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."

The EA has built-in get-out clauses for treating people as of their real sex, even if they have a GRC, but they don't get used. Why not?

Stonewall lobbying

Yes, Stonewall lobbying, mermaids lobbying, men lobbying.

If there's a loophole in the law that is going to give men access to vulnerable women, or the means to win money, awards, accolades, they're gonna take it!

On the other hand, I've seen politicians, Lords and legislators absolutely blown away by Kate's public speaking.

And, specifically, her grasp on the detail.

But how, without leaving the ECHR (which would be massively damaging to our legal human rights framework and indeed to our national reputation)?

This is a bit 'what will the neighbours think'. We are capable of having a robust human rights framework without having to answer to a european court.

But, as i said up thread, i dont think the threat of having to come out of the ECHR is serious. Why is it a human right to conceal sex? Is that what the ECHR is forcing on us, or is that the interpretation? If it is forcing us to hide mens sex, why can't we challenge the logic behind that. Are we a democracy or not?

There's a leap that is happening between recognising someones diagnosis, their gender identity and their right to privacy, and everyone elses right to live free and safely.

Its madness to give men, who everyone can see are men, female id and expect everyone to be forced to lie and say they are women. Why dont i have the right to say the truth?

Its also dangerous to give men, who dont look like men female id because it reduced womens ability to accurately assess the danger in certain situations.

Its the switch of recognising gender and giving men female id, and then promoting the idea that men can be women, that is wrong.

i understand SM wanting to make GRC useless. But thats only possible at the moment in a few sites. Governments can tweak policy and stop male grc holders being placed in prison, but men with female id cause problems for women and children in everyday situations that the ECHR and Governments cant control.

I suppose I see a focus on an individualist analysis, rather than on a true class-based analysis, as indicative of both liberal feminism and of the strain of postmodernism that underpins GI ideology (and queer theory) which is why I think liberal feminists aren’t using class-based arguments as effectively as they could in their campaigning.

It also seems to me that both groups seem to agree on the idea of 'you do you’ which is a luxury belief that can confer status on members of middle class/elite groups but doesn’t work well for women as a class or for society as a whole. I see Libfem campaigning groups as hobbling themselves by ceding important ground in agreeing that, in the interests of not telling adults what to do, men can’t actually be women but for some legal purposes we agree that men can be treated as women.

If I wasn’t clear in my post, it’s likely owing to my writing late at night.

I read the Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht anthology

For all their efforts it was one powerful man in Westminster (Aliester Jack) who steered the law in their proffered direction by overriding Hollyrood, but they wont see the sad irony of that and they had to sacrifice Scottish Democracy to achieve it.
The book is purely about the effort to derail politics and lobby against the introduction of Gender Self Determination in Scotland and furthermore lobby against progressive hate-crime laws which would protect the very group of people they wish to reduce the rights of.

This decision will have to be reversed to restore faith in democracy. It was similar to Brexit in the sense that it was heavily lobbied for using fear stories but there have been no net benefits for anyone who was promised.

Anyway still clapping along with that is either naive or wilfully ignorant.

Not sure if I've missed some deleted posts/name change fails as has gone off on a bit of a tangent with someone seeming to argue with themselves, but back to the point of the thread - KPSS:

What legal purposes? Specifically. And who decides?

I think this is the centre of it really. If physical sex is relevant (for risk assessment, safety, privacy, dignity, medical treatment, pregnancy prevention etc) then I can't see any argument for not being honest about it.

If physical sex is relevant (for risk assessment, safety, privacy, dignity, medical treatment, pregnancy prevention etc) then I can't see any argument for not being honest about it.

Yep. We have sex segregation for good reasons. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for segregating anything on 'gender'.

Either we have, in some specific situations, sex segregation, or we have all mixed sex spaces.

I don't understand the feminist argument for legal sex. It can only add confusion, not clarify anything.

Sex is reproductive potential, a GRC cannot change that.

Politicans are falling over themselves to say that gender and sex are different, so why not hold them to it, rather than suggest this bizarre concept of legal female that no woman could ever be?

In hindsight the census case that argued the census sex question should be based on legal sex or birth sex was a bit of an own goal. If Labour go through with their plans to make it much easier for men to pretend to be women in law we will potentially be exactly back to square one with the census sex data being corrupted.

Hi -

We set it out here https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/is-a-grc-really-a-licence-to-search/

Naomi Cunningham has also written about what she thinks a GRC does here https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/what-does-a-grc-do/

Article 3 of the Human Rights Act provides that "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."

We think the most urgent thing is to bring other people's human rights (specifically women and children - including safeguarding) into focus.
We have written about why we are a human rights organisation here.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/trans-rights-are-human-rights/

Is there one? As I understand it the argument is saying legal 'gender' can be whatever you wish. Not sex. And clarifying that the two things are materially different.

So far as it is possible to do so

That is interesting as it's not a given. It is not a "must" in any way. Therefore I'm inclined to KPSS's view, and Arabella and illinivich's among the other posters (but the most recent!).

All the arguments for it have now gone. And all the arguments against it at the time, and trivialised/ignored, have become real. With real women and children harmed. The GRA has to go, and so does the PC of GR in the EQA.

That's an excellent explanation Maya, and completely clear. The GRA is nowhere near as powerful as some like to pretend and no one is obligated to take any notice of it when it comes to situations where sex matters.

All this rubbish about blanket bans being illegal was only ever a male dominance move

The time has come for men to accept that we know they are men and nothing they do can change that.
It's not actually complicated at all, it's simply a willful insistence that men cannot ever be disappointed as Maya says.

