No Love, this really doesn’t work

A legal challenge to prevent transgender inmates with convictions for sexual or violent offences against women being imprisoned alongside other women has been rejected by the high court.

A female former inmate, who claims she was sexually assaulted by a transgender women prisoner with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) while in HMP Bronzefield in 2017, asked judges to declare the justice secretary’s policies on the care and management of trans prisoners in England and Wales to be unlawful.

The claimant, known only as FDJ, argued her human rights were violated by having to be in the same prison as transgender women prisoners with convictions for sexual or violent offences against women.

As stated this is clearly the right decision. Because victory for the idea would mean that the human rights of a female prisoner would be violated if she were to be in prison with natal females who were convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.

Which, you know, doesn’t work.

Sure, there might be other reasons not to put meat and two veg in among the wimmins but this can’t be one of them.

13 thoughts on “No Love, this really doesn’t work”

  1. Yeah. But that presumes a Gender Recognition Certificate’s worth the paper it’s printed on. And gives the lie to all this bollocks about “rights”. There are no such things. There are only obligations. And this is the legislature forcing on the public the obligation to go along with the delusions of the mentally disturbed.
    Can’t help but wonder if this is the one breaks the camel’s back. There’s far too many see it as the bollocks it is. If this comes unstitched folk might start looking at all the other “rights” have been handed out. Or put it another way, obligations they’ve been saddled with against their consent

  2. @Jonathan.. I think that sex offenders in men’s prisons are kept segregated in order to protect them from the other inmates – old-fashioned “traditional” criminals tend to have a very low opinion of them.

    The women’s prison scenario would, presumably, be the exact opposite. Either way, it seems like a good idea.

  3. Either way, it seems like a good idea.

    It seems like the sensible solution, which means the Home Office won’t be interested….

  4. Because victory for the idea would mean that the human rights of a female prisoner would be violated if she were to be in prison with natal females who were convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.

    Congratulations, you’ve just solved the trans-women in women’s sports issue. There is no problem because some female competitors would always lose to some natal females and might be physically harmed by some natal females. Therefore, those are not reasons to exclude trans-women from women’s sports.

    https://www.timworstall.com/2021/06/the-important-observation-here/
    “That social construct of gender, hell, do whatever. There are those times though that the universe’s realities concerning sex intervene and must be noted and dealt with.”

    Placing known male violent sex offenders in a captive female population might be one of those times.
    You know, maybe?

  5. No, you’ve missed the idea I was getting across.

    Her claim in court was that she should not be subject to people convicted of attacking women. That doesn’t work – some women in prison have been convicted of attacking women.

  6. But… women can’t be guilty of any and be cupable for their actions, their brains don’t get enough blood or something, I lose track.

  7. Maybe if she had tried on safety grounds as a natal female prisoner can’t get you pregnant? Though where would that leave trans-women who have had a vasectomy?
    Or as suggested earlier stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and accept the reality that putting rapists in a women’s prison is a stupid idea.

  8. Her claim in court was that she should not be subject to people convicted of attacking women.

    Citation?

    The Guardian article and the court record show that she was specifically complaining about transgender women with a history of violent and sexual crimes:

    “1.The Claimant in this case challenges the lawfulness of the Defendant’s policies relating to the care and management within the prison estate of persons who identify as the opposite gender from that which was assigned to them at birth. In particular, she challenges the policy in relation to the allocation to a women’s prison of transgender women who have been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

  9. Instead of putting women in prison, they should lock up the evil man that made them do it.

  10. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ A legal challenge to prevent transgender inmates with convictions for sexual or violent offences against women being imprisoned alongside other women has been rejected by the high court.”

    WTF do they men by “other women”?

    They keep telling us that trans women are women, are they now acknowledging that they are different in some way?

    I hope so, because we need to bring this delusional nonsense where blokes with bollocks and a penis declare themselves to be women to an end.

  11. “1.The Claimant in this case challenges the lawfulness of the Defendant’s policies relating to the care and management within the prison estate of persons who identify as the opposite gender from that which was assigned to them at birth. In particular, she challenges the policy in relation to the allocation to a women’s prison of transgender women who have been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

    Well that falls down at the first step, gender isn’t assigned at birth, sex is *OBSERVED* at birth. Harry Potter’s sorting hat IS FICTION

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *