Edinburgh Women's Aid is to use the equality act exceptions

This 2022 statement from WA does reference trauma responses to the presence of males.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-single-sex-services-statement/

I do wish all these articles would make it clear that the refuges and aid and support for women is because those women have suffered at the hands of men. They need the support because of men's abuse. Name the perpetrators but centre the women.

This suggests it certainly wasn’t the standard operating policy of refuges in Scotland

https://athousandflowers.net/2018/02/01/we-asked-womens-aid-centres-if-theyre-trans-inclusive-and-heres-what-they-said/

Yes, it's always been a question for me too @DuesToTheDirt

I'm wondering though, how this will play out in practice.

If (when?) a man with a GRC turns up, having a passport, birth certificate, driving licence all saying he's a woman, but the staff see he's a man and won't let him in, how would that play out? "I'm a woman." "No, you're not." "Here are my documents." "But we can see you're not." etc. I guess they just wouldn't let him in, and then what, would that be the end of it, or would he take it further? Would there remain any documentation anywhere saying he is a man, or is the only proof down to looks, cheek swabs and the mythical genital inspection?

Maybe I'm just thinking of problems where there aren't any, but we all know there are TRAs who wouldn't just let this go.

Obviously ERCC were a nightmare, but I thought the point was the lack of women's services generally.

I don't think it was their position before, as surely the rationale for JK Rowling opening Beira's Place was the lack of (genuinely) single sex women's services.

Archive archive.ph/8IxJK

Indeed @fanOfBen

You can take it up with The Times. Meanwhile I will continue to be glad that a policy that centres women has been brought to more people's attention. I'm sure Edinburgh Women's Aid will set the record straight if there has been some kind of misunderstanding.

Even if it isn't new, the article means people will notice. It's as well if they get to see that the result is that they get increased support, rather than decreased.

as opposed finding a non story to post randon comments on FWR.

It's a story in the Times, no one here made it up.

Not if its always been there and people are too sloppy to have realised.

There's a huge difference between having always stated that as opposed to saying we have now changed our view on the issue.

Its totally disrespectful to women who are actually providing services as unengated commentators, to ramp up something that actually isn't even true.

Its ridiculous if it isn't a new statement to write a newspaper article about it, and to then try and make out its some sort of victory, instead of recognising and respecting the work of actual providing services as opposed finding a non story to post randon comments on FWR.

These groups are providing frontline services to women who are victims of male violence. They dont exist as objects of a spectator sport.

Will wait and see if EWA responds to the news paper article.

I don't really see that it matters much tbh. The message it's sending is a strong one.

So none of those posting actuallly know if this is new.

ie it could always have been there as it is the standard operating positions for women's refuges.

Surely if it was a new policy they would make it obvious as it would imply that those who had previously used their services now could not longer do so. And in which case they should make that clear.

So I repeat, is this actually a news story of has the Times got itself in a muddle.

Well done them.

Yes indeed.

And the bit correctly invoking "the separate and single sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, which can allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is not in conflict with our support for trans rights."

They've deliberately and explicitly burst the bubble.

I think the reference to health and safety law while talking about single sex spaces is interesting - single sex toilets and changing rooms are mandatory under that legislation. It's clearly deliberately chosen.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/time-for-the-health-and-safety-executive-to-step-up/#:~:text=It%20is%20responsible%20by%20statute,single%2Duser%20fully%20enclosed%20rooms.

Brilliant news!

It will be interesting to see if the Scottish government feels this view applies in the Sandie Peggie case.

This is excellent news. I expect other orgs will be watching very carefully to see if it’s safe to do the same.

Perhaps those who can afford to set up a standing order (maybe £5/month) and post here that they have done so?

It would be a great way to show that these local groups don’t have to be reliant on their central bodies and their warped priorities.

Statement is at bottom of this page, although I can't open it - not sure what kind of file.it is.

edinwomensaid.co.uk/womens-support-services/#refuge-services

Yes! Well done Edinburgh Women's Aid. Bon courage.