Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down

58 replies

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 11/06/2024 10:45

Hi Everyone,

Thanks again for all your past support and continued words of encouragement. It really means a lot to me and the rest of the KPSS team.

We will cease operating on 30th June. Which leaves the rest of the month to get as much work done as possible. We will also be asking you to take action, not just now but on an ongoing basis.

Our reports based on our research remain as relevant today as they did when we first published them. We always take a safeguarding first position. This means that our work often raises important points that no other group does.
Our hope is that you will continue to use these to hold prospective MPs, the newly elected government & parliamentarians, the police and other organisations to account.

We will be tweeting this out over the next couple of weeks, and I will be posting here on Mumsnet too, beginning with our body of work on policing.

We are beginning with our Manifesto for Policing, which we jointly produced with We Are Fair Cop.

Policing is in thrall to gender identity ideology & no force has escaped capture.
We see this in data collection on victims & suspects of crime, communication with the public, forces' allegiance to social activist groups, arresting people for their lawfully expressed views, searching protocols.

Our Manifesto for Policing calls for a return to effective and fair policing:

  • Policing with neutrality and without fear or favour
  • Forces and officers display no allegiance to any one group
  • Policing is devoid of political, cultural or social activism
  • Policing decisions are based on evidence not ideology
  • Services and practices are developed and managed in order to best meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system

The Manifesto is available on our website. Use it when talking to those who want your vote.

We have posted details for every police force nationally on Twitter. You can search using #ManifestoForPolicing.

Manifesto is available here:

https://kpssinfo.org/manifesto-for-police-and-crime-commissioners-pdf/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 15/06/2024 10:59

There has been much talk of the "solution" that digital identities will enable: specifically by balancing a perceived right not to disclose your sex registered at birth with a requirement to state the sex that you are. We are alarmed by these proposals and the direction of travel, which in our view sacrifices safeguarding at the altar of "rights".

In 2023, we published our report Digital Identities: Safeguarding Solution or Safeguarding Risk?

You can read it here:

https://kpssinfo.org/kpss-digital-identities-pdf/

KPSS Digital Identities PDF - Keep Prisons Single Sex

https://kpssinfo.org/kpss-digital-identities-pdf

OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 15/06/2024 10:59

Digital identities have been described as providing a solution to the tension created when the principles of safeguarding and individual privacy rights come into conflict. Safeguarding refers to the framework of measures designed to protect the health, well-being and human rights of individuals. Certain groups of people are in particular need of safeguarding, including children and vulnerable adults, and statutory obligations for safeguarding are set out in legislation. Where an individual seeks to work with vulnerable groups, legislation specifies both the information that must be disclosed about that individual (and the manner in which this information can be requested) and information that must not be shared and which that individual is entitled to keep private.

The balance between individual privacy rights and the legitimate functions of the State to act in the interests of safeguarding is not static. Throughout the development of legislation around safeguarding and the evolution of employment vetting and barring services, there has been a ‘push and pull’ between an individual’s right to privacy and the legitimate function of the State to act in the interests of safeguarding.

Where there is a statutory requirement that certain information must be disclosed, an individual may not assert individual privacy rights in order to withhold that information. However, the individual may be entitled to keep other personal information, that is not covered in statute, private. Hard copy identity credentials are “all or nothing” in terms of the personal information they disclose, placing considerable limits on the ability to withhold personal information. However, digital identities permit the selective disclosure of information about an individual. A suggestion is that, in this way, digital identities can enable sensitive information to be disclosed for carefully specified reasons only and in a way that minimises the risk of infringing that individual’s privacy rights.

This suggestion has been extended to sex registered at birth on the grounds that this is also information that an individual has a legitimate right to keep private in some cases and that they should be enabled to do so. This perceived right has been described as being particularly relevant where the individual has changed gender. The conclusion, therefore, is that digital identities are able to more effectively enable safeguarding, including in the situation where an individual who has changed gender as part of changing their identity does not wish to have their sex registered at birth displayed on their identity credentials.

