BBC- Transgender Prisoners

September 11, 2018

 

More:

http://transcrimeuk.com/2018/07/17/karen-white/

prison bars

Testimony admitted by the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry in the UK Parliament took a surprise turn when members sounded the alarm over what they warned is an “ever increasing tide” of transwoman criminal sex offenders. They outline how sex-offending transwomen whom they describe as “pretend transsexuals” adopt a transgender identity for various nefarious purposes, often involving increased access to vulnerable women and child victims.

Description of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, from the August 20, 2015 testimony to Parliament [PDF] [all bolding in this post by me-GM]:

The Association numbers over a hundred members and comprises the overwhelming majority of all clinicians working in every Gender Identity Clinic in the British Isles. The membership is drawn from all the involved disciplines and includes Speech Therapists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Surgeons, Psychosexual Counsellors, Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Endocrinologists, General Practitioners and Social Workers.

From the testimony:

The criminal justice system merits quite a bit of thinking about.

On the one hand, many of us can remember patients who were charged with crimes, convicted and who ended up on the sex offenders register when we thought that the same thing wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t a trans person. A good example would be the transwoman charged with sexual assault after some brief fellatio with two males who were two and three years younger than her own age at the time (she was eighteen). They were visitors to the area and boasted to their cousin of their recent sexual encounter. The cousin, enlightening them as to the nature of the person they had had a sexual encounter with, caused them to feel embarrassed. One thing led to another and the patient was charged with sexual assault. Given that she was in a kneeling position at the time and that it would have been perfectly possible for either one of the males concerned to run away this seemed a bit implausible. In the end, she was convicted of being reckless as regard to age. This does place her on the sex offenders register, though. One suspects that she would never have been charged at all if she had been a born female.

The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this.

[sic]

To recap the points made in that second paragraph:

There is an “ever increasing tide” of incarcerated transwomen accessing transgender care services.

These transwomen are overwhelmingly convicted of “serious sexual offenses”, facing “long or indeterminate” sentences.

These transwomen convicted of serious sexual offences “vastly outnumber” transgender prisoners convicted for ordinary crimes.

Transgender care providers have identified several “improper purposes” utilized by the vast majority of incarcerated transwomen seeking transgender care.

These are identified as follows:

  1. Access to trips out of prison
  2. Sexual access to vulnerable incarcerated females
  3. Early parole due to parole board’s false belief that transwomen are less dangerous than other men.
  4. False belief that transgender medical treatments will decrease their future impulses to commit criminal sexual offenses.
  5. Desire for special status within prison system.
  6. Desire for protected status within prison system.
  7. Enhanced ability to commit future serious sexual offenses against women and/or children while disguised as women.

The Parliamentary testimony of the Association of Gender Identity Specialists goes on to complain that “Informed Consent” models of transgender care, where adopted, force clinicians to knowingly facilitate criminal sex offenses against women and children through the administration of transgender medicine.

That testimony:

There has been much talk recently of an “informed consent” approach being adopted.

The difficulty is that this phrase is much used in medical practice at the same two word phrase holds a wholly different meaning in the context being suggested. In routine medical practice in this and other countries the phrase “informed consent” means that patients can only be felt to have consented to any medical procedure if they have been fully informed, and understood, the likely consequences, both positive and negative, of the treatment being suggested, advised of alternative treatments that might be available, (including no treatment at all) and the likely positive and negative consequences of those alternatives. It is assumed in advance that the treatment suggestion is that being advanced by the practitioner concerned, the question being whether the patient is consenting to that treatment in a fully informed way.

The same phrase — “informed consent” — seems to the Association to have been borrowed by those suggesting very radical and negative shift in medical practice. It is suggested that provided patients are of sound mind (this amounts to the exclusion of serious mental illness) and understand the nature and consequences of what they request it should, essentially, be the role of the practitioner to fulfil that request. Crucially, there seems to be no recognition or acknowledgement of the view of the practitioner concerned about the merit of the suggested procedure. If actually implemented, this arrangement would leave medical practitioners in the position of having to make diagnoses they do not believe in, prescribe drugs they personally believe will not benefit the patient and undertake surgical procedures that they themselves believe will confer no benefit or cause harm. This is incompatible with medical practice, the first tenet of which is that one should “first, do no harm”.

In practical application, the worrying prisoner described in the paragraph above would be in a position to oblige medical practitioners to advance a plan the basis of which is the facilitation of subsequent sexual assault.

[sic]

Read the full testimony at the above PDF link.

prison