Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.

This policy was revised and updated and published in August 2019. You can read the full policy 👉 Here

This was revised after more than one high profile case of male rapists operating in the female estate. There is no explicit reference to the cases, in the policy, though they do include a warning about staff leaking information to the media.

A new policy is due to be published 31st October 2019 so I will revisit to note the amendments made. I have also emailed the Ministry of Justice to ask if there is a specific policy on the care of female prisoners. I have also asked what protocols are in place for a female prisoner who is moved to the male estate, because they are deemed too dangerous for the women’s facilities.

The policy exposes how far the, legally protected, characteristic of sex has been eroded, by allowing anyone, regardless of biology, to declare they are a woman. The prison system is illustrative of just how far Gender Identity ideology is embedded within our legislature and enshrined in public policy.

Below is a quote 👇 from James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance, which shows that Female prisoners are the subjects of a dangerous laboratory experiment. James is listed as an author of the Scottish Prisons Policy which deals with Transgender Prisoners. As James is a lobbyist for Trans Rights there is only one group at the forefront of the policy. Spoiler. Its not Women.

‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

The above quote is illustrative of a complete disregard for the female prison population; one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres and female prisons do seem to figure prominently in the targeted locations. Captive females are being targeted for this new branch of Men’s rights activism.

The new MOJ policy starts out well. At least it recognises the need for balance between the protected characteristic of “sex” and “Gender Reassignment”. Specifically they refer to women’s prisons not, you will notice, men’s prisons. They know any conflict impacts women.

The important legal issue here is that someone who has a Gender Recognition Certificate, is deemed to be “legally” of the opposite sex. Thus a Male to Female Transexual (MTF) or a Female to Male (FTM) is deemed to be legally a woman/man, respectively. (Note: This does NOT mean that only post-operative transsexuals are able to be legally declared as the opposite sex. Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) have already been issued to male-bodied people).

The policy also includes this quote: Unbeknown to, I would guess, 99% of women, the UK legal system has endorsed the idea of #LadyPenis. Not one single women I have told about this, in real life, had any idea the state has declared that a male, complete with penis, can be legally defined as a woman. Once I had overcome their disbelief, they were, to a woman, horrified. This is not a grass roots movement, its top down, elite led, and mandated by a political class who have been lobbied into submission. Crucially those who enact the law, and draft the guidance, will not be on the front line. They will not be tasked with enforcing the policy, in real life, or on the receiving end when, inevitably, it places women and children at risk.

The Prisons policy has to operate on the basis of the law. The interpretation of the law is such that a person who holds a GRC is , legally, woman/man and to be housed according to their “legal gender”. (A lot of the debate uses Gender & Sex interchangeably. This is no accident. It obfuscates. Whenever you are reassured by a policy. Stop. Ask how they are defining gender, sex and woman. )

*A CCB is a Complex Case Board.

Since there are less than 5000 GRCs granted (last time I checked) this, on the surface, restricts the numbers. However later in the policy it appears this is not quite so clear cut:

This begs the question just what evidence is considered sufficient to define “gender” when legal sex cannot be easily determined? Apparently staff can ask the prisoner’s permission to see a Gender Recognition Certificate or evidence that an application has been made. However, the prisoner is not obliged to supply this information and can withhold it. The policy also makes it clear that no search can be conducted to determine the sexual characteristics of the prisoner. This prisoner who does not produce a GRC, or new birth certificate, will not have met the threshold for “full supporting confirmation” of their legal gender”. The prison can, however, accept “strong supporting confirmation”. This turns out to be as follows:

The first and last categories are documents available to anyone on a “self-declared” basis. Again how can one evidence “living as a woman”? Would we accept “living as a black man” or would we immediately see how offensive this is? The middle one “appearance and mannerisms” postulates women as nothing more than mannequins. This is grossly offensive to actual women but capitulates to wannabe women who think make-up maketh the woman.

Another interesting point made in the policy is the record keeping. Any prisoner who is deemed to meet this very superficial set of criteria will be recorded as such.

Are crimes committed by men, who identify as women, recorded as male or female? If so how many self-identified women incarcerated are sex offenders? Do we have any way of tracking the risk these males present to the women inside, and outside, the prison? I have more questions than answers. When we start to have a “puzzlng” increase in “female” sex offenders this will surely distort “evidence” based policy. Risk assessments on the impact of male violence against women need accurate data. Individual women risk assess when in proximity to males. This is a survival strategy. Policy makers should ensure they have the data to do this on a macro scale. Since we know there are significant sex based differentials in offence patterns eradicating records based on sex is a risky strategy.

I would also love to know why transgender status has any bearing on sentencing? See the excerpt below ⇓

Is Transgender status being treated as a mitigating factor? I have seen articles where the judge has allowed an offender to walk free rather than subject them to custodial sentence. Explicitly stating it was deemed to be more onerous for a Trans prisoner. Here is one case in which the Judge does not impose a custodial sentence because the Sexual Offender Treatment Programmes are not geared to the Trans-community (which is true but letting the sex offender walk is no solution) : Transgender Sex Offender walks free

Writing such a policy would be challenging in the legal context even if undertaken by skeptical parties. Some of the framing is downright dishonest when contextualised to female offences against males and vice versa. Here we have exactly the same phraseology for the location of MTF and FTM.

It must require a suspension of disbelief to write the second paragraph knowing full well a female, regardless of identity, is much more likely to be at risk not presenting a risk to male prisoners.

