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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Well, that was shooting fish in a barrel.

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, 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.

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

I think this is it. I started out optimistic and I do hope we’ll win but in the meantime nothing is certain and I think that hurts women because service providers etc can’t be certain they won’t be sued and even if they are sued and win it’s still time and money and hassle and your business might fail.

All you have to do is look at the Sall Grover case in Australia or the JY v beauticians case in Canada to see that the process is the punishment when the law is not clear. Sall’s App is no longer active and many of the beauticians closed their businesses. Even where the law is clear (with the exceptions) orgs seem reluctant to implement them. I mean why on earth are the police still pursuing a policy that will allow men to strip search women in custody? This should be a straightforward case of the exceptions in the EA being utilised? It’s likely because they are listening to activist lawyers who are misrepresenting the law.

Personally I agree that it’s as clear as day that sex means sex in the EA and it’s how the GRA interacts with the EA that is the problem. So the obvious solution is to campaign to repeal the GRA but what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Repeal of the GRA won’t happen any time soon if Labour win power.

I don't think haldane "got it wrong" . It isn't great in that public body scenario because it's stupid and it would have been fair to use the exemption. She agreed that in effect the Equality Act allows for biological sex and legal sex to be treated as the same if they don't want to use the exemptions. I don't dispute this. The Scottish government didn't want to exclude men. They didn't want to. They wanted to include men and still do.
This is a public sector body that serves the wants of men and goes to court to enforce the wants of men. That's the actual bloody problem.

She states that the exemptions work and trans people can be excluded using them even with a GRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63956604

What people seem to be saying here is that because these circumstances have been agreed to be lawful it's always unlawful to exclude legal sex certificate holders. She didn't say that at all.

She said it's "not limited to" biological sex. Which is true. She goes on to say the exemptions can limit to sex and exclude GRC "sex" however.

I expect that the Supreme Court will say that biological sex alone is a fair ground for discrimination based on sex and the exemptions can apply to men with a GRC. No idea what they will say about this public body decision though. I think the public sector attitude sucks frankly.

It seems until the supreme court says it (that exemptions fair and can exclude GRC holders) there's a lot of risk aversion and threatening behaviour from culture war proponents and disappointed men.

I said earlier that risk averse public sector bodies stuffed with prevaricators and stupid believers are the ones escalating higher and higher up the decision making chain. We seem to have reached the top?

I know a lot of angry men attempted to trash the EHRC via non UK bodies but that fell on stoney ground didn't it.

Perhaps they will appeal to aliens next.

That's the purpose of Kemis proposed amendment isn't it?

It doesn't "scrap" legal sex, it just reiterates the truth that it's a different group of people who are the opposite biological sex that the exemptions can apply to for the purpose of exclusion.

This law needs to be absolutely clear and easy to understand.

If lawyers and people who've followed the ins and outs for years can't grasp it or be sure of it, then service providers and the general public can't be expected to either.

We can't have 'legal sex' as a category because it's too confusing.

We can perhaps have 'sex' and 'gender', that roughly makes sense and most people can understand the difference.

Sex is sex, biological, immutable.

Gender is arbitrary, context-dependent, and yes, could be changed by law, fine, pointless, but fine.

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.

I agree that they have used this to obfuscate but it's actually irrelevant if you use the exemption to exclude GRC holders too.

Which is legal as Haldane said!

Men always turn this around and tell us we can't prove their shifty behaviour thefore they're innocent.

There's no burden of proof required by the exemptions. That's just a tactic deployed to intimidate.

Using your eyesight is fine!

Changing gender is nonsense though. If no one else has a gender, what's even changed? The GRA and the PC of GR need to go.