Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Leading feminist organisation 'fails to give straight answers' on single-sex spaces

55 replies

IwantToRetire · 12/03/2025 01:42

Scotland’s leading feminist policy organisation has been accused of failing to provide straight answers on single-sex spaces while appearing before a Holyrood committee.

Jill Wood, the policy manager for Engender, repeatedly refused to comment when pressed on issues relating to trans people accessing women-only spaces.

Engender, which is partly funded by the Scottish Government, supports the principle of self-ID, in which trans people can self-identify their gender.

Asked about Engender’s support for self-ID, and what analysis it had done on other women, including those of faith, “self-excluding” on the back of this, Ms Wood said she would need to get back to the committee, “but we’d be happy to do that”.

NB only a few paragraphs from a longer article - but strange this was happening on the same day as the discussion at Westminister.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/leading-feminist-organisation-fails-to-give-straight-answers-on-single-sex-spaces-5028796

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/04/2025 09:19

I linked this document upthread.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/04/2025 09:18

Apologies really difficult to format, but that is a copy and paste from For Women Scotlands own briefing on the case just before the Supreme Court hearing in November (which I watched online).

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/04/2025 09:16

^We won a judicial review at appeal in February 2022 where it was ruled that the redefinition
of “woman” in the GRPBA – to include males with the protected characteristic of gender
reassignment – was unlawful and outwith the competency of the Scottish Parliament who are
bound by the Equality Act definitions of protected characteristics. The decision stated that
“sex” and “gender reassignment” are separate protected characteristics which should not be
confused or conflated and that in light of woman meaning a female of any age, provisions for
women, by definition exclude biological males. The Gender Representation on Public
Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2024 removed the unlawful definition from the primary
legislation.^

^In a subsequent judicial review the first instance court ruled in December 2022 that the
definition of “woman” given in the revised statutory guidance for the GRPBA – to include
males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who hold a female Gender
Recognition Certificate (GRC) – was lawful and consistent with the Equality Act. This was
upheld at appeal in November 2023 and it is this decision which is now under appeal to the
UK Supreme Court.^

Definitions
^The Court of Session ruled that section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 applies ”for
all purposes” so that sex in the Equality Act means the sex recorded on a person’s current
birth certificate (either as originally recorded or as altered by a GRC). This interpretation
means that wherever “sex” is referred to in the Equality Act it can be replaced with
“certificated sex” and the definition of “woman” means a female of any age, except those who
hold a GRC, plus males who hold a GRC.^

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/04/2025 09:12

I was quite clear in what I said. The argument was that the definition Scotgov used for women in public boards was the same as in the Equality Act. So they thought it was fine.

Which meant the definition in the Equality Act had to be clarified for the Scottish Government. Which meant that every element of it, such as the SSEs which apply to every single sex space, was considered to establish who the person was who was protected under the protected characteristic of sex, and whether “certificated sex” was the definition in the EA. It was very far from the foregone conclusion you seem to think it was.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 21/04/2025 22:39

The reason the EA became part of it is because the Scottish government justified their decision on the Public Boards bill by saying that was how women are defined in the Equality Act.

That's because in the law as written didn't say that parity on company boards was covered by the SSE. The original arguement was about would it really be equality to have women's "equal" representation on boards if in fact half of the women were TW>

I dont think any one put forward an arguement that being on a Board would be covered by the same justifications as to why a woman would want support in a Rape Crisis Centre or a Women's Aid Refuge?

The single sex services that could use the single sex exemptions were effectively very limited. Which in itself is significant because of what it acknowledges, whether Labour meant it or not, the consequences for women having suffered male violence and needed women only support.

That's why it was so positive that for the Judicial Review other groups such as lesbians were able to put forward arguements ie it wasn't just about not having men being in close proximity to women who have been abused and worse by men. It focused the arguement on sex as a biological fact.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 21/04/2025 22:29

Yes, they did. The Scotgov argument was that if someone had a GRC they had changed sex, legally, and therefore must be treated as the 'acquired sex' in all circumstances.

Well I as I heard Nicola Sturgeon on radio 4 say they (not sure if she meant the SNP or the Government) had always recognised the SSE either she was lying or had had a memory lapse.

This was just after the Lady Haldane ruling and was being inteviewed based on that, where it says that "for all purposes" those with a GRC are "legal women" except when a SSS was in place using the SSE.

Is there any where that you have a link to her being quoted as saying that. Or even a recording?

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 22:10

IwantToRetire · 20/04/2025 21:26

This is completely wrong. The judgment is about single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. As pp said, the Scottish government claim here was that the Equality Act recognised GRCs as a change of sex in terms of SSEs. This was refuted by the SC. Hence the wailing and tantrums from TRAs.

The original case bought by FWS was about Equal representation on boards, which were not about SSE.

How Labour wrote the EA meant that apart from the SSE (when to have a biological women only service eg rape crisis) a TW was a legal woman so that a company could say their Board had 50/50 representation even if all the "women" were trans women.

The final court case that went to the Supreme Court became a wider case about the meaning of the word sex because of the allowed intervations by lesbians etc..

That is why TRAs are so angrty that the Supreme Court allowed additional submissions broadening in it out to be about the actual word sex, and (they say) they weren't allowed to make any submissions.

That's why at the first hearing Lady Haldane ruling was strictly in line with the EA as written to give the GRA/GRC supremacy over sex.

