fullsizeoutput_639Professor Alex Sharpe, Keele University

This article considers the recent case of Karen White and offers a measured response, in place of the heated reactions, the case has so far generated in the media and elsewhere. The key facts about the case are that Karen White, a transgender woman, was placed in HMP New Hall, a female prison in West Yorkshire, while on remand for rape and despite a history of sexual offending, and that while on remand, she assaulted four female inmates. The case has been manna from heaven for the right wing media and those who, with no sense of irony, describe themselves as gender critical feminists, and who oppose trans rights. The Times’ Janice Turner is one journalist who is (rightly) angry about the case, which she likens to ‘locking a fox in a henhouse.’[1]


She calls for prison policy change so as to preclude “male-born (sic) criminal(s) who [have] committed a violent or sexual crime against women” from being allocated to the female estate. While some readers may sympathise with this suggestion, we need to recognise what it and Turner’s fox metaphor masks. First, let us begin with some statistics. Turner refers to a ‘BBC reality check’ that found that there are currently 125 trans prisoners in English and Welsh prisons, 60 of whom have sex offence convictions (48%) (while she does not say so explicitly, these figures appear to be 2017 figures provided by the Ministry of Justice after the anti-trans group, Fair Play for Women, put in an FOI request).[2] Before proceeding further, let us consider this 48% figure. While it suggests nearly half of all trans prisoners are sex offenders, it is actually very misleading. This is because the statistic: (i) only counts trans prisoners who have informed prison officers of their trans status, (ii) does not count trans prisoners with a GRC, and (iii) does not take account of trans prisoners on shorter sentences, because they were not included in the survey. Accordingly, the actual percentage of trans prisoners who are sex offenders is likely to be considerable lower than 48%. This is perhaps especially so given exclusion of prisoners on shorter sentences, as they are, by definition, less likely to be sex offenders.


If we assume that all of the 60 prisoners who have a history of sexual offending are trans women (which is clearly false, a point to be developed below), and located within the female estate (also clearly false as most are located within the male estate), then, given there are currently approximately 4,000 women in our female prison system,[3] trans women would account for only 1.5% of the whole. However, in reality, the figure is much lower. According to the Times, citing figures derived from the Ministry of Justice response to the FOI request referred to above, there were 25 trans women prisoners located within the female estate in 2017.[4] However, information is lacking regarding how many of these 25 are sex offenders. It may be very few. If this were not the case, we would expect The Times, et al, to make such facts very public, and quick smart. And, in relation to trans sex offending in female prisons, it is highly unlikely we would not have heard about other cases, given, in the current political climate, a single incident becomes a media bonanza. Karen White is a case in point. So is the case of Jessica Winfield, who made unwanted sexual advances on female prisoners while housed at HMP Bronzefield.[5]


Further, no attempt is made to differentiate the trans population. In other words, there is a trans male prison population. If for no other reason, we know this because of a series of sex offence prosecutions brought against such individuals for non-disclosure of gender history prior to intimacy.[6] Putting to one side the injustice of such prosecutions, and the fact that it cautions us regarding the casual distribution of victim/perpetrator status across the cis-trans divide, this means that the trans female prison population, and the portion of that population properly categorised as sex offenders, is again smaller than some would like us to believe. To the extent that we are talking about trans women, we should also recognise that in some cases we are talking of historical offending. Risk assessment needs to consider present risk and this will require consideration of a range of factors including the fact that some trans women are on a hormonal regime that significantly reduces the libido and in many cases amounts to chemical castration.


A further, and important, issue concealed by the suggestion we ought to exclude all trans women sexual offenders from the female estate is the apparent lack of concern exhibited by those making the suggestion toward female victims of cis female violence. This kind of violence, like violence against women perpetrated by prison officers,[7] rarely if ever gains the kind of traction that trans offending does. We might want to separate here, a genuine concern for the well-being of women prisoners from the agendas which their victimisation at the hands of trans prisoners sustains. In any event, the issue of cis female violence against other women is not an idle affair. According to Ministry of Justice statistics for 2015, there were 195 incidents of assault per 1000 prisoners in female prison establishments (780). In relation to serious assaults, the figure is 14 per 1000 (52) (pp 131-132).[8] In case it is thought that these figures may include offences committed by prison officers (a serious issue in its own right, as noted above) rather than by prisoners themselves, the statistics show that there were 500 prisoner on prisoner assaults (with a further 200 prisoner on officer assaults) (p. 134).