Our own conclusion, however, is that digital identities do not achieve more effective safeguarding: in fact they create additional risk. This is for several reasons. Firstly, the methods by which a digital identity is created mean that where an individual’s sex registered at birth has currently been replaced by their legally recognised acquired gender or by self-declared gender on documentation used to establish identity, this will simply be transferred to the newly created digital identity. In this situation, sex registered at birth is information that is simply unavailable. The result is that where an individual’s sex registered at birth should be disclosed, it cannot be because the unavailability of this information continues in the digital realm. Secondly, there is every indication that the enhanced individual privacy rights currently given to an individual who changes gender as part of changing their identity, which means that their sex registered at birth is concealed on identity credentials and on other documentation including DBS certificates, will also apply to digital identities. This means that even in the future situation where all data recording by the state is transferred into the digital realm, an individual who changes gender will remain able to ensure that their sex registered at birth is suppressed. In short: there is no evidence that sex registered at birth will be an accessible and disclosable attribute where an individual wishes to have their gender identity recorded instead.

Our view is that the enhanced privacy rights that permit individuals who change gender to conceal their sex registered at birth should be challenged. However, the proposed “solution” instead expands these rights to all people to enable everyone to withhold their sex registered at birth in certain circumstances. Whilst the difference between those who do and those who do not change gender is eradicated, this simply serves to bolster the erroneous notions that sex registered at birth is something to which privacy can legitimately attach and that withholding sex registered at birth is without consequence.

Our final concern is that digital identities create their own safeguarding loopholes and risk because their use creates a ‘distance’ between the individual and the organisation with statutory responsibility for safeguarding during the process of identity verification.

OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 15/06/2024 11:03

Over the summer, the "Sarah Champion Ammendment" to the Crime & Justice Bill was announced. This seeks to create additional criminal offences to prevent some, but not all, registered sex offenders from changing their names in some, but not all, circumstances.

It was heralded as a victory for safeguarding that would contribute towards keeping children and vulnerable adults safe. Many in the "GC Community" joined in these celebrations.

Although the full details are not yet available, we can already see that the Ammendment will offer no protection. Not only is it toothless, it risks solidifying the "value" of gender change & bolstering the opportunities (unrelated to non-discrimination) that being included in the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" brings. It will also unleash a raft of legal cases where individuals argue that their right to name change have been breached. This will result in an impossible-to-navigate body of case law.

We will be closing before parliament reconvenes and will be unable to conduct any more work on this. I will post our briefing as a series of screenshots below.

OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 15/06/2024 11:30

Our briefing on the "Sarah Champion Amendment" here:

Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
OP posts:
Thelnebriati · 15/06/2024 21:56

I'm so sorry but the text in the images is too small to read.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 20/06/2024 17:49

Data collection throughout the criminal justice system has been a major concern for KPSS & has been a focal point for our work.

Upthread we posted about our work on data collection by police forces. Please have a look and check out the reports & other documents linked.

A major concern is that not only is self-declared gender identity NOT recorded in lieu of sex registered at birth recorded, but that neither is legally recognised acquired gender, where an individual has been issued with a GRC. In ALL cases it is sex registered at birth that MUST be recorded. No exceptions.

This is why we disagreed with the approach taken by Fair Play For Women in their Census 2021 application for JR and corresponding legal action in Scotland. Fair Play argued that sex registered at birth should be recorded in answer to the question 'what is your sex?' unless the individual has a GRC, in which case they should answer by stating what is displayed on their new copy short form birth certificate which, subsequent to issue of. GRC, will now display their legally recognised acquired gender, not their sex registered at birth.

We opposed this for several reasons:

  1. This legal argument advanced by Fair Play agreed that for some purposes a man may be recorded as female, and vice versa;
  2. It risked bolstering the significance & importance of a GRC, with a possible knock-on negative impact on the chances of repeal;
  3. It risked setting a data collection precedent in law that would have implications for data collection practices extending beyond Census 2021.

We consider it foolhardy and naive to suggest that this was a "useful intermediate position" that could be built upon. That assumes, with no justification, that the direction of travel is in "our" direction.

In England & Wales Fair Play won on concession. In Scotland (and extremely fortunately, given the Gender Recognition Reform Bill) they lost.

In our opinion our fears were justified and were proven correct.

