Keep Prisons Single Sex Profile picture
Jun 27 10 tweets 5 min read Read on X
In this penultimate thread we will be setting out our work & achievements for prisons in England & Wales. Our final thread will be on Scotland.

We will also use this thread to 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:

kpssinfo.org/house-of-lords…
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:



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.kpssinfo.org/protests/
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:



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.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
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.

Our final thread will be on Scotland.
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Keep Prisons Single Sex

Keep Prisons Single Sex Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NoXYinXXprisons

Jun 25
In May 2023 we published our report, Sex and Gender in Legislation: The Case Against "Legal Sex Change". You can read it here:


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

kpssinfo.org/sex-and-gender…
kpssinfo.org/uk-legislation…
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.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 20
Data collection throughout the criminal justice system has been a major concern for KPSS & has been a focal point for our work.

We previously tweeted about our work on data collection by police forces. Here:

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.
Read 9 tweets
Jun 15
In 2022 we published our report DBS Checks & Identity Verification: Safeguarding Loopholes Created by Changes of Identity.

You can read it here:

kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and…
We also published a Supplementary Document on Disclosure Scotland, which you can read here:

kpssinfo.org/disclosure-sco…
In these reports we set out the safeguarding loopholes that are created when individuals change gender, including by self-declaration, as part of changing their identity. This is because of the enhanced individual privacy rights that are awarded to anyone who changes gender, regardless of whether they are issued with a GRC (not that restricting these enhanced privacy rights to GRC holders only is any sort of solution for safeguarding).
Read 10 tweets
Jun 14
Another area of our work on policing focuses on the policies for searching detainees, specifically those that allow for opposite sex searching where an officer identifies as transgender. The now infamous NPCC guidance dated December 2021 which mandated opposite sex searching in these circumstances can be read here:

kpssinfo.org/ccc-searching-…
This guidance was rolled out across forces nationally and, in the main, was adopted without question. A few took a more cautious approach and in 2022 we were invited to give oral and written evidence to one police force. You can read our written submission here:

kpssinfo.org/police-searchi…
Thanks to exposure in the media from WRN, the NPCC policy is under review. However, the local policies adopted by individual forces remain in operation and, in many cases, permit and even mandate opposite sex searching of detainees. You can search the responses to the FOIAs we asked using #ManifestoForPolicing
Read 6 tweets
Jun 13
In 2023 the NPCC @PoliceChiefs produced a Protected Characteristics Operational Recording Data Standard. This is intended to guide forces in their data collection practices, including for crime & incident reporting.

We found it, somewhat lacking & misleading, to put it mildly. In December 2023 we published our own PC Operational Recording Data Standard for Policing. You can read it here:

kpssinfo.org/protected-char…
For some protected characteristics, our guidance is identical, or very similar to that produced by the NPCC. However, in respect of other protected characteristics, our guidance differs considerably. Where we take a different approach, it is because we have sought to ensure that the question asked directly is informed by the relevance of data to offending and the requirements of policing and/or relates to the definition of the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. Any deviation from the question formulated by the NPCC will reflect that.

Our guidance embodies the following core principles:
The adoption of core principles aims to achieve a balance between the legitimate function of the State to capture core data about its citizens and the relevant privacy rights of individuals. In the context of policing, the State also has a legitimate function to protect citizens from crime: the aim is to produce accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending to support the analysis of patterns of offending, pathways into offending and risk, and to facilitate data accuracy across the criminal justice system that is of relevance and utility to service development and management. Accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending is a legitimate public interest: data recorded must meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

* Policing adopts a national standard for the recording of all protected characteristics that meets the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

* As far as possible, the policing data recording standard aligns with existing national data recording standards. However, divergence is both justified and required where necessary to meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

* The context within which policing should record each characteristic should be determined with reference to meeting the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system and national guidance provided.

* Standards should be annually reviewed to ensure that they continue to be align with core principles, and with the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

* Language used in the collection and reporting of protected characteristics must be clear to avoid ambiguity and confusion among respondents and data users, which can undermine data and analytical quality, as well as belief in the validity and reliability of data.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 13
An important part of our work on policing has been holding forces to account regarding data collection.
In 2022, we published our first report on how police forces in England & Wales record suspects' sex in crime & incident reporting.

You can read that report here:
kpssinfo.org/kpss-police-re…
We produced a Supplementary Document on Police Scotland which you can read here:

kpssinfo.org/how-police-sco…
Sex registered at birth is a fundamental demographic and explanatory variable which is established throughout the criminal justice system as important to analysing patterns of offending, pathways into offending and risk. These differences between males and females underpin policy and practice throughout every aspect of the criminal justice system.

Despite the recognised importance of sex registered at birth, the Home Office does not currently mandate how police forces should record a suspect’s sex. Freedom of Information Access Requests indicate that many police forces in England and Wales record suspects’ gender identity in lieu of sex registered at birth, frequently on the basis of self-identification and including where the suspected offence is rape. Some forces stated that they record the sex of a suspect who identifies as non-binary as indeterminate, unspecified or other.

Offending patterns differ significantly between males and females with males committing the large majority of offences. Some offence categories are very rarely committed by females. This means that the allocation of even one or two cases of male offending to the female subgroup, on the basis of the suspect’s gender identity, may have a significant impact on the data, compromising both its reliability and its utility to service development.

The data recording decisions made by individual police forces affect the criminal justice system more widely. This is because data collected by police forces are transferred over onto other data management systems, including the Police National Computer (one of the main sources of information for Disclosure and Barring Service checks), the Annual Data Requirement (provided to the Home Office for research and statistical purposes) and Magistrates and Crown Courts case management systems. The decisions police forces make concerning data recording are key.

Guidance issued by the College of Policing, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the UK Statistical Authority recognises the importance of sex, its significance to policing and the need to record sex as one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 for reasons that include forces public sector equality duty and other legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

There have been moves issue guidance that mandates that sex registered at birth be overwritten by gender identity only where the suspect (or victim) has been issued with a GRC. We do not view this as a victory or an acceptable temporary compromise. In fact, this will create additional difficulties. Currently we are dealing with the recording decisions made by individual forces, which are not backed up by policy or guidance. Any guidance that mandates forces to record legally recognised acquired gender in lieu of sex registered at birth will make tackling the recording decisions of police forces much more difficult. Of course, this also has an impact on GRA2004 as it bolsters the significance & importance of a GRC.

Accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending is a legitimate public interest. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the interests of data collection are best served when police forces collect data on suspects’ sex registered at birth. Our recommendations in the accompanying Report are grounded in the collection of data on the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. These include that the Home Office issue clear centralised guidance which mandates police forces to record suspects’ sex registered at birth: the lawfulness of this is clear, including where a suspect is in receipt of a gender recognition certificate.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(