They get themselves into a right state over it, as personified over that awful display by Nolan this week when told the bleeding obvious.

Labour will of course do their best to get on one knee in the face of men's disappointment as usual.

And their vicious supporters will be 10 times as hostile to women as they are now.

That's going to lead to even more blatant disrespect and disregard of women which will show their values up for what they are. It's going to get worse before it gets better but at least with Labour in power then it's going to be clear that it's always been those that don't want to disappoint men who are waging a culture war on women and girls.

The GRA is nowhere near as powerful as some like to pretend and no one is obligated to take any notice of it when it comes to situations where sex matters.

Have you read this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/the-law-on-single-sex-spaces-is-a-mess-it-needs-fixing-not-political-point-scoring

Feminism has nothing to offer 'women' with GRCs, because women are oppressed by the patriarchy on the basis of body type and reproductive potential, nothing more.

But I don't think we should turn our nose up at the politicians' concept of a Cartesian duality between gender (identity) on the one hand and (biological) sex on the other, because this both cements that true sex exists (and is observed at or before birth) and respects the concept of gender identity as a spiritual, psychological, and/or social phenomenon which some people believe in and wish to live by (if it's not the same as their sex).

I think the above description is how most normal people view the issue, which is why we are all so bewildered much of the time (or is it just me?). Why are there so few trans women who are happy to be socially feminine, but accept that their body type is unsuitable for competing in women's sport, for example?

The answer might be that the above model is not how the architects of the GRA saw it. They do not see themselves as GI/sex incongruent, but sex/body incongruent (the sole significance of GI being that it 'tells' us what the individual's true sex really is). Hence the emphasis on obliterating the past and seeking aggressive early medical intervention.

Obviously we can't give in to that viewpoint (and the phenomenon has spread way beyond that now, anyway). But I think a lot can be achieved by kindly, firmly, and consistently applying the Cartesian approach. Ignore your trans friends when they eye roll at you for talking about gender identity and biological sex as two separate aspects of a person. Double down! And encourage lawmakers to use similar language.

I have now!

But she has begun to worry whether excluding all men – regardless of how they identify – might put her at risk of legal action.

I put her in touch with an expert to explain the law in this area. The upshot: it isn’t clear exactly when it is lawful to operate female-only services, and that ambiguity means she is right to consider the risk of being sued. For a freelancer it could ultimately be catastrophic. She has been agonising about this since and may stop running the retreat.

There are exemptions which can be used if it's proportionate and a legitimate aim.

Using words like "right to consider the risk" is bog standard legal advice, you ask a lawyer and they tell you the risks to consider. It is what legal advice is. The risks you should consider.

However her female service is exactly one covered by the exemption. So the risk is covered by the exemption. Look I appreciate that it's worrying but the exemptions are there, they are being used.

Part of the problem is journalists putting people off with articles like this.

However her female service is exactly one covered by the exemption. So the risk is covered by the exemption. Look I appreciate that it's worrying but the exemptions are there, they are being used.

This is why I'm wondering whether more hard-hitting statutory guidance might be the answer. And they could add examples of how to avoid illegal indirect discrimination against women and religious minorities by not forcing trans inclusion every bloody time.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/guidance-for-service-providers-on-single-sex-services/

The guidance and a template policy are on the sex matters site.

There's a risk a man will attack anyone legally if he's so inclined but all the recommendations here provide a strong framework for confidence to face them down.

Threaten to attack legally I should say.

The main reason public sector services are so hard to get to use the exemptions is because they are stuffed full of waffly prevaricators that are completely risk averse and will always escalate decision making right up to the top where the leadership can blame lawyers for telling them "there's a risk" or are genuinely stupid enough to believe men are women because "hermaphrodites".

The problem for service users is that although we know that providers can exclude male grc holders from the womens spaces, we don't know if they do. Or even if they attemp to, but cannot because of the mess around sex recorded on identification.

Its easier to check sex and gender when admitting someone into hospital than it is into an open plan changing room at a swimming pool.

A lot of the problem is major politicians not explicitly saying that womens public toilet, for example, exclude those men with GRC and PC of GR. They talk about safe spaces or rape crisis centers and rarely the everyday women only spaces.

A lot of the problem stems from the practice the sex change clinicians adopted which was to use the use of women's facilities as a transition stage. The act of walking through a door marked for the opposite sex IS transition. That's all it is. Men have been told to practice this in women's clothing before being approved for surgery.

It's an astonishingly sexist practice, for clinicians to use women as a medical service for men. Without bothering to consider that women actually had the right to not be used by men for men in this way.

I think I prefer Sonia Sodha’s analysis.

“Labour claims that the law in this area is clear, despite the fact it is so unclear that, as the result of a judicial review that has made its way through the Scottish courts, in the next year or so the supreme court will have to try to interpret what parliament meant by “sex” in the Equality Act. Labour will argue that the problem can be fixed through statutory guidance, which is nonsense: guidance cannot change the law; only parliament can. As one lawyer I spoke to said, Labour’s position is to uphold the problematic status quo. If it goes ahead with its plans to make a GRC easier to get without first clarifying the law, it will make things worse.”

I agree! And those sexist clinicians obviously think so little of women, as being people in their own right, that they believe giving men hormones and/or surgery makes them women in some way 🤬

Why is anyone telling males that they can be women? It’s rediculous. We don’t collude with people suffering from anorexia, that they are fat & need to lose weight…..why should we collude with males who think they should have been born female?