Keep Prison Single Sex closing

[TinselAngel]

Just announced on Twitter.

x.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1798973161276412028?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

"After considerable thought we have decided to close KPSS down. Our last day of operation will be 30th June 2024.

We have agreed that Kate will continue to support and work with the individual prisoners, former offenders, and CJS whistleblowers with whom we have relationships. Kate is contacting everyone individually to advise them of this.

We have some materials still available and can post these out to whomever wants them: our email address will remain live, so please use this to contact us. All reports and leaflets are also available on our website which, together with our Vimeo, we will maintain as a resource, although content will not be updated.

It is no longer possible to make a donation to KPSS and all regular donations have been cancelled - however, please do check your own accounts. Our PayPal account is now closed. Both KPSS shops have been closed.

KPSS USA is unaffected by this decision. Their work will continue. Please give them a follow @NoXY_USA Any funds remaining after closing down KPSS will be transferred to them.

Thank you to everyone who has supported us. Between us we achieved some truly great things, including two Ministry of Justice policy changes that centre the safety and rights of women in prison. Be proud of what you have done, because none of what KPSS achieved would have been possible without you."

Yes, most of these men are obviously men, but how do you codify that in law?

Thank you everyone for this discussion - I never dug into the Haldane judgment as much as I should have at the time so good to read these summaries.

What we can't have is confusion, where 'sex' is sometimes 'sex' and sometimes 'gender', and 'sex' sometimes means 'legal sex' and sometimes means 'biological sex'. It's an utter nonsense, currently.

This has always been the case, with people playing games by switching from one to the other but implying they mean the same thing until they don't. The whole subject would be easier to discuss if the words were used correctly!

They added: "This ruling does not affect the exceptions in the Equality Act which mean that single-sex services can exclude trans people or treat them less favourable where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

To me they are trying to muddy the water here. It's not about "excluding trans people" it's about excluding people of the wrong sex. This implies it's not to do with their sex.

Foran seems not to want to consider repeal the GRA for whatever reasons best known to him. If as we know now, it isn't a must, then we do need to consider it. Or as I said upthread, imagine the GRA and PC of GR had never been on the statute books. But now being proposed. How to justify it?

No, they are right. Both sex discrimination and the PC of GR come into play. More broadly, all sorts of anti-discrimination laws have some wriggle room so different needs can be fairly accommodated.

A trans person can be excluded from a given space, but there's still an expectation of overall fair treatment relative both to non-trans people and to people of the opposite (legal) sex.

I know the legal position perfectly well, I'm making a comment about the wording of the statement.

It doesn't really matter what they are implying. We know there are men and women that think it's never proportional or legitimate to exclude someone who is the opposite sex but it's a legal right. It's perfectly normal.

Most of us by now have reached the conclusion by the behaviour of those people that they are irrational and ideologically motivated.

The whole thing is burning itself out rapidly.

It's pointless as a legal right if people don't use the exemptions.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

You may view the law as being completely clear but if it was there wouldn't be constant threads about what the law says, lawyers disagreeing, an impending SC court appeal, different political parties squabbling etc. What other law attracts so much disagreement? Ask 10 different people and they will come up with 10 different interpretations and they will all think they have the correct interpretation. This does not make for good law.

In that case I agree. They always talk about 'excluding' trans people, for the 🥺 factor.

Quite, it does sometimes feel like the exceptions are pointless anyway because organisations are either ideologically captured and don't think women need their own spaces, or they are too worried about being outed as transphobes or being sued. When the police won't even utilise them for the purpose of strip searching you know it's a very sorry state of affairs.

I would turn that upside down. Codifying in law is what the lady tickets is.

A theme of this thread is removing that codifying law.

More codifying simply creates more arbitrage of the code.

It's not helpful. It's a TRA demand that female has to be codified down to the last cell if we want it to exclude male. It just does already though so I would not support giving in to that demand beyond adding the word biological for clarity and certainty.

Haldane said in addition there's a group with lady tickets.

Lady ticket holders can be excluded.

I don't mean to sound flippant but 99 percent of the problem is the way policy makers have managed this. They fucked around and are finding out.

Exhausting I know.

Lady ticket holders can be excluded.

Except when they can't

Edit to say: but I do like the Lady ticket analogy 😂

I'm hoping that the ongoing cases against Survivors' Network, David Lloyd, and NHS Trust NE will prompt second thoughts, given they are falling foul of sex discrimination law (women more disadvantaged than men by mixed-sex only provision). A law mandating women-only provision for some types of service is looking increasingly needed.

There is not right to have spaces for women and men who identify as trans but without a GRC. So if men who identify as trans but without a GRC are accepted into a space then it is simply a mixed sex space and all men must be allowed in. If these mixed sex spaces then sell themselves as women only (eg gyms) then that must be false advertising?

If these mixed sex spaces then sell themselves as women only (eg gyms) then that must be false advertising?

Yup. That's the basis of the David Lloyd case.

I've followed all the machinations intently and much of the obfuscation is deliberate.

I have posted a paper written by Stephen Whittle years ago, about 2008, where this deliberate obfuscation was highlighted and gloated over saying it's going to get political.

16 years later you have Robin White using the words somatically female, the exact phrase used by Stephen Whittle in that paper.

They knew all that had was bullshit to baffle brains. I've just taken the view that my brain won't be baffled by their bullshit.

I came face to face with all the bullshit bafflers during the ludicrous Future of Legal gender project a few years back whilst working in the HE sector. That expensive blether fell apart after spending 750,000 on nonsense.

Foran writes pages and pages but even he puts his own spin on it all, attributing his own interpretation on Haldane, that sex includes certificated sex. Even FWS are quoting her as saying it's an additional group. Adding and subtracting are both possible.

I know a lot of people don't want sex ever to mean GRA sex. To me, I far prefer for men to have their lady tickets and for policy makers, service providers etc to treat them as "an addition" that they don't need to include. Somatically toothless.

There's far more can than can't. What is lacking is the will.
I think it's definitely making a massive come back though.

Most people have had enough.

Hepwo · Today 12:13

Perhaps they will appeal to aliens next.

Aliens are looking down us pityingly, saying,

"Well, they've gone from bludgeoning and hacking each other to death to more efficient ways of industrial slaughter. They're murdering the biome and poisoning the air they breathe and the water they drink. They've used nuclear weapons and stockpiled thousands of them. Now, they're sterilising their children; they don't want to survive, do they?"

In fact, they're probably wondering when to build a Dyson Sphere, to stop us leaking out to contaminate the galaxy.

Is that a kind of giant hoover?

I don't want the aliens to hoover us all up.

Hepwo, I think this:

'I know a lot of people don't want sex ever to mean GRA sex. To me, I far prefer for men to have their lady tickets and for policy makers, service providers etc to treat them as "an addition" that they don't need to include. Somatically toothless.'

Is quite close to my suggestion, which is that 'gender' and 'sex' should be distinct and clear terms, two different words for two different things.

Hand out as many GRCS as you want, with fancy calligraphy, gilt edges and a ribbon.

But make it clear that no GRC means you've changed sex nor grants you admission to women's spaces/quotas/services.

😂

No, theoretically, it's a vast sphere in space, constructed around an object, such as a star, in order to harvest its energy.

https://www.space.com/dyson-sphere.html

I learned about Dyson spheres from Star Trek TNG 😊🖖

Syense fickshin is grate, innit?