2018-19 HMPPS Offender Equalities Report
"transgender" means "in transition and recognised by prison authorities as being so it excludes offenders with GRCs
"79.1% of all "in-transition, no GRC" offenders were MALE (transwomen)." ie very similar to 2016-17 & 2017-18
Statistically Accurate statement (Prison Population England & Wales): [Copy & Paste]
"In 2018-19, 79.1% of 'transgender' ie "in-transition, no GRC" inmates are "legal gender" MALE ie 129/163.
The average percentage of over three years was 79.2% in 2017, 79.9% in 2018 & 79.1% in 2019 was 79.4%.
This figure is an under-estimate as it does not include those counted as "transgender male" offenders who
"did not state" (DNS) a "legal gender"
nor those with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC)"
Percentage derived by Clare B Dimyon from
Source data: 2018-19 HMPPS Offender Equalities Report 28 Nov 2019
MOJ Transgender Terminology - Used inconsistently, "legal gender" - no such term in law, the term "transgender" has different meanings on the same page but for these statistics means "in-transition, no GRC".
It can be deduced from the fact prisoners with GRCs are excluded from this data set that "legal gender" means self-reported biological sex, in a binary prison estate in which placement is according to bio-sex in the absence of a GRC. Female transmen do not appear to be placed in the male prison estate any longer, even with a GRC.
Clare B Dimyon MBE [LGBT] questions whether unquestionably diligent staff members of HMPPS or MOJ, including politicians, not especially versed in LGBT language & definitions would be able to unpick the actual meaning of these statistical statements. This language would therefore seem to be a breach of HMPPS policy on Naming Conventions contained on p8 of HMPPS Records, IT Management & Retention (25 May 2018) in that it fails to be
i) clear and well-defined
ii) to convey meaning that is understandable
iii) that has meaning to anyone other than the creator of the document.
The fact that this page of digestion has had to be produced suggests it has failed on all three counts!
NB 1: It is reasonable to assume a similar 4:1 male to female ratio in those not currently included, which means that the actual percentage of transgender male is under-estimated & will in fact be higher and closer to the the measure for male criminality of 96.1%. ~80% of the transgender prison population is MALE (transwomen) contrasts substantially with the measure of female criminality of 3.9%. [MOJ OMS-Q 29 Jan 2021]
NB 2: A GRC is the only objective evidence of transgender status and is issued by the Gender Recognition Panel, another branch of the MOJ.
NB 3: In the absence of a GRC, "legal gender" can only mean biological sex.
NB 4: It seems highly irregular for the Ministry of Justice, the UK ministry most closely involved with the... law to be inventing legal terminology, that has no basis in... the law. A failure to define terminology can only serve to undermine the quality of statistics, reflecting adversely on the competence of the statisticians.
NB 5: In a binary prison estate in which prisoners are placed according to sex by default, and female transmen are no longer transferred to the male prison estate, and male transwomen are transferred to the female prison estate after what are claimed to be stringent "safe-guarding" or the production of a GRC, it is nonsense to suggest that biological sex cannot be determined.
Exclusion of some "Transgender" Offenders from the MOJ | HMPPS Transgender Totals
The Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is the only objective evidence of transgender status is the GRC administered by the same MOJ's "Gender Recognition Panel" (GRP). It is therefore a very strange basis for excluding prisoners with GRCs from the "transgender" total.
The GRC requires no surgical nor hormonal intervention, thus the unique functionality is retained in the overwhelming majority of cases and with it the unique threat both physical and psychological, is retained by male transwomen.
The "transition" process would appear not to be equal and opposite, begging the question how it can be equal. It is not clear if male transwomen with GRCs are included in the tiny female totals but if so, dis-proportionate impact on statistics that is neither equal nor opposite. [Key Finding 6 FairPlayForWomen 2017]
Exclusion for the Purposes of Inclusion? The purpose of Equality & Inclusion auditing of this kind, undertaken since the 1980s, is to "count what you value" in order to monitor and ensure the inclusion of disadvantaged populations. The exclusion of offenders with GRCs from the transgender "total" is a total departure from best practice, which could be said to suggest such offenders are not important and/or that transphobia ceases upon receipt of a GRC, in fact the only objective evidence of transgender status.
of some "transgender" population is unique departure from best practice of Equality Auditing of this kind, ie the count those who you value and to understand those who are regarded as disadvantaged. Exclusion for the purposes of inclusion?
It is transphobic & a failure of statistics
i) transphobic & disrespectful as it fails to recognise the unique life journey of transgender people
ii) Safe-guarding failure for inmates with GRCs failure - in the light of assertions of pervasive transphobia
iii) Safe-guarding failure for separation of prisoners who are male trasnwomen with male genitalia from female prisoners within the female prison estate....according to all the assertions of the MOJ & HMPPS.
© 2021 Clare B Dimyon MBE [L-G-B-T] Analytical Engineer in the Aerospace Industry