The disproportionality of the approach recommended by Turner is especially apparent in the fact that she does not limit her exclusionary zeal to trans women with a history of sex offending. Rather, she insists that, irrespective of offence history, those trans women ‘who retain male genitals’ should be excluded.[9] It is apparent that Turner’s fox is a metaphor not for trans women sexual offenders, but trans women as a whole. Better policy would focus less on trans and more on those prisoners (cis and trans) who have a history of sexual offending. The fox metaphor is also unhelpful because it is used deliberately to misgender trans women. However, there are clearly vixens in female prisons and other prisoners need to be protected from them. This can be done in one of two ways. First, though this is hardly ever mentioned in such debates, female prisoners (cis and trans) who pose a significant enough danger to other prisoners (cis and trans) might be segregated in a separate prison unit.


Second, prisoners (cis and trans) identified as dangerous can be allocated/transferred to a male prison. Provision for this option already exists by virtue of the National Offender Management Services (NOMS) Care and Management of Transgender Offenders (PSI 17/2016) prison policy document, which has been effective since 1st January 2017. Where a transgender woman prisoner requests to be allocated to the female estate, prison policy requires that a Transgender Case Board be established within three working days of her reception into custody (para 4.6). The board’s determination as to whether a transgender woman is to be located in a male or female prison is to be based on ‘evidence of living in the gender with which the offender identifies.’ Such evidence includes an altered birth certificate, GRC (full evidence), acceptance into a Gender Identity Clinic, prescription of hormones, and actual gender presentation (strong evidence). Evidence tending against transgender claims includes ‘limited clarity or stability of intention to permanently change gender,’ while counter-evidence includes situations where there is evidence that location in a female prison is motivated by a desire to access future victims (Annex A).


While those trans women who have obtained a GRC “must be placed in a female prison” (para 4.7), this is subject to a very important exception, one which precludes locating any woman (cis or trans) in a female prison where “the risk posed to other offenders and/or staff prevents location in the female estate” (para 4.7). The point is elaborated in para 6.3: location in a male prison “can only happen if the risk concerns surrounding the prisoner are sufficiently high that other women with an equivalent security profile would also be held in the male estate.”[10] In other words, to the extent that a threat is posed within the female estate, either by cis or trans women, provision already exists to deal with it. Karen White should have been placed in a segregated unit within a women’s prison or placed in a male prison (where she would almost inevitably be segregated for her own protection) because her offending history posed too great a risk to other female prisoners. Prison authorities have acknowledged as much. Indeed, it would seem that trans women sex offenders requesting transfer to the female estate are routinely turned down in terms of prison practice. Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, has stated that during a recent visit to one female prison, the prison governor informed her that five trans women sex offenders had requested transfer. All were turned down.[11]


The solution to this type of problem lies not in a blanket ban against trans women, but in proper and robust risk assessment of all female prisoners. It might be said that no or few cis women (I am aware of none) have been placed in a male prison and therefore it is only trans women who pose a significant threat within the female estate. However, if no cis women have been placed within the male estate, this rather begs the question, given evidence of the existence of cis female prisoners with a history of violence. In other words, if prison policy decision-making is guided not by transphobia, but by actual risks of harm, how is this possible? Is it the case that cis women’s uncontentious status as women precludes application of para 4.7, whereas trans women’s daily struggle for this very status renders them vulnerable to it. That is, while we focus on the awful deeds of Karen White, and while we foreground her transness, have we failed to recognise prison discrimination against trans women?


In conclusion, what we need to do is focus not on trans, but on (cis and trans) vixens in the henhouse. After all, there are no foxes in female prisons, not since Emily Fox, the cis woman teacher convicted of sexual offences against a 15 year old school girl in 2014, was released from prison.[12] And we should keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that trans women sex offenders are being weaponised for a specific purpose – the derailment of the government’s proposals to adopt an approach to gender identity recognition based on self-identification, one I might add, adopted in Ireland, Denmark and elsewhere, and without the consequences fantasised by opponents of reform. The proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 are welcome, though long overdue. They will make the recognition process both simpler and cheaper, and they will also, and importantly, depathologise it. We can either get behind this reform, and reject the false division between cis and trans women that some would like to sell us, or, and persisting with Turner’s fox metaphor, we can join the ranks of ‘the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable.’[13]


* This article was originally published on 11th Sept. This amended version attends to a couple of errors/oversights in the original and develops some of the arguments made. However, the substantive arguments made in the original article remain unaffected.

