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 don't think haldane "got it wrong"

If FWS win the appeal Haldane will have got it wrong won't she?

There was an thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago but it got pulled for some reason. Mumsnet never said why. Lot’s of accusations of “transphobia” iirr simply for exploring it as an idea.

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.

What we all have is a sex. What 5 or 6 thousand have is both sexes, the second one is actually only a "legal" certificate.

Those with both sexes can be excluded on the basis of their biological sex. Their opposite sex certificate is irrelevant if the service is single sex and uses the exemption.

It's not actually that confusing really. I know men want us to be confused into submission, but I've followed it for years and this is the same understanding I reached right at the beginning.

I keep reiterating that public bodies wanted to include men. It was important to them to make men happy. They choose to ignore the exemptions.

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

I agree it's irrelevant in theory. The problem there is that they just say that they are women. How do you prove that they are men for the purpose of the exemption? We all know that this group has a disproportionate number of males who enjoy gaslighting women in plain sight, that's part of the attraction.

Interesting about that thread @Signalbox. Always instructive to see what gets watched and deleted.

The appeal is about the public body board inclusion of men isn't it? They might lose that but still have yet more clarity from the supreme court that men could have been excluded if it was considered a legitimate aim by Scotland Gov. Scot gov didn't want to.

Maybe Scot gov think men are superior, maybe they are a bit afraid of the men that want to be seen as women, maybe they have the hump that they were challenged and have dug their heels in, maybe they feel sorry for men. Who knows. But once they had made their decision they were unwilling to change their mind about it and continue to escalate higher and higher up.

There's no burden of proof on a service provider.

Someone does need to study the behaviour patterns of women who have taken testosterone & had surgery, if they end up in a women’s prison. No doubt their past trauma and confusion, possible autIsm, potential of sexual abuse etc will mean they need help. Prisons are chaotic & not great places for people with MH problems. The fact they are stronger due to T, will also lead to problems for other inmates & staff. Who will be keeping check on this vulnerable cohort of women?

There is the risk of a discrimination claim though if they get it wrong.

I do agree however that it would be a welcome step if we could just tell all men regardless of GRC that they aren't welcome in our spaces. And have that backed up by official guidance and the authorities.

But what can they get wrong? If you exclude all men including those with a certificate no man can do anything.

I think trying to include only GRC holders is where the risk lies but why would you do that? That half way position is of very limited use in reality.

The Public Boards Act is where this all started but the FWS appeal in the SC will clarify the meaning of the word "sex" in the EA. The judgment will apply across the whole of the UK and will determine whether or not men with a GRC count as women for the purpose of the EA. If the Haldane judgment is upheld the only other options to prevent men with a GRC from counting as women in law will be to repeal the GRA or to legislate that sex means birth sex. If you want the detail it's all in their crowdfund page which I can't link (for fear of being deleted) but if you google "UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act" it will take you to the correct page.

They didn't choose to ignore the exemptions, they forced anyone applying for funding or placements or any partnership or working for them or working with them or using them... to get rid of the exemptions

I think trying to include only GRC holders is where the risk lies but why would you do that? That half way position is of very limited use in reality.

I agree.

Not really, given that she gave both interpretations in her judgement! I don't mean disengenuously, either, that seems to be the logical inference because the law is botched.

Yes, I don't know whether Haldane thought that two contradictory definitions with fuzzy borders could coexist, or whether she was kicking the can down the road for the next level of legal enquiry, as she didn't think it could be dealt with at that level.

Thank you @Hepwo

So we have the power to exclude birth males including those with GRCs, by using the exemptions. But this doesn't happen, because of lobbying, deliberate confusion etc (mostly based on the PC of GR).

So what is the point of legal sex?

Someone mentioned underlying intent. It seems to me that the intent was to allow a handful of shy well-behaved 'ladies' to use the women's toilets, and that has been undermined by the mushrooming numbers and bad behaviour. So the meaning of the law hasn't changed, but the proportionate and legitimate aim of protecting women from eg a broken jaw in the sporting arena, or an unexpected penis in the changing area, has gained new salience.

I hope that in a few decades historians will look at the craziness and shake their heads.

Micheal Foran has written extensively about this. He has said that a GRC makes it much more difficult to objectively justify excluding a man from women's services etc. Also he says that associations are not covered by the exceptions in the EA. So if sex includes legal sex (current law as per Haldane) a Lesbian reading group (for example) is not likely to be lawful. (this is only my interpretation of what he has said and it's quite complex so I may have it wrong but here is the source material for anyone who fancies a read)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4740870

The exemption allows you to discriminate against men without breaking the law. Discrimination can be direct, indirect, or perceptive. So you can keep out people who look like men. Like we used to.

That sort of suggests that a man with a GRC is socially female (welcome to the WI) but biologically male (out of the changing room!). But the GRC 'test' doesn't map onto this distinction at all.

So you can keep out people who look like men.

That seems to be one of the bizarre aspects of this; the number of politicians, lawyers and judges who think we can’t tell. So much seems to be based on the assumption that having a GRC means none of us have a clue that they are actually men so revealing this would be like revealing some big medical secret. When in reality all it takes is a quick glance.

Sex does mean birth sex.The bit clipped in FWS page says "in addition" GRC holders have a new "sex".

It says this in the BBC report.

After Lady Haldane's ruling in December, the Scottish government said it was "pleased to note the outcome of this challenge."

Two other groups - the Equality Network and Scottish Trans - said the ruling "confirmed the position we and many others have understood it to be for well over a decade".

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.

The exemptions apply to the "in addition" group.

The claim is that this is opaque and confusing however the two groups are set out as separate.

I'm not confused as it's transparent.

Adding the word biological does make it explicit in the act that sex is the actual basis and the "in addition" group are only there because of a certificate and can be excluded.

Still requires a will to exclude though. Which is the actual problem. Scot gov didn't want to. And as Alison said went out of their way to force it using public money.

Micheal Foran has written extensively about this. He has said that a GRC makes it much more difficult to objectively justify excluding a man from women's services etc.

And yet Haldane said you can!

Scot govs position is that public boards will benefit from having men with certificates instead of women!

The law hasn't made them do that. Their own sexism has.

The exemption allows you to discriminate against men without breaking the law.

It doesn't allow you to discriminate against other women who you think are actually men though, and that's your chilling effect for service providers etc.