I posted this on the other thread:
Julie bindel on twitter
"1/2 Been getting loads of messages from women in the Brighton area that have also been refused female-only services in sexual assault centres/DV refuges and told that they are open to anyone that ID's as a woman. I think we might be looking at a legal challenge here, and also
the beginnings of a plan to set up an ACTUAL women-only facility. You know how to contact me. Let's do it!"
I wonder who the legal challenge would be against. If the service is commissioned by the council then maybe them? They've commissioned a service, but the way it's provided discriminates against some women, and it's predictable that they would self exclude. They could stipulate that there has to be some female only service provision, but obviously don't. I expect they stipulate the opposite, but it would be interesting to know the service agreement.
The charity's statement is pathetic in that it doesn't even refer to their main user base. It talks about unrepresented service users, but not that women who need female only care are therefore under represented(because they are deliberately excluded).
The statement should be exhibit one. It shows they are viewing the p/c's in a hierarchy, with gender reassignment above sex, and looks like an act of indirect discrimination in itself if that's genuinely their response to hearing that they have caused a woman to self exclude.
IANAL though!
Thanks again iamsarah. Thank you courageous woman.