Professor Alex Sharpe, School of Law, Keele University


[1] Janice Turner, The Times, 8/9/18 ‘Trans Rapists are a Danger in Womens Jails’ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-rapists-are-a-danger-in-women-s-jails-5vhgh57pt See also James Kirkup, The Spectator, 7/9/18 ‘Why was a Transgender Rapist put in a Women’s Prison?’ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/why-was-a-transgender-rapist-put-in-a-womens-prison/

[2] ‘How many Transgender Inmates are there?’ BBC News, 13/8/18 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629 In 2016 the Ministry of Justice estimated the trans prisoner population for England and Wales to be 70 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7420

[3] Janice Turner wrongly suggests the figure to be 8,000. See Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015 (24/11/16) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/572043/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2015.pdf p 109.

[4] Kaya Burgess, ’Governors fight putting trans inmates in women’s jails’ The Times, 4/6/18


[5] Loulla-Mae Eletheeriou-Smith, ‘Transgender rapist’s segregation in women’s prison “not due to sexual advances on inmates”’ The Independent, 6/9/17 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-rapist-womens-prison-segregation-sexual-advances-inmates-sexual-assualt-a7932866.html

[6] Alex Sharpe, Sexual Intimacy and Gender Identity ‘Fraud’: Reframing the Legal & Ethical Debate (London: Routledge, 2018).

[7] Shona Faye, The Independent, 11/9/17 ‘If you really want women to be safe in prisons, it’s not transgender prisoners you need to be wary of’ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/transgender-prisons-jessica-winfield-gender-recognition-act-a7940561.html

[8] Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015 (24/11/16) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/572043/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2015.pdf While these statistics do not provide information regarding cis female prisoner sex offending while in prison, it seems highly likely, given the approximately 4,000 inmates, that at least some incidents do occur. Certainly, we know that cis women have been convicted of sexual offences. Indeed, such offences appear to be on the increase. According to The Times, in 2016, 120 women and girls would found guilty of a range of sexual assaults, up from 48 in 2006 (Richard Ford, ‘More Women Convicted of Sex Offences’ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-women-convicted-of-sex-offences-bfdvv2w37 We do not know how many of these offences were directed toward other women.

[9] Speaking on the Victoria Derbyshire show (10/9/18), Dr Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women went further, insisting that prison allocation decisions “should be based on someone’s actual birth sex.” It should also be noted that a concern over pregnancy in the female prison might be relied on to support an argument for exclusion of trans women prisoners who still possess their reproductive capacity. However, such an argument would also lead logically to the removal of most male officers from female prisons.

[10] There is provision for location in the male estate if requested by a transgender woman.

[11] Alexandra Topping, ‘Prison reformer criticises “decisions that have harmed women” in Karen White case’ The Guardian 9/9/18 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

[12] The BBC, 5/9/14, ‘Teacher Emily Fox jailed for having sex with pupil’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-29078360

[13] Oscar Wilde, A Woman of No Importance, 1893.


KyleKyle L Murray

Teaching Fellow in Public Law and Human Rights, Durham Law School.

Comments welcome via Twitter: @KyleLMurray92 or email: k.l.murray@durham.ac.uk

The recent Women & Equalities Committee report on paternity leave, while making welcome proposals, is revealing of a fundamental problem with the way we frame issues of gender (in)equality negatively affecting men. In this post, Kyle talks about the importance of framing the dealing with men’s issues not just as parasitic upon women’s rights, but as valuable pursuits in themselves.  

“We should take measures to break the glass ceiling and improve the representation of women in top positions in the workplace – this would relieve the considerable pressures on men, who we know suffer breakdowns and depression from their workload, with sometimes disastrous consequences”.

