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, and it's quite telling that it's what he bases his decision on.

save in respect of refusing to accept that a Gender Recognition Certificate changes a person's sex for all purposes

That's really quite something. ALL purposes. So a male with a GRC, who wasn't getting pregnant when not using contraception, should have fertility investigations? They should sue Ancestry etc if it says they have XY dna? Should not be invited for prostate screening?

Again we are highlighting that it's a mass of contradictory bollocks flimsily stitched together.

If it's not sorted out by Parliament, the Courts will end up having to interpret the contradictory bollocks. 🍿

Agree with this completely. Sex segregation for men and women is perfectly normal. Adding men isn't.

But even the GRA doesn’t actually say for all purposes. It says for all purposes except those excluded within the GRA itself, which includes peerages and sport, or any other acts.

Which means it isn't for all purposes. Tayler didn't mention any exemptions at all.

Trans activists always “forget” to mention the exceptions. Saying “for all purposes” must be one of the biggest drafting blunders ever.

It was sloppily put. I think he's trying to say that in law the GRC changes sex for at least some purposes and that the claimant refuses to accept even that.

Which is also not 100% true. I'm sure Maya accepts that the GRC changes sex for the purpose of 'having a lovely certificate' 😊. Granularity again.

No I think he thinks she's fundamentally wrong, that she simply doesn't understand that a GRC makes a man a woman.

That's what all the waffling about her view not being scientific is about. Trans women are women and as he sees it the existence of the GRC is simply a legal confirmation of that. He disparagingly refers to "treating sex as binary as defined on a birth certificate" as if that is an old fashioned idea.

He further says in para 84: "That was recognised in the Gender Recognition Act which states that the change of sex applies "for all purposes". Therefore if a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate that person is legally a woman. That is not something that the Claimant is entitled to ignore."

Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but shows how hard it is to get a handle on exactly what the judgment is based on or in what situations it would be accepted to treat someone as being of their birth sex.

Exactly.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 08:57

I agree. That's why I'm wary about claiming it's irrelevant legally what MTFs want because the exceptions say you can exclude all men even those with a GRC.

As the GRA is unlikely to be repealed, I'd like at least to see it amended, so that all places - pools, gyms etc etc should demand to see a GRC and if matey goes into the ladies without one, he's arrested for voyeurism, indecent exposure, harassment, breach of the peace - any or all of them would satisfy me.

So he's bought the idea that trans people are sex/body incongruent, which is actually quite extreme. Most people think of it as identity/sex incongruent.

FFS off point I know, but, I'm expecting a parcel, and the tracking map shows the delivery guy as a rainbow unicorn, and my house has been covered up with an lgbtqi flag 😡

Yes, he gives the impression of not really knowing anything much about gender identity until he heard the TRA evidence in the tribunal.

As the GRA is unlikely to be repealed, I'd like at least to see it amended, so that all places - pools, gyms etc etc should demand to see a GRC and if matey goes into the ladies without one, he's arrested for voyeurism, indecent exposure, harassment, breach of the peace - any or all of them would satisfy me.

But what if the law is changed by Starmer etc so they are given out like buttons?

Noooooo the GRA needs to be repealed-it is a bad law that damages safeguarding.

should demand to see a GRC and if matey goes into the ladies without one, he's arrested for voyeurism, indecent exposure, harassment, breach of the peace - any or all of them would satisfy me.

Men should be arrested if they go into the ladies even if they do have a GRC.