!
Clearly this person committed serious criminal offences and was remanded in a secure mental health placement in recognition of significant co-morbidities. The existence of competing psychological issues is a recurring theme in these legal cases.
Given the significant co-morbidities It does beg the question as to why, with significant mental health issues, the claimant’s request to be housed with male offenders was accepted. Why were they deemed “competent” to make such a decision? Why were they not protected from themself?
Once housed in the male adult service, there was a predictable outcome: Male residents (plural) had made sexual advances to “him”.
I have searched in vain for a clear statement that *any* transman has been incarcerated in the male (prison) estate. Here are a couple of mumsnet discussions on this topic which seems to have reached the same conclusion: like me they have been unable to locate any.
This is important because if you look at policies re Transgender prisoners they seem to have forgotten all we know about which sex commits sexual offences (Males: 98% of the time) and who form the larger part of their victims. (Women). I think the reason this is so difficult to articulate, in policy documents, is that there is a clear conflict between “sex” and “gender identity”. Any talk of women, as a sex class, immediately denies “gender identity” . Invariably the ones who are being centred here in this dialogue are not the females, however they identify, but the men who want to be women.
Females housed with males are at risk. And make no mistake, we are not just talking about post-operative transsexuals here. Gender Recognition certificates have been given to attempted rapists, with their penis intact, as far back as 2006. The GRC does not mean men are required to be surgically disarmed before being allowed to be defined as “legally female” . With or without “transition” we are expected to accept males, as a risk free presence, in women’s spaces. {Though, to be clear, as far as I am concerned, the defining characteristic is “sex” and women should be housed with biological women only}.
Frances Crook of the Howard League (campaigning organisation for Prison Reform) sets out what our politicians are refusing to acknowledge. There is a difference between the sexes, in terms of risk. Unlike our cowardly political elite she dares say out loud, what they surely know:
For more on this topic its well worth reading Richard Garside. Consistently good on the issue of the protecting the rights of female prisoners: Transgender prisoners
So, to return to this case, we have already seen that their need to be affirmed in their “gender identity” has triumphed over their own physical safety. For someone in flight from their female sex I cannot think of anything more “gender dysphoria” triggering than to be sexually assaulted. This decision failed the claimant both as a woman and as a transgender male.
Differential diagnosis/Treatment Pathways.
It seems that the case became some sort of trans cause-celebre which hinged on the complexity of the competing diagnoses and some disagreement about how the Gender Identity issues should be treated. Below is some of the “expert” testimony.
One clinician is clearly wanting to stabilise the claimant before commencing treatment for the gender dysphoria. I assume she is referring to testosterone which seems sensible with such a volatile patient. The violent outbursts did not cease one they were incarcerated:
Again I do wonder if there is enough research on the impact of Testosterone on, particularly already violent, females. This research showed male pattern offending rates remained in transgender MTF (Male to Female) and that FTM approached Male rates of offending. Long term follow up
The clinician also warned that any move to sexual reassignment surgery may trigger violence which seemed to suggest a cautious approach was wise. Seems there was general acceptance of the co-morbid conditions by a number of the clinicians involved in the claimant’s care.
It seems the legal case itself had arisen because of the conflict between the clinicians dealing with the patient, one might argue “holistically”, and the Gender Identity Specialists. Here we have Dr James Barrett; who seems to be the go-to expert in many of these cases. . I do not share his confidence that the psychiatric illness is a mere co-incidence. Yes there is likely a link between the Gender Dysphoria and the mental health, as he states, but I suspect Dr Barrett does not see that link in quite the same way as I do.
Clearly there was a view that the claimant was being let down by not having expedited treatment for their “gender dysphoria”. One group of clinicians seem to be erring on the side of caution whilst other “experts” see the failure to commence treatment as the issue.
Others are clear that Gender Dysphoria, to them , is a simple health problem that needs treatment and not a mental health issue:
The judge in this case seems uncharacteristically resistant to the advocacy of some of the big players in the trans-political sphere. Here she opines on the contributions of some big names. This had to hurt! Stephen Whittle and Ruth Hunt made statements the judge decided were of “no relevance”.
She was also very critical that the case had been brought at all and made specific reference to the considerable costs incurred.
Finally she concluded that she did not think the case was necessary. Reading between the lines she understood this was to “highlight the importance of transgender issues” and likely this was intended to have wider application than in this individual case. 
The judge rejected the case for a judicial review of a clinical judgement.
Here we have someone who seems to be a lesbian, from a fractured childhood and periods in state care. All of these things are likely to generate “identity” issues. Add in all the mental health issues and it seems beyond madness to see the “Gender Dysphoria” in isolation from the other conditions.
Female judge. Took someone from twitter (@KirstenYounger) to point out I had used male pronouns, in the first draft, for the Judge. Mea culpa. The maximum kind.
I spent so much time agonising about pronouns for the FTM claimant, to avoid being kicked off WordPress, I missed the important stuff, for women.
Worth reading this Pronouns Rohypnol
I hope whatever path this individual took it turned out well. I fear it won’t /didn’t
2 thoughts on “FTM Transgender: Legal Case”