New data have revealed that over ‘half of legally male prisoners who identify as women have been convicted of a sexual offence’, with 87 out of 146 such prisoners across England and Wales ‘originally found guilty of a sex crime’; Victoria Atkins, Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice said the figure included only ‘people who were born male but identify as female’ – not those with gender recognition certificates, about whom information ‘“will be published early this year.”’
It seems that while ‘[p]revious convictions are considered as part of the risk assessment when deciding where to house prisoners who identify as female’, five of the 146 felons ‘have been housed in women’s prisons’, and at least one of the five ‘has been convicted of a sex crime.’ According to the director of Fair Play for Women, Dr Nicola Williams, ‘“male-born trans prisoners … currently housed in male prisons … could be moved to a woman’s prison if a risk assessment considers it safe to do so”’, and while ‘“sex offending history”’ is taken into account in such assessments, ‘“it is not a bar. This is wrong. Women should never be expected to shar a prsion with a male sex offender.”’ She added: ‘“Identifying as a woman doesn’t magically reduce their tendency to commit sex crimes at female levels.”’
Most people would suspect that transferring a self-identified ‘trans woman’ sex offender to a woman’s prison would increase their tendency to commit sex crime – and so it has proved in practice.
Dr Kate Coleman, director of Keep Prisons Single Sex commented: ‘“The MoJ insists that their risk assessment processes keep women in prison safe”’, but ‘“the risk assessment is not adequate”’; she pointed out that the Ministry of Justice ‘“doesn’t risk- assess male prisoners with a gender recognition certificate using the risk assessment tools for adult men convicted of sexual offences, because they treat them ‘as women in every respect.”’ In response, a Prison Service spokeswoman stated: ‘“Transgender prisoners make up just 0.2 per cent of the prison population. Our approach to managing them was recently confirmed by the High Court to be safe and legal as robust risk assessments are carriet out before any move to prison”’ (‘Half of trans inmates have a sex conviction’, Sunday Express, January 23, 2022).
It seems that even ‘0.2 per cent’ can cause problems out of all proportion to their numbers, and while ‘robustly’ treating ‘trans women’ sex offenders ‘as women in every respect’, the Ministry of Justice clearly disrespects the safety of the real women forcibly trapped with them.
Feminists have been most active in criticising the ‘trans’ narrative, but feminism must share some of the blame for seizing on the term ‘gender’ to highlight what they saw as society’s supposed construction of females as inferior to men; the new terminology, they believed, would allow women to define themselves – as it turned out, even to define themselves as men. And unfortunately, it also meant that men could also define themselves as women – on equality grounds, naturally – and there are far more ‘trans women’ than there are ‘trans men’, with very few, if any of the latter seeking to use male bathrooms.
Governing elites have adopted the ‘sexual diversity’ campaign’s priorities as a progressive move; however, their approach has met with failure in yet another sphere, for in the drive to ‘recruit more women into frontline infantry roles’ after ‘the Government lifted the ban allowing female recruits to serve in frontline regiments, including the SAS and the Parachute Regiment, in 2016’, they have failed to reach their ‘targets’ so abysmally that ‘just a handful’ of women have joined up. This is despite Commanders predicting ‘that by now at least 600 would have signed on for close ground combat’, and in preparation for the anticipated influx, ‘around £1million was spent overhauling accommodation blocks’, including ‘creating women-only sections at the Infantry Training Centres at Catterick and Pirbright’, with rooms ‘sealed off from male recruits, and the creation of female-only toilets and showers with separate entrances and exits.’ Indeed, the Royal Marines ‘changed entire floors in most recruit blocks, leaving male soldiers in overcrowded rooms and sharing lockers.’
According to official figures, ‘of the 18,020 soldiers currently serving in infantry battalions, just 40 are women’ – ‘just two per cent’ – and ‘between 2019 and 2021 only 50 female rookies joined Phase One infantry training at Catterick in Yorkshire, with just 30 passing’ – although even this included 10 ‘understood to be female officers in the infantry, as well as female soldiers already serving who had transferred from logistics and engineer units.’ And ‘no female applicant has passed the 36-week Royal Marines Commando course’ since the rule-change, although reportedly ‘at least five have tried, including Olympic rower Philippa Birch.’ In addition, there are no female infantry ‘in the new Rangers regiment and while two have served with the SAS, both were attached to the Adjutant General’s Corps’; in 2002 ‘Captain Pip Tattersall, who was serving with the Adjutant General’s Corps, became the first woman to pass the Army Commando course’, but it was ‘a four-week reduced programme for logistics and engineer personnel supporting the marines.’
A spokesperson for the Army responded: ‘“Opening the infantry to women has increased operational effectiveness. The change was about creating opportunity, not just increasing numbers’ (‘Army fails to hit target for women’, Sunday Express, January 23, 2022).
To which one can only reply, ‘Tell that to the Marines’. How anyone could have thought that women would be attracted to front-line fighting in great numbers, or even if they were, that including them in the front-line would ‘increase operational effectiveness’, is a mystery best explained by the current pandemic of woke madness apparently afflicting all those sections of society – the police, the security and prison services – formerly famed for their sanity.
No doubt, under this lingering lunacy, the failure to attract women to the fighting forces will in time be solved by allowing men to declare themselves women, and then, presumably, they could take advantage of those eerily empty female facilities. Such schemes seem to have been introduced to show that those in high places are ‘against’ misogyny, but a programme exposing the inferiority of the female applicants could almost have been designed by a misogynist; indeed, in the interests of fighting misogyny we now have male sex offenders in female prisons, and are desperately trying to encourage women to engage in military operations where they may well get killed.
It cannot have escaped the notice of heterosexual men that in recent years they have been treated as public enemy number one – ‘toxic males’ who, even when they seek employment in the defence of their country, have their worth undermined by the emphasis on the need to recruit more women. It really seems that to our new battalions of semi-pacifists – who have no trouble with recruitment – the real danger is not a foreign foe, but the men who once would have guarded our country. All the official energy seems to be going into fighting them, while Mr Putin, late of the KGB, is no doubt thrilled to learn that while our social order is being undermined by the obsession with sexual diversity, we are trying to fill our defence forces with female fighters who cannot even pass basic entry tests.
The battle against sexism turns out to have been a phoney war, and the main casualties have been women; ‘progressive’ measures have turned out to be regressive, and the main beneficiaries have been the cultural Marxist ‘diversity’ campaign, and the real Marxism currently menacing our continent. The real sexism of anti-sexism has been exposed in the grotesque spectacle of ‘transwomen’ sex offenders in women’s prisons and women given the equal right to be killed.