In our discussions with data collectors throughout the criminal justice system, we have faced time and again the outcome of the Census 2021 JR application which is used to argue for the necessity of allowing people to lie about their sex registered at birth where they have been issued with a GRC.

Prior to Census 2021, we "only" had to fight data collection practices & any guidance documents. Now we have to fight case law. This is MUCH harder.

Be that as it may, we have still had some successes. After the Prisons judicial review FDJ v SSJ (unconnected to KPSS), a statutory instrument was put in place that permitted data on GRC status of prisoners to be recorded and published. Prior to this, GRC holders we "hidden" in the data: men in prison who had been issued with a GRC were recorded in the female data and ONLY in the female data.

We have been in ongoing discussions with the MoJ about how these data can be recorded and reported going forwards so they have the maximum utility. We believe that these are currently as good as they possibly can be and certainly stand in marked contrast to data elsewhere in the criminal justice system.

Data on the number of prisoners who identify as transgender are released each November. 2024 will see the first figures that reflect the new MoJ allocation policy, which we worked so hard for (we will tweet about that shortly before we close).

The data still need careful interpretation and we have seen even "GC" groups misunderstanding them and making false claims, which have then made their way into the press. We have always worked hard to correct these, but will no longer be in the position to do so. This is a shame, not least because ascertaining the impact of the new policy through the data is vital.

Of course things are very different in Scotland. Scottish Prison Service has announced that they will no longer be publishing data on prisoners who identify as transgender that would permit us to calculate how many men are held in women's prisons (and vice versa - yes, SPS really are that mad....). Nor will it be possible to ascertain how many male prisoners make use of the "day pass" scheme that permit them to visit women's prisons for the purposes of accessing activities & programmes. We recently heard that even naming prisoners who identify as transgender may no longer be permitted.

Clearly the work required in Scotland is ongoing.

I am so sorry that we will not be able to undertake it.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/06/2024 07:10

After the Prisons judicial review FDJ v SSJ (unconnected to KPSS), a statutory instrument was put in place that permitted data on GRC status of prisoners to be recorded and published. Prior to this, GRC holders we "hidden" in the data: men in prison who had been issued with a GRC were recorded in the female data and ONLY in the female data.

Amazing.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 25/06/2024 17:12

In May 2023 we published our report, Sex and Gender in Legislation: The Case Against "Legal Sex Change". You can read it here:

https://kpssinfo.org/sex-and-gender-in-legislation-pdf/

A supplementary document providing information on the research we conducted when writing the report can be found here:

https://kpssinfo.org/uk-legislation-sex-gender-pdf/

Our motivations behind this report were our grave concerns at GC groups pushing to split the concept "sex" in legislation into "legal sex" and "biological sex". We urge everyone with an interest in this area to read these documents.

Since the passing of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill at the end of December 2022, “legal sex”, and related concepts, have become established in debate, with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA2004) being described as enabling “legal sex change". In tandem, and with the intention of protecting the sex-based rights of women and girls, there have been calls that this necessitates a qualification of the protected characteristic "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010), amending it to “biological sex”.

However, our position is that this understanding of GRA2004 is erroneous and overstates the effect of a gender recognition certificate, that "legal sex" has been misconceptualised, and that, whilst clarification of the law is desirable, qualifying “sex” in legislation in any way is unnecessary, has undesirable consequences and carries significant risk throughout domestic legislation, as well as to sex-based rights under international law.

We argue that GRA2004 does not operate to effect a "change of legal sex”. Rather, this “Act to make provision for and in connection with change of gender" enables a qualifying individual to obtain legal recognition of their "acquired gender”, with resultant legal consequence related to that individual’s legal status. Our position is supported by a reading of GRA2004, prior case law and the wording on a full GRC.

The consequence of the legal status of an “acquired gender” is unclear, in particular where it comes into conflict with rights of men and women on the basis of sex. This lack of clarity, together with concerns about privacy have acted to obscure sex in law. In tandem, the meaning of the term “gender” in law now lacks certainty, and, given the social trend to use the terms sex and gender interchangeably, requires clarification.