A significant feature of the trans community is the need to be validated in the sex you wish you were born in. Where a MTF demands that validation it can impacts on women’s safety by an obsessive need to be included in female spaces. The more intimate the more validating. For a female, with a male identity, this same need places them at risk. Yet the law dictates this:

I reported on another trans-identifying female earlier in this series who was sectioned in lieu of being imprisoned. Inevitably they were the target of sexual “advances” when incarcerated, at their request, in the male estate. FTM Legal Case

I also quote Frances Crook of the Howard League in the above case: 👇

There are 80,000 male prisoners and 3000 female prisoners. Men imprisoned for sexual offences are at 19% in the male estate. Of the MTFs, held in the female estate, 41% are in for sexual offences. ↓

Either we have a higher pattern of sexual offences within the Trans umbrella or we have a problem of opportunistic men gaming the system. The outcome for the women is the same whichever the motivation.

The above is from an article in the Spectator. (*The 0.04% figure is open to question as 128 out of the total female population is actually 4%. It is not known if this is because there are males , legally counted as female, in these figures).

FTM Transgender: Legal Case

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:

FTM Incarcerated

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.

Transmen and prison location

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

Suicide in the Trans Community

Better a live daughter than a dead son!

This blog is in response to the consistent use of versions of the above phrase. Parents are being told a failure to comply with medicalisation, for their “gender confused” offspring, will result in a significant risk of suicide. Lobbying organisations are using suicide rates of “trans” kids to influence public policy, advocate for legislative change and dictate clinical guidelines for kids/teens with Gender Dysphoria. Despite the headline grabbing claims the data does not stand up to scrutiny.

A selection of headlines:

A more recent one from September 2019 includes a direct demand that legal change is required to mitigate against these suicides:

These are not isolated examples. This theme is used consistently by lobby groups, in particular, Mermaids. Below is a link to a taped Mermaids representative in a training session. When an audience member notes that some academics have criticised the data, on trans suicides, the trainer warns that academics can still be transphobic! Mermaids Training.

Full statement from Mermaids on World Suicide Day here. Note the statistic of 45% is still in use. They also then quote the general suicide rate, in under 19s, to support their case. This is not disaggregated to show any link to Trans identity. World Suicide Day

Here is a slide presentation, used by Mermaids, during a presentation at a conference in front of an audience of lawyers, press, NHS representatives and government officials. This was on 18th November 2016 at the Trans Equality Legal Initiative.

Two key pieces of research are used to make claims of high suicide rates/attempts in the trans community. The first one is a study commissioned by PACE RaRe and the other was commissioned by Stonewall. These studies may not have reached a wide audience but their message informed the ITV drama “Butterfly” : which made liberal use of the suicide narrative.

Here is a detailed debunking of the suicide stats, authored by Associate Professor Michael Biggs, prompted by the ITV drama “Butterfly” : Suicide data.

Here are some key excerpts:

That’s FOUR cases over a decade. Each one a tragedy for the individual, and their parents, but in no way supporting the ,manufactured, public perception, of a suicide epidemic in Trans youth. These figures have been published by leading MPs who seem to be uninformed about their unreliability.

Here is Susie Green (CEO of Mermaids) claiming she is aware of 4 trans-suicides in just one year. There is no evidence to support this statement.

The PACE RaRe study is available in full here: PACE/Rare LGBT suicide

Here is a full analysis of the data in the above study, in particular questioning the way these statistics have been used by Lobby groups. Suicide Myths

Below is a brief snapshot highlighting that the central figure is based on 13 trans young people who self-report attempted suicide.

Included in the above report is correspondence with one of the authors of the study expressing concern about how the data has been used. Below is one example:

The author of the study had this to say about the way organisations, with an agenda, are using their data:

The second study under analysis is one commissioned by Stonewall, with an introduction by, former CEO, Ruth Hunt. The full report is here

Attempts made to obtain the methodology were not forthcoming. In Academia it is absolutely expected that any published research is open about their methodology. This is so it can be critically evaluated and it’s robustness tested. No peer-reviewed journal would accept research without knowing that the data set was available to scrutiny. The Stonewall research was not subject to peer review and no dataset was forthcoming. 👇

A detailed list of criticisms is here:

It is well demonstrated that Lesbian and Gay youth are more likely to be bullied and have suicidal tendencies. Research needs to disaggregate the data to include sexual orientation however a research subject identifies. This is the only way to understand what is going on. Hence point three, above, is important.

The report ends with a link to the Samaritans Guidelines on responsible reporting of suicide. Samaritans: Media Guidelines

Remember that the Samaritans warn, repeatedly, that irresponsible reporting can foster suicide ideation in vulnerable groups. They warn it is dangerous to over-simplify narratives about suicide cases. In addition to focus on one of the deceased characteristics can harm those who share that trait. (Please note that this in no way negates the real experience of individuals living through genuine distress either due to sexual orientation/ Gender Dysphoria or, as is often the case, both).

For parents with children/teens with Gender Dysphoria, the way the suicide narrative is presented can generate understandable anxiety. By way of reassurance I repeat the guidance from the Gender Identity Services (GIDs) own FAQ page.

Here are also Polly Carmichael (Director of The Tavistock, Gender Identity Clinic) on the suicide statistics and how they are used:

The aim of this blog is to inform enough people to rebut this narrative when we hear it. Whether that is in real life, diversity training, or on social media. Please do also let Samaritans know when you see this irresponsible coverage. I live in hope they are moved to make a public statement, or at least, a private overture to those peddling this dangerous narrative.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Professor Michael Biggs and Transgender Trend for all the work they do.

Tag: Transgender

Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.

Like this:

FTM Transgender: Legal Case

Differential diagnosis/Treatment Pathways.

I hope whatever path this individual took it turned out well. I fear it won’t /didn’t

Like this:

Suicide in the Trans Community

A selection of headlines:

Here are some key excerpts:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Differential diagnosis/Treatment Pathways.

I hope whatever path this individual took it turned out well. I fear it won’t /didn’t

Share this:

Like this:

A selection of headlines:

Here are some key excerpts:

Share this:

Like this: