Keep Prison Single Sex closing

Well, legal sex should be scrapped. It's too unclear. We can't have such a fundamental category turned into a category-that-can-also-be-meaningless.

People can change their 'gender', hence the 'Gender Recognition' etc.

That has no bearing at all on sex.

The only people with a legal sex are people with a GRC.

We all have a sex, which is biological, including those with a legal sex. They have both sexes, one biological and one legal sex as a result of their feelings about their gender.

As we know their feelings about their gender don't change their biological sex so it is only a certificated sex.

I have a lot more confidence than some about the supreme court I suppose.

Well, that was shooting fish in a barrel.

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1799917200020562031?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Ereshkigalangcleg
I think the difficulty is the greater protection for privacy that the GRA has, and the "gotcha" it presents, that you can't tell even when someone is obviously a man whether they have a GRC.

One of the problems I have with the GRA is there is no penalty for a man who falsely claims he has one, when he doesn't.

It's not a penis, though. It's a surgical attempt at imitation of a penis. It doesn't have the function or anatomy of a penis.

Signalbox · Today 08:34

Honestly look at this shit. This is why we need KPSS and their no nonsense approach.

Hell's bells! They say they have a trans activist lawyer, who says that there are 72 recognised genders. I can speculate that it's RMW... I wonder if the Police can be forced to identify the lawyer in question? I suppose there's a chance that it could be McCloud, too.

The thing you have to remember with studies is the ‘conclusion’ section is just speculation. It is the data outcomes that are important (and read them carefully as they are often selectively presented).

YY.

I couldn’t think of the best way to put it. ‘Had a op so they have a penis which they pump up’?

Dhejne, like many other researchers in this field, has tried to draw different conclusions to the data in their study. They tried it with the data on post-transition suicidality which showed transition led to much higher suicide rates. The thing you have to remember with studies is the ‘conclusion’ section is just speculation. It is the data outcomes that are important (and read them carefully as they are often selectively presented).

Yes. So it needs to be utterly clear that a GRC has no effect on legal sex. Or any kind of sex. That legislation is built on sex, and sex only.

This does reveal the problem with the GRA.

No certificate can change a man into a woman.

No-one asking the impact of T on female criminality

In the much disputed Dhejne study that showed that male subjects who transitioned had a greater propensity to violent crime, it also showed the same for female subjects. So transitioned males were the same as other males in other crime, but greater for violent crime, and transitioned females were more similar to males in their crime patterns.

Kate Coleman from KPSS said in her recent Heretics interview with Andrew Gold (YouTube) that TIFs on T are the fastest-growing cohort in (of course) female Scottish prison with around 40 TIFs so far. No-one asking the impact of T on female criminality and KC says they are causing problems to manage within the prisons, presumably due to their agression. But I thought the number was shocking and worth more widespread knowledge.

It's extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will tell us that biological sex doesn't exist in the Equality Act, and that the intention was both sexes are a single sex.

It already does mean biological sex, it's just that some subsequent judgments in lower courts have implied that imaginary sex is the same category.

There are 2 potential ways to get to the same end point.

Firstly is for FWS to win their appeal in the SC (which takes time and a massive amount of funds and forces feminists to deal with what should be a government job. Also there is no guarantee that the SC will rule that sex = birth sex since they have to interpret the law as it stands rather than how we all would wish it to be).

The other way is for the next government to implement legislative change.

Until one of these things take place the Haldane judgment is all we have to go by. Saying or believing or hoping that Haldane got it wrong doesn’t remotely help those attempting to understand the law so they provide services or run associations etc.

I think the difficulty is the greater protection for privacy that the GRA has, and the "gotcha" it presents, that you can't tell even when someone is obviously a man whether they have a GRC.

That's okay, it's hard to track all the various angles people come at it from.

I think that two things are converging on the clarification of the intent in the Equality Act. This is the essence of men's attack, men have forced in ambiguity to the word sex as if it was always intended that the word female means male and female and male means male and female. How many millions of words have been written on the theory that biological sex is undefinable? Non of that bloviating would be needed if female already meant male and female based on your feelings about it would it?.

It's obvious that it doesn't but they have had their tanks on that lawn claiming the territory for some time as men do when they invade!

So now we have the supreme court decision coming, We also have the EHRC who have put their position in writing, in fact they intervened in Maya's case to say that the law supports her quite some time ago now. It took a change of leadership from the public sector left wing addled men to Baroness Kishwar to achieve that and look at all the attacks from men and the hideous Nokes of course.

Kemi explained the Conservative government position which is based on the EHRC position.

It's extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will tell us that biological sex doesn't exist in the Equality Act, and that the intention was both sexes are a single sex.

It already does mean biological sex, it's just that some subsequent judgments in lower courts have implied that imaginary sex is the same category.

Sorry, @Hepwo, I've misunderstood you (just to assure you it wasn't deliberate rhetorical tactic to misrepresent you, just thought that's what you were arguing).
And apologies to @illinivich and @theilltemperedclavecinist for muddling the two of you.

@theilltemperedclavecinist "The law is a complete dog's breakfast and shouldn't exist, but politically we might make more progress by interpreting and adding to the existing law than by trying to dismantle it, which would meet massive resistance."
That's a fair argument.

I'm not in UK and because of the amazing grass-roots feminism I just looked at UK set-up at the best-possible-world. It's only in the last few months that I've started wondering if the very idea of recognising gender transition (or in Australian case, identity) in law is the root of the problem.

It was me who suggested that hard-hitting statutory guidance might be worth considering, although not with any great enthusiasm.

Thanks for the clarification and Sorry Hepwo for the misquotation.

I want to know what Labour's response to the EHRC is. EHRC has asked the government to clarify the EA. Is Labour just flatly refusing?

I mean, 'having an op' doesn't give a woman male genitalia, to be clear.

There was one transman in a male prison in Scotland when last report was released - I can't recall where but can look later

No, I don't think I did say that.

Apologies to Hepwo I misread a previous post as being yours.

Kemi Badenoch said this a week or so ago. She also talked about making it absolutely clear in the guidance but that's for assistance in formulating policy.

KB wants to make a legislative change to clarify sex means sex. Labour are against this change and think clearer guidance is the answer.

I don't believe the supreme court will judge that biological sex is not protected in the Equality Act and that the words female of any age mean female in your imagination of any age.

You think that the SC will find that the Haldane judgment was wrong in law. I hope you are right but time will tell and a small legislative change by Labour (if they win the election) would quickly circumvent the need for a challenge in the SC

The GRA will have limited scope in law, it becomes a bit of a pointless cul de sac all the men are corraled into.

Bannatynes manage to use the exemptions for single sex services now. Other providers could be as confident but are risk averse for financial reasons. Left wing barristers and their clients use money to intimidate service providers don't they? They are the culture war proponents on the whole.

It was me who suggested that hard-hitting statutory guidance might be worth considering, although not with any great enthusiasm.

For: quicker than changing the law, can include 'worked examples' including examples of where trans inclusion can be discriminatory against women and religious minorities, can address the PC of GR as well as the legal sex v biological sex issue, forces a sub-committee to think about real world impact and developing case law. And the Haldane appeal might succeed.

Against: Labour want it - why? Doesn't solve the whole problem.

The law is a complete dog's breakfast and shouldn't exist, but politically we might make more progress by interpreting and adding to the existing law than by trying to dismantle it, which would meet massive resistance. Because it looks like trying to ban trans people, and the hard of thinking can't cope with that.

Out of interest (as I don’t know what the answer is), as the majority of younger people transitioning now are Female to Male, where do you think they should go if they go to prison? I would assume female prisons? Though they may now well be stronger as would be taking testosterone, and may even have had an op so they now have male genitalia?