Whilst we agree that “legal sex” is a concept that has legal standing, our position is that an individual’s legal sex is simply the legal registration by the State of their sex as observed at birth, which forms part of their legal identity. This registration is fixed and unchanging, just as sex observed at birth is immutable. Hence, GRA2004 could not, by definition, effect a change of "legal sex”. Section 9(2) clarifies that this registration of “legal sex” remains an event unaffected by the grant of a GRC. Indeed, the operation of the exceptions to legal recognition of acquired gender in section 9(3) depends on the persistence of this "legal sex". If a GRC holder underwent a “change of legal sex”, that individual would effectively be able to claim that they had legal recognition of both sexes, male and female, one as registered at birth and the opposite as "changed" in accordance with GRA2004. This is incoherent and legally undesirable.

When legislation refers to “sex" it is referring to the registered sex observed at birth of persons legally recognised in law via State registration. In EA2010, "sex" was not left unqualified due to error, omission or confusion. It was also not replaced with the adjacent term “gender”. Rather, there was no need to qualify what sex is in law: it is a fact registered at birth and part of a person’s registered legal identity and there is no basis in legislation for any other interpretation of “sex”.

The contrary position, with which we disagree, sees “sex" in legislation split into an unchangeable aspect (“biological sex”) and a changeable aspect (“legal sex”). Splitting sex into two separate concepts in this way means that for any individual and at any time, whilst their “biological sex” is fixed, public and (in the overwhelming majority of circumstances) known, their “legal sex” is changeable, private and, unless and until declared, unknown. This complication creates uncertainty and impacts data collection. If robust data on sex registered at birth is not being collected, it is impossible to measure and address discrimination against women on the basis of sex.

It is unnecessary to clarify that “sex” in legislation means “biological sex” and it is also undesirable because the very act of adding a prefix or qualifier implies that “sex” has been, or may be, split into separate concepts, with each prefix requiring a stable definition. In our view such a move results in more uncertainty, not less, that due to the interwoven nature of legislation and policy will have an inevitable widespread impact.

Registration and recording of sex at birth, as a key demographic statistic of significant importance for policy decisions, is a legitimate function of the State. Yet, disrupting “sex” in this way operates to break the system of sex registration at birth upon which legal protections for women are founded.

Sex and Gender in Legislation PDF - Keep Prisons Single Sex

https://kpssinfo.org/sex-and-gender-in-legislation-pdf

OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 25/06/2024 17:12

Over the course of 2023, we redrafted the relevant sections of the Equality Act 2010 to provide a worked example of an alternative approach at clarification, which left "sex" unmodified as sex registered at birth and which "locked down" and tightly specified concepts including "gender", "gender expression", "gender identity" and "gender reassignment" to provide careful boundaries to the protected characteristics that would (1) ensure no "creep" of the PC "gender reassignment"; (2) establish the function of a GRC within the EA; (3) ensure that there is no "encroachment" into the PC "sex", which in our re-draft remained locked down as sex registered at birth. We have been unable to get anyone in government to look at this. In our view this is testament to the success of GC Industry that leaves room only for GC Orthodoxy. Dissent, even debate, is not permitted.

OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 25/06/2024 17:13

We were in the small minority of those who opposed the Truss Amendments and in April 2024, we published this briefing note. Again, this has fallen on deaf ears and doors remained slammed shut.

Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down
OP posts:
KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 25/06/2024 17:13

More generally, we have serious concerns around the Equality Act: it's role has ceased to be that of a consolidating act that is about the carefully delineated circumstances of non-discrimination. It is now being used as an instrument to regulate interactions, as a method to organise society and as a way to specify individuals' entitlements. Our observation is that the GC insistence on adopting a rights-based solution to crack every nut is adding to this misuse. We shut up shop at the end of this month. But our work will remain relevant. Please use it.

OP posts:
QueenofTheBorg · 25/06/2024 17:15

Thank you for all you have done. It's shameful that you should have needed to do it. 💐

ADHDHDHDHD · 25/06/2024 17:21

I'm so sorry to hear you are closing. I can only assume it's the vitriol you are subjected to, and not a lack of funds?
Thank you for what you have done. The 'heavy lifting'.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 29/06/2024 09:42

In this penultimate post we will be setting out our work & achievements for prisons in England & Wales. Our final post will be on Scotland.