If this headline sounds as though it misses the point and belittles the harms done to women from the inequality it seeks to challenge, it is because it does. If it sounds as though it risks leaving the attitudes leading to these inequalities unchallenged – and therefore recommends strategies likely to be of limited effectiveness – again, it is argued, that is because it does. If readers are viewing it with a sense of disbelief, it is because it is fictitious. But its problematic framing of the issue of gender inequality is, I argue, not too far from what we have recently seen in discussions surrounding paternity leave and the difficulties faced by fathers. The recently-released Women & Equalities Committee (WEC) report – ‘Fathers in the Workplace’  (20 March 2018) – and its presentation in the media, is a prime example; framing issues of gender inequality and challenges facing men primarily within the paradigm of advancing women’s equality and rights.

Continue Reading »

Image result for diane crockerProfessor Diane Crocker (Department of Sociology and Criminology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada)

A few years back, my friend and I attended a panel discussing a Facebook group, the “Gentlemen’s Club,” that several male dentist students had set up.[1] The postings included sexist and misogynist comments about female classmates and the panel set out to address how to respond and promote a more respectful campus culture. I met my friend 25 year ago, while we were both undergraduates. At the time, she worked in women’s organizations and provided advocacy for women experiencing violence. But she had been away from that world for many years. At the end of the panel, my friend turned to me and announced her surprise that nothing had really changed in 25 years.

Her point was twofold. The attitudes revealed in the “Gentleman’s Club” echoed those on campuses during our undergraduate years. That hadn’t really changed. But her point spoke to another way in which nothing has changed. She felt disappointed that, in 25 years, we had not developed much new thinking about the problems. It struck her that we still doing the same kind of work to respond to the same old problems.

The “Gentlemen’s Club” presents only one example of current problems on Canadian campuses.

In recent years, Canadians have been confronted by seemingly endless stories about sexual harassment and violence on campuses across the country. At Saint Mary’s University, my own institution, a video surfaced in 2013 showing senior students leading new students in a chant about rape.[2] That year, students at the University of British Columbia, on the other side of the country, recited the same chant.[3] About a year later, the University of Ottawa suspended hockey players suspected of having participated in a gang rape.[4] Several universities have grappled with revelations about faculty members’ inappropriate behaviour toward students.

These highly publicized events have garnered widespread public condemnation and motivated universities and governments to respond.

In the past decade, we have seen universities develop prevention programs and work to improve their response to complaints. Universities are working on better policies, protocols and services aimed at addressing rape culture, sexual violence and confusion about the meaning of consent. Provincial governments have debated, and some have passed, legislation requiring universities to have sexual violence policies.[5] Other have created more informal agreements.[6]

All this activity builds on work started 20 years ago when campus sexual violence first became visible.[7] My friend and I remember the “no means no” stickers and buttons that littered campus and the “take back the night” marches organized by newly mobilized campus women centres. Since then, many sexual violence prevention and information programs have been implemented on campuses across North America and in the UK.

But, despite all this effort, universities continue to confront issues relating to sexual and gendered violence on university campuses. While we are witnessing a new wave of activity and interest in the problem, nothing has really changed.

The research literature suggests several reasons why programs have had limited effect on campus culture:

  • programs fail to raise awareness of the problem[8]
  • students can dismiss what they have learned in various training programs as applicable only to others [9]
  • programs are based on common sense but are not well grounded in theory[10]
  • programs have also been developed without much research having been done on how students understand sex and how they understand and negotiate consent[11]

These arguments have merit, but my work suggests that we might be using the wrong tools to promote broad cultural change on campuses.

I want to frame the problem in a particular way that I think helps us understand the limitations of the interventions we have pursued. To do this, I draw from those who work on complexity theory.[12]

Those who write about complexity describe three contexts relevant to the research proposed here: simple, complicated, and complex.[13] Simple problems are characterized by repeating patterns. They have identifiable linear, cause and effect relationships. These problems may be addressed with “best practices.” Complicated problems require expertise to uncover the less obvious cause-effect relationships and underlying patterns. While there may be more than one solution to a complicated problem, the resolution is still driven by facts. Complex problems present as “fluid and unpredictable.”[14] Because they are non-linear[15] they require innovative responses and creative methods to uncover patterns.[16]

As Snowden and Boone[17] suggest, fixing a Ferrari presents a complicated problem but fixing a rainforest involves complexity. And campus sexual violence is more like a rainforest than a Ferrari. The “rape culture” that supports sexual violence does not present with identifiable causes and effects and how it will respond to interventions is unpredictable. Yet programs and policies to address it work only at the simple or complicated aspects of the problem. Our responses have relied on facts, best practices, expertise and the search for cause-effect relationships.

