,
15 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Yesterday @rights_info published an inedible plate of nonsense about the new policy on transgender prisoners. rightsinfo.org/transgender-pr… Their customers complained. So they added some sauce and a sprig of parsley, put it in the microwave and sent it back out. It is still inedible 
Lets look at the changes. They clarify that the Framework doesn't actually say the bizarre thing about assessing "strength of genitalia". But they keep in the comment from their expert talking about this imaginary policy. THIS MAKES NO SENSE
The updated article still only quotes this one expert , who did not seem to have read the policy carefully. They still are not upfront that she is not just 'a barrister' but co-founder of lobby group @UKTELI
They added a bit about Karen White who they say "began gender realigning while on remand in HMP New Hall"... Which is odd because everywhere else on the site they tell us if someone says they are a woman they are a woman (and always have been).
They still imagine that prisons are organised by 'gender' rather than sex
They still think that most transwomen prisoners are housed in women's prisons. The Framework document gives the data that shows most transwomen are currently in the male estate.
Here is what @rights_info said about prisons last year when they were writing about the GRA consultation. Again they imagined that most transwomen prisoners were already in "gender appropriate prisons" (by which they mean the women's estate) with no problems.
During the GRA consultation they dismissed women's concerns based on this mistake. 'see there are no problems!' But most transwomen prisoners are NOT in women's prisons. (as @RichardJGarside points out self ID wld change this)
The article says the government capitulated to "anti-trans campaigners" - who do they mean ? These sound like shady bad actors. Why not engage with people's real concerns about safeguarding rather than make these nasty insinuations about nameless groups?
The article still talks about the suicides of Vikki Thompson & Joanne Latham incompletely & irresponsibly -- The Samaritans advise to avoid over-simplifying the causes of suicide. The article presents these two cases as the result of being in the wrong prison.
(In practice the inquest for Vikki Thompson said a male prison was the right place for Thompson. Joanne Latham was so violent that women's prison was never going to be an option. )
I don't think this article is saveable with a few more little edits. Why not start from a blank sheet - get the facts straight, talk to more than one expert, don't write off those with concerns for women's safety as 'anti-trans'. Better still commission them to explain concerns.
Just to be clear: I don't think the problems with this article is the fault of the young journalist who wrote it. This is an organisational problem. It is the trustee's responsibility @adamwagner1 . Taking it seriously, and doing better is something the Trustees could do.
The Trustee's are responsible for the CEO's policy of dismissing gender critical voices as 'TERFs' and 'anti-trans' . Its up to them to consider if this is really consistent with their mission of increasing understanding of human rights (including women's rights).
Or the organisation can carry on encouraging the the staff to only report half the story, no-platform gender critical experts, dismiss women's concerns, and keep fobbing off people who call this out by telling them to submit complaints through a toothless complaints system...🙄