We will also set out some of the gatekeeping, exclusion, interference in our work, abuse, gaslighting & bullying Kate/KPSS has been subjected to. This has come from groups & individuals across the GC “movement”. We won’t name names so please don’t ask us to. This may help some of you to understand why we have decided to close KPSS.

KPSS was set up in July 2020 by Kate with what was a small Twitter account. By 2021 our work was having an impact: this included well-attended briefings for Parliamentarians and professionals working in the CJS, regular written and oral parliamentary questions that enabled us to find out information that we could not access otherwise, successful media engagement.

One of the most important pieces of work we did was the two lots of “prisons amendments” to the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill brought in the House of Lords. You can read about that here:

https://kpssinfo.org/house-of-lords-amendments/

These amendments came at a time when the MoJ was revising the policy that permitted male prisoners to be allocated to women’s prisons: that policy had lead to many bad decisions as it was based on a flawed “risk assessment” which also gave preferential treatment to those with GRCs, no matter their conviction.

One might have thought that Kate would have been supported in the prisons amendments within the GC “movement”. However she was met with contemptuous sneering for choosing the “wrong” peers and was told no one would want to know. There were attempts to take them over that included issuing inaccurate briefings. Finally, she was instructed to abandon them, told that they were just “blundering” and that “prisons must take its turn”. Kate was upset, anxious & confused.

Kate consulted her own advisors, external to the GC “movement” who urged her to continue, explaining that this was a one off opportunity that would not come again, particularly in consideration of the timing around the MoJ policy review. We continued with the amendments. Through these amendments we got almost 3 hours debate in Parliament & extensive media coverage. It was a major tipping point in getting the MoJ policy changed.

After the amendments Kate was given a complete rollocking for having disobeyed and not done as she was told. This was an extremely difficult & isolating time.

It was clear that by 2021 there was consolidated activity between the Main GC Groups, with the aim of maximising overall reach. It was also clear that KPSS was not included. One of the factors Kate discussed with her advisors was whether pushing ahead with the prisons amendments could result in further exclusion. We decided that it was a risk worth taking. We are unconvinced that if Kate had done as she was told that the gatekeeping and exclusion would have turned out any differently, but we do believe that Kate’s “bad behaviour” gave the gatekeepers “justification” for their decision to keep Kate/KPSS on the other side of what has been a firmly closed door.

The work to get the allocation policy changed continued throughout 2022. Hardworking women & grassroots feminists groups (you forever have our respect & admiration - thank you) facilitated a series of prisons protests throughout the UK. You can read about these here:

https://kpssinfo.org/protests/

However, there were moves to interfere with our work here too. One group spread damaging lies nationally intended to undermine Kate’s integrity - these still come back to her 2 years later. Simultaneously the same group also sought to poach members of the KPSS team to set up their alternative prisons group making out that KPSS had somehow agreed to this.

We also did work in the media with whistleblowers, keeping the pressure on the MoJ. Much of that work was behind the scenes and you won’t see our name mentioned in any of these key articles. The crunch moment came in August 2022, when Dominic Raab announced that the policy would change:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11088219/Trans-prisoners-barred-womens-jails-strict-new-policy-proposed-Dominic-Raab.html

The new policy that came into force in early 2023 placed restrictions on the allocation criteria that permit men to be held in the female estate. Whilst by no means perfect, fewer men than ever before are now in women’s prisons and crucially having a GRC no longer makes a difference. We have always argued for GRC-blind policies and were delighted that this new one conformed to that standard. The importance of this policy internationally cannot be understated: it set a global precedent for minimum standards for women’s safety with a starting position that considered the risk to women in prison, not the wishes of male prisoners. Again, thanks to the MoJ for engaging in good faith: the contrast with SPS could not be more stark.

Another key success came earlier this year. Since 2023, we have been supporting 3 prisoners who have been sanctioned in different ways for “transphobic speech”. That support has taken different forms & for 1 prisoner involved obtaining senior KC’s opinion. May 2024 saw the release of the new Adjudications Policy Framework which specifies that no prisoner can be compelled to use “preferred” pronouns and which sets a high bar for language or behaviour to be a matter for disciplinary action. We are confident that none of the 3 prisoners we have supported would face sanction under this new policy.