Responses to university rape culture have tended to assume linear relationships between causes (e.g., students’ adherence to rape myths) and effects (e.g., sexist comments and sexual harassment). We teach students facts about rape, to counter the myths, and expect their behaviour to change accordingly. And sometimes it does. But we have not seen these changes result in the broad culture change anticipated by many policies, programs and interventions.

From a complexity perspective, our responses to university rape culture have failed to recognize that complex problems do not respond well to solutions that assume static, cause-effect relationships.

With that said, how do we get at the complexity? How do we generate data about the complexity so that we can make decisions and promote actions that promote broad culture change on university campuses?

I am working on a project exploring these questions using narrative research methods. I have asked students about their experiences (what happened?) instead of their opinion (what should we do?). The questionnaire I used, called a signification framework,[18] began by asking students to tell a brief story about an experience. The “story prompts” asked about experiences with sexual consent, “rape culture” and general campus safety. They could write about a positive or negative experience.

The stories ranged from sexual harassment to rape; from annoyances to crimes. Some described incidents that had been covered in the media. They recounted incidents in bars, residences and public spaces on campus. Some stories were about consensual relationships that students felt good about or incidents in which bystanders intervened. But most stories evoked highly negative emotions for students, most commonly anger and worry. Just under half the student said they felt disappointed and one third felt powerless by their experience.

The questionnaire went on to ask students what the stories meant to them. This approach has allowed me to explore patterns in students’ interpretations of their stories rather than my own. Sensemaker®  software[19] is used to identify and illustrate patterns.

Most students thought their stories were more about relations between genders and sexualized culture than individual beliefs. Students tended to think that changing public awareness and cultural norms would have had more effect on their stories than implementing more roles or policies.

Both these patterns reveal that we will not change students’ stories or experiences by changing individual beliefs or instituting more rules, regulations or policies. The patterns reveal that complexity underpins students’ experiences and that training to change attitudes or instituting rules, while necessary, are insufficient approaches to changing campus culture.

Ultimately, the students’ narratives provide a window on their experiences, and how they understand them. Looking through this window will open opportunities to trigger broad culture change so that the next generation of students have a different experience of our campuses.

Funding for Professor Crocker’s project was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Department of Community Services (Government of Nova Scotia). This blog post is based on a paper delivered by Professor Crocker to the Manchester Centre for Regulation, Governance and Public Law (ManReg) in November 2017. ManReg is based in the School of Law at the University of Manchester.


[1]Backhouse, C., McRae, D., & Iyer, N. (2015). Report of the Task Force on Misogyny, Sexism and Homophobia in Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry. Retrieved from Halifax, NS, Canada: ; Also see http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/report-into-dentistry-scandal-says-sexism-at-dalhousie-faculty-isnt-isolated/

[2] President’s Council. (2013). Promoting a Culture of Safety, Respect and Consent at Saint Mary’s University and Beyond. Retrieved from Halifax: www.smu.ca/presidents-council/report.html ; Also see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/saint-mary-s-pro-rape-chant-sparks-20-new-recommendations-1.2469851

[3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-investigates-frosh-students-pro-rape-chant-1.1699589

[4] http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-of-ottawa-extends-hockey-suspension-just-days-after-players-announce-6-million-lawsuit-against-university

[5] https://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/41-1/b204e.php (Manitoba)

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/160131 (Ontario)

https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/40th-parliament/5th-session/bills/first-reading/gov23-1 (British Columbia)


[7] Dekeseredy, N., & Kelly, K. (1993). The incidence and prevalence of women abuse in Canada university and college dating relationships. Canadian journal of sociology, 18(2), 137-159.

[8] Hayes-Smith, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2010). Student Perceptions of Sexual Assault Resources and Prevalence of Rape Myth Attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 5(4), 335-354. doi:10.1177/1557085110387581

[9] Hayes-Smith, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2010). Student Perceptions of Sexual Assault Resources and Prevalence of Rape Myth Attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 5(4), 335-354. doi:10.1177/1557085110387581

[10]McMahon, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2012). When Can I help? A Conceptual Framework for the Prevention of Sexual Violence Through Bystander Intervention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(1), 3-14. doi:10.1177/1524838011426015

[11] Jazkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College Students and Sexual Consent: Unique Insights. Sex Roles 50(6), 517-523. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

[12] Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY: Guilford Press; Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 110.

