Exclusive interview by @bindelj with Amy, the courageous female prisoner who took MOJ to the high court for a judicial review of its policy that allows male sex offenders into women’s prisons. /1
“What were the officers even thinking, letting her clean toilets in which women would be in a state of undress and alone? Why was there a child sex offender with a penis cleaning the toilets of the gym in a women's prison?' /2
'When J went for a shower, the prison put a sign on the door saying that no one else should enter…. but J objected to this and said it was an infringement of her human rights,'
'She said, 'I am a woman and I want to shower with other women.' /3
Powerful testimony of what happened to Amy while in prison
“Just before she assaulted me, she was seen with the shower curtain open, her genitals in full view of the other women.” /4
“the law needs to be changed, she says the equation is a simple one: If a transwoman is in for violence against women, or sex offences against women or children, you should not be in prison with women.”
“It’s like putting a crack addict in a crack house, or an alcoholic in a pub. Sex offenders should never be in prison with women” /6
“The sexual assault took place in the toilets of the gym, which were left unguarded and without CCTV.
'It was supposed to be my sanctuary,' says Amy. 'I felt so distressed. Prison is an awful place to be under any circumstances, and this just made it 100 times worse.'” /7
“She would wear very tight trousers which made it obvious she had male genitals. The prison officers protected her more than they did us. They were terrified of being accused of transphobia.'” /8
“Some female prisoners have been punished for 'transphobic behaviour' when complaining about transwomen being housed among us. It's outrageous. How could they not recognise the danger we were in?” /9
“The staff turned a blind eye to this behaviour. They protected themselves and didn't speak out as they were worried that they would get into trouble because of the trans policy in prison; a policy which doesn't consider the impact on women prisoners,' says Amy.” /10
“Amy believes the outcome of the case is so iniquitous that she intends to continue to campaign.
'I want to train as a lawyer, I want to help women who have been unfortunate enough to end up in prison because of the abuse they suffered in childhood and beyond.” /11
Thank you Amy for speaking up for women. Thank you @bindelj for telling her story. Read the full interview here /12 👇
Read the MOJ’s equality impact assessment that concluded the unit for high risk trans prisoners should be inside a women’s prison to provide ‘association with other women’ /14 👇
Fair Play For Women wrote to women in prison to find out what they thought about sharing space with male sex offenders. Why didn’t the government?? /15👇
THREAD: A transgender male will be competing for an Olympic medal in female weightlifting on 2nd August. Is this fair? Here's what you need to know. /1
Weight lifting is divided into weight categories. The bigger the lifter the more weight they can lift.
It would be unfair to allow a heavy weight to compete in a light weight category. /2
We also divide weightlifting into SEX categories. Even the smallest males can lift more than the biggest females.
That's because male bodies develop on high levels testosterone but female bodies don't. This is called MALE performance advantage /3
Sir James Edie QC is speaking for the government. (The same Sir James we beat in the ONS case but we won't hold that against him :-D) /2
JEQC: Does respect for private life (Article 8) impose a positive obligation on the state to take action? If so then EVERY country that doesn't allow X in passport is in breach. The fact they don't is because there is a wide margin of appreciation (leeway) for each state /3
#Xpassports
Discussions begin round Human Rights Article 8 (right to private life). Court has previously agreed that Article 8 IS engaged. Refusing X on a passport does interfere with human rights. The issue before the court is whether this interference is justified /1
Appellant QC raises the issue of how human rights leads to positive obligations on the state. What is the margin of appreciation when considering the impact on wider society? Wide or narrow? /2
Appellant QC argues there is a positive obligation on the state to 'recognise' a non-gendered identity. The UK gov has not yet accepted this obligation. Therefore refusal to allow an X on a passport is a lack of recognition rather than an implementation issue. /3
Follow @fairplaywomen for live tweets and reaction from the Supreme Court today. Judges hear an appeal to allow people who identify as non-binary to put an X in the sex box on their passport /1
All sounds pretty harmless doesn't it. But beware. It has the potential to undermine women's rights because it opens the door to people claiming they are 'sexless'. /2
We've seen this before with transgender issues. The concepts of gender identity & sex get conflated.
It starts out with "a man can identify as a woman". Next its claimed that humans can *actually* change sex and a penis can be a female sex organ. And only transphobes disagree /3
**NEWS THREAD**
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to force UK gov to record X on passports. This would be a first step towards state-recognition of non-binary identities. If the appeal is won it threatens women's sex-based rights. Here's why/1 fairplayforwomen.com/non-binary-the…
In April, Fair Play For Women instructed barrister Jason Coppell QC to seek permission to intervene at the Supreme Court. You can read our full submission to court here /2
We argued that refusing X on passports is justified because of the wider impact on society and in particular women's rights. X conveys the ideological message that humans can be sex-less. That some people are neither male nor female. Sex isn’t universal. This matters because.../3