Since the prisons amendments in late 2021/early 2022, we have seen the expansion of “GC activity” throughout parliament and policy think tanks. In overall terms, access to ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants & policy “wonks” has increased. By contrast, our reach has diminished: any success we have had for women in prison depended upon the work we did in 2021 and those very few individuals who have chosen to continue to engage with us. Our observation is that our diminished reach is the result of highly effective gatekeeping: those few individuals who will still engage & the work that results are, in our view, the exception that prove the rule.

Kate has tried for years to rectify the situation, offering our help & assistance, expressing genuine willingness to find a solution. She has always been unsuccessful. On one occasion where she was asked to present at a meeting she was told that this was a one-off non-repeatable event and she should not think this signified any change in the status quo.

As well as the detrimental effect on our work, the psychological & emotional impact on KPSS team members has been immense. We have been lied to, gaslit, told to stop complaining and advised to simply work harder. In tandem KPSS and in particular Kate have been insulted and rubbished, people including those in Parliament have been instructed not to work with her, she has been described as untrustworthy and “difficult”, she has been insulted and laughed at. We are acutely aware of what we could have achieved under different circumstances. And that includes for female offenders. The situation, which we consider to be bullying, we have faced is entrenched and systemic. Individually, & as an organisation, we are broken.

Trans prisoners to be barred from women's jails in strict new policy

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab plans to block transgender prisoners who are biologically male from serving in women's jails following several incidents, including trans prisoner Karen White (pictured).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11088219/Trans-prisoners-barred-womens-jails-strict-new-policy-proposed-Dominic-Raab.html

OP posts:
Chariothorses · 29/06/2024 10:55

Thanks for all your work for women and girls , both seen and unseen xx

Ramblingnamechanger · 29/06/2024 11:01

Please don’t go until you get access to the Labour leader after JKRs intervention. Thank you. You have been crucial in changing the narrative on this.

AlisonDonut · 29/06/2024 11:15

I went to a meeting that used the tagline 'a woman's place is...' in 2019 and I asked a question to the presenters about safeguarding and risk assessments and was told that risk assessments are not important and are a 'box ticking exercise'. I have no idea who the groups are that you are referring to, but this attitude has been around a while and I know that they were announcing at the time they were going to focus on prisons and sports. But in my opinion were not really clued up enough to do so as per the response I got at the time.

Secondly, there is a pervasive lack of understanding of safeguarding overall. People who fail to see the issue hound people who do, and berate them for not providing perfect solutions when they don't even understand why we have safeguarding in the first place or how it needs reviewing regularly and tightening up often. Or how devious people (mainly men) are to manipulate those around them.

It is mind blowing to me how people fall for the shiny shiny over the grass roots nuts and bolts.

I just hope you are all able to, as fluffy as it sounds, heal from this shit show.

As my fluffy hippy dippy friend would say 'blessings'. As I would say 'fuck them and the goat they rode in on'.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 30/06/2024 19:16

This is our post thread setting out the work we have done. We have saved Scotland until last. This is a hard thread to write. Whilst the situation is hard everywhere in the UK, it is particularly so in Scotland, where children, women & vulnerable adults are under threat from a government seemingly hellbent on destroying the very possibility of safeguarding, as well as placing restrictions on freedom of speech that are only fitting for a totalitarian regime. And what of this government? The institution that is Holyrood appears rotten to its core. It is so steeped in cronyism & nepotism, that, from what I have seen, the principles of parliamentary democracy no longer exist within those walls. This is shameful & terrifying. Whilst the bravery & determination of overwhelmingly women, but men too, is a beacon of light & inspiration, this remains a dark & frightening time. Our relationship with women & organisations in Scotland has always been very special and has resulted in much joint working (including been behind the scenes). As we made clear in our Exit Statement earlier in June, Kate will be continuing to support women in prison, former offenders & whistleblowers: many of these are in Scotland and she will continue to work with our colleagues where needed.

In December 2022 we published a supplementary document: How Police Scotland Record Suspects' Sex in Crime & Incident Reporting:

https://kpssinfo.org/how-police-scotland-records-suspects-sex-pdf/

We included Police Scotland in our 2023 update:

https://kpssinfo.org/how-police-forces-in-the-uk-record-suspects-sex-2023-update/

In both 2022 & 2023, Police Scotland demonstrated their commitment to recording self-declared gender identity, not sex as registered at birth.