[13] Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY: Guilford Press; Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 110.

[14] Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 110.

[15] Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY: Guilford Press

[16] http://cognitive-edge.com/videos/cynefin-framework-introduction/

[17] Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 110.

[18] http://old.cognitive-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/GH-SenseMaker-brief.pdf

[19] http://old.cognitive-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/GH-SenseMaker-brief.pdf



Dr Guido Noto La Diega is a Lecturer in Law at Northumbria University. Please tweet comments to @guidonld or email the author: guido.notoladiega@northumbria.ac.uk.

While same-sex marriage is visibly gaining momentum (see Australia, Austria, Germany and Malta this year), many countries have not fully recognised the rights of same-sex couples. This usually takes the form of civil unions (e.g. Italy and Greece) or of no recognition (e.g. Poland and Lithuania). However, other solutions are also possible. For instance, some countries recognise only same-sex marriages celebrated abroad (e.g. Armenia and Estonia).

In Northern Ireland, adoption has been available to same-sex couples since 2013, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly voted against same-sex marriage (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re Judicial Review [2013] NICA 37). However, in many countries where there is no same-sex marriage, these couples cannot access adoption. This is the case in Italy, even though the case that is commented on here brings some good news.

Continue Reading »

Ever wondered why more women don’t report upskirting to the police? Here’s one possible reason – some police simply do not take this form of harassment seriously. Indeed, some seem to think it’s funny.

Aoife O’Donoghue and Clare McGlynn


A couple of days ago, UK Cop Humour re-posted a piece from the Bexley Gazette containing images of upskirting. The photo is of two women in the process of being arrested by two police officers – taken presumably by a member of the public – and shows them in a humiliating and degrading position. Held down by police over the bonnet of a police car, with their skirts raised and underwear showing, they cannot adjust their clothing and must suffer the glare of the public on their bodies. The decision of UK Cop Humour to re-post this image is seriously troubling.

Continue Reading »

IB imageSnapshots of law, gender and sexuality news from the past couple of weeks.

Female-only Cambridge University college allows transgender students

Arizona Hart, University of Manchester

A female-only College at the University of Cambridge has changed its admission policy to allow applications from transgender students who identify as female. The change was made following a decision by the Council of Murray Edwards College, one of three female-only Colleges at the prestigious university.

Prior to the decision, the College only admitted students who were legally recognised as female. In the UK, a person’s legal gender may be proved by a Birth Certificate or by a ‘Gender Recognition Certificate,’ a legal document that was introduced in 2005 by the Gender Recognition Act.

Under the change, the College will now admit students who are not legally female, but who identify as female and have “taken steps to live in the female gender.” What exactly will be required to prove this is unclear. In effect, it means that transgender persons who identify as women but who have not legally changed their gender under the Gender Recognition Act – a process which is lengthy, complicated, and cannot begin until a person turns 18 – will be allowed to apply to the College for the first time. Continue Reading »

Feminist Legal Studies celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2018.  The Editorial Board invites new members to join us as we look to the future in sustaining and regenerating feminist legal studies.  Since the new editorial board was established in 2013, we have continued to operate as a feminist collective committed to publishing interdisciplinary, theoretically engaged feminist scholarship relating to law and legal phenomena. Editors have consolidated FLS investment in critical approaches through, for example, stronger engagement with critical race perspectives.  We are also interested in the practical development of our field through encouraging documentation and analysis of exciting new engagements, including feminist legal activisms, decolonizing techniques, and governance adaptations.  We have started a dialogue about how best to ‘mix FLaK’ and draw on feminist commitments to openness, dissent and experience as we engage with new methods of inhabiting difficult spaces while sustaining the legacy of gender based critique of doctrine, policy and institutionalism.  Members of Feminist Legal Studies are committed to the journal as a living thing, which enables collaboration with others in trying to make our multiple worlds – of research, publishing and everyday life – more habitable.

Would you like to join us?    If you think you might be interested:

  • Read more about what is involved (e.g. here and here);
  • Check out our statement of principles;
  • Fill in the form overleaf, telling us a bit more about yourself; and
  • Send the form to Harriet Samuels (H.Samuels@westminster.ac.uk) by 4pm on Friday December 16th.

Continue Reading »