The policy pursued a legitimate aim

Women just don’t matter at all.

It is lawful for transgender women to be housed in female jails in England and Wales, the High Court has ruled.

A female prisoner, known as FDJ, had challenged the Ministry of Justice over aspects of the policy.

She claimed she had been sexually assaulted by a trans prisoner but the MoJ did not say whether it accepted this alleged incident had taken place.

The judge ruled barring all trans women from female prisons would ignore their right to live as their chosen gender.

But what about women’s right to live away from male violence?

Why isn’t that right vastly more important than some fanciful made-up “right” to live as a “chosen” i.e. not real “gender”?

Why does the physical safety of imprisoned women have to give way to men’s desire to pretend to be women? Why is men’s fun and games more important than women’s safety?

I’m honestly so stunned by the evil backwardness of this I can barely take it in.

Women’s prisons can house inmates who were born male but identify as female, regardless of whether they have gone through any physical transformation or have obtained a gender recognition certificate.

“Women’s prisons can” but women cannot – cannot escape, cannot hide, cannot say no, cannot be safe.

The MoJ argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including “facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health”.

What about the rights of female people to live in safety from male violence? Why aren’t those rights more important than men’s right to live out their fantasies? What about protecting women’s mental and physical health?

I’ve never seen anything that so thoroughly drives home the relative value of the two sexes. Men want to play dressup so by all means unleash them on imprisoned women to do their worst. What happens to the women just does



The claimant in the case, FDJ, had said she was sexually assaulted in prison in 2017 by a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The woman had convictions for serious sexual offences.

Which woman had convictions for serious sexual offences? The actual woman, or the man playing at being a woman? Almost certainly the second, since women mostly don’t commit sexual offences.

Her lawyers argued that placing transgender women in the female prisons exposed others to higher risk, citing a claim that transgender inmates were five times more likely than non-transgender prisoners to commit a sexual assault on a non-transgender prisoner.

Oh fuck off BBC – the issue is not trans v not-trans, it’s male v female. You know this.

In a judgement handed down via email, Lord Justice Holroyd accepted the statistical evidence showed proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was “substantially higher” than for non-transgender men and women prisoners.

But he said this specific claim was a “misuse of the statistics, which… are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions”.

And we simply have no statistics on male violence? Is that it?

The judge said he “fully understood” the concerns of FDJ, and that women prisoners “may suffer fear and acute anxiety” if housed with a transgender woman who has male genitalia.

They may also suffer rape and general violence. Does he “fully understand” that?

But he added that the rights of transgender women prisoners must also be considered.

But it’s not “also,” it’s “instead.” If you put men in women’s prisons you’re not considering the women’s rights at all.

It’s disgusting.

7 Responses to “The policy pursued a legitimate aim”