In December 2022 we published our supplementary document on Disclosure Scotland checks & identity change. We found evidence of the same loopholes in the DBS system that have been created when someone changes gender as part of changing their identity:

https://kpssinfo.org/disclosure-scotland-checks-pdf/

At the end of May 2022, we were asked to give evidence at Holyrood to the Equalities, Human Rights & Civil Justice Committee at Stage 1 of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. You can read Kate's opening statement here:

https://kpssinfo.org/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-opening-statement-session-6-equalities-committee-pdf/

Watch the session on our Vimeo here:

https://vimeo.com/715800570

Read our supplementary statement here:

https://kpssinfo.org/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-supplementary-evidence-pdf/

And read our Letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland here:

https://kpssinfo.org/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-letter-to-secretary-of-state-for-scotland/

Our work for prisons in Scotland has been as important to us as our work for prisons in England & Wales. The first "KPSS prisons' speech" Kate gave was at Glasgow Green in 2021. There have been many more protests & other events, some of which are on our Vimeo channel here:

https://vimeo.com/user164141014

In 2023, we held an online event to mark 200 Years of the Gaols Act with speakers including Johann Lamont, Ian Acheson & Rhona Hotchkiss:

https://vimeo.com/894278795

Despite the public, political & media outrage caused when convicted rapist Adam Graham/Isla Bryson was allocated to a women's prison, the Scottish Prison Service refuses to centre the safety of women in prison in their decisions concerning where men may serve their sentences. Unlike the Ministry of Justice, SPS is still hellbent on maximising every opportunity for men who say they are women to have access to women in prison, which includes living with them and the frankly perverse "day pass scheme" which permits those who even SPS deem unsafe to be housed in the female estate to access activities in women's prisons so that they might have the best chance of living amongst their chosen gender post-release. Along with MSPs, women's rights organisations, grassroots feminist groups and individual women, we fought hard to change the SPS policy. The SPS has simply redoubled their efforts to accommodate the demands of these men, even managing to go further than before: SPS will no longer provide data on where prisoners who identify as transgender are held and recent reports indicate that it may no longer be permitted to name them in the press.

Where we have had success south of the border with the new Adjudications Policy which provides considerable protection for freedom of speech, the same cannot be said for Scotland where the Hate Crime Act is a new threat that increases the risk that women in prison in Scotland will face criminal sanction for speech which, south of the border, would not even result in a Governor's Adjudication.

These are hard times & this is a hard thread to close with.

How Police Scotland Records Suspects' Sex PDF - Keep Prisons Single Sex

https://kpssinfo.org/how-police-scotland-records-suspects-sex-pdf

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 30/06/2024 20:15

SPS will no longer provide data on where prisoners who identify as transgender are held and recent reports indicate that it may no longer be permitted to name them in the press.

Gilead and Brave New World, all wrapped up in one.

JanesLittleGirl · 30/06/2024 21:50

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex I am saddened to see your collective withdrawal from the fray. You have made a massive contribution to the safety of imprisoned women and I remain eternally grateful for your efforts.

unwashedanddazed · 01/07/2024 01:38

Thank you for all that you've done. Women are safer because of you, even if you can't finish all that you set out to achieve.

I'm so sad to read that other women purporting to have the same goals have made everything so difficult for you. I'm lost for words at their behaviour.

Garlickest · 01/07/2024 02:15

Wow, you're amazing! Thanks so much for all this. I've bookmarked the thread and will read it ALL - and the links - over the next couple of weeks. I'll meet with my MP (whoever s/he may be) and also try the PCC.

Helleofabore · 01/07/2024 06:12

I am saddened to hear that your work had been made so much harder. Thank you for all your hard work.

SisterWendyBuckett · 01/07/2024 08:42

Thank you for all the amazing work you've done and the incredible legacy you've created. Courage and tenacity on behalf of a truly vulnerable group 💪🏼

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 01/07/2024 08:55

Thank you for the work you have done and for prioritising women and children’s safety over political expediency

Swipe left for the next trending thread