And if the case had kept to the initial narrow basis (representation on boards).

Also I dont think the Scottish Government ever said TW were allowed acess to SSS advertised under the SSE.

But they certainly did ignore complaints about ERCC doing this, as did the charity overseers etc..

The reason the EA became part of it is because the Scottish government justified their decision on the Public Boards bill by saying that was how women are defined in the Equality Act.

ArabellaScott · 20/04/2025 21:32

Also I dont think the Scottish Government ever said TW were allowed acess to SSS advertised under the SSE.

Yes, they did. The Scotgov argument was that if someone had a GRC they had changed sex, legally, and therefore must be treated as the 'acquired sex' in all circumstances.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 20/04/2025 21:26

This is completely wrong. The judgment is about single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. As pp said, the Scottish government claim here was that the Equality Act recognised GRCs as a change of sex in terms of SSEs. This was refuted by the SC. Hence the wailing and tantrums from TRAs.

The original case bought by FWS was about Equal representation on boards, which were not about SSE.

How Labour wrote the EA meant that apart from the SSE (when to have a biological women only service eg rape crisis) a TW was a legal woman so that a company could say their Board had 50/50 representation even if all the "women" were trans women.

The final court case that went to the Supreme Court became a wider case about the meaning of the word sex because of the allowed intervations by lesbians etc..

That is why TRAs are so angrty that the Supreme Court allowed additional submissions broadening in it out to be about the actual word sex, and (they say) they weren't allowed to make any submissions.

That's why at the first hearing Lady Haldane ruling was strictly in line with the EA as written to give the GRA/GRC supremacy over sex.

And if the case had kept to the initial narrow basis (representation on boards).

Also I dont think the Scottish Government ever said TW were allowed acess to SSS advertised under the SSE.

But they certainly did ignore complaints about ERCC doing this, as did the charity overseers etc..

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 10:17

Exactly. A thoroughly sensible, rational decision.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 10:07

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 09:57

This is a briefing from FWS ahead of the SC hearing explaining what the case was about. It rested on the concept of “certificated sex” which among several other things meant that a GRC would mean a man would be treated as a woman according to the Equality Act, including for the single sex exceptions which permit the legal existence of female only spaces like women’s refuges, unless it could be shown necessary to exclude him and other “certificated women”.

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FWS-Supreme-Court-Briefing.pdf

And the Supreme Court held that actually, a GRC should make no difference whatsoever.

Because whether it is reasonable for women to object to members of the opposite sex in their spaces or not cannot be based on whether those members of the opposite sex have a piece of paper.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 09:57

This is a briefing from FWS ahead of the SC hearing explaining what the case was about. It rested on the concept of “certificated sex” which among several other things meant that a GRC would mean a man would be treated as a woman according to the Equality Act, including for the single sex exceptions which permit the legal existence of female only spaces like women’s refuges, unless it could be shown necessary to exclude him and other “certificated women”.

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FWS-Supreme-Court-Briefing.pdf

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 09:36

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 19/04/2025 21:32

What Valentine has failed to understand from the judgment is that if it's not proportionate to exclude trans people of the opposite sex from the relevant space or service, it's not proportionate for the space or service to be single sex in the first place.

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

Fuck knows what spaces or services Valentine (they/them) believes align with their gender identity anyway.

Edited
Show quote history

Exactly. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the “proportionate means and legitimate aim” relating to this SC judgment and I think some of it is deliberate misinformation by trans orgs and captured media.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 09:28

IwantToRetire · 19/04/2025 22:59

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

No the judgement had nothing to do with the SSE. They have always excluded TW. It is just that the majority of the population have chosen to believe what Stonewall etc., have said is (was) the law.

The judgement has far more impact on wider, less specific issues such as Rape Crisis support.

It is that that shops, health providers, must accept that sex and gender are not the say thing.

And that is something is meant to be single sex, that that is based on biology.

This is completely wrong. The judgment is about single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. As pp said, the Scottish government claim here was that the Equality Act recognised GRCs as a change of sex in terms of SSEs. This was refuted by the SC. Hence the wailing and tantrums from TRAs.

lcakethereforeIam · 20/04/2025 09:13

I think just restating that the EA always protected SSE/S, the judgement restated that. Stonewall and its imitators just deliberately misinterpreted the EA to teach its patsies believers (who paid £s for this illegal nonsense!) that the EA was about gender not sex.

It does seem strange that all this time and money has been spent and we're exactly where we always were, where we always should have been.

Apologies if I've misunderstood. In light of my previous paragraph i almost hope i have.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 05:49

IwantToRetire · 19/04/2025 22:59

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

No the judgement had nothing to do with the SSE. They have always excluded TW. It is just that the majority of the population have chosen to believe what Stonewall etc., have said is (was) the law.

The judgement has far more impact on wider, less specific issues such as Rape Crisis support.

It is that that shops, health providers, must accept that sex and gender are not the say thing.

And that is something is meant to be single sex, that that is based on biology.

Not sure how it is possible to have read the judgment and think that it has nothing to do with the SSE...

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 20/04/2025 01:57

Think this article is really good and wondered if it should have its own thread (if someone wants to start one).

But posting it here to link to the Engender statement.

This article really tears them apart. (And suspect there are other funded "women's equality" groups that are just as bad.)

£600,000 a year? How state-funded feminism has let Scottish women down
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/ps600000-a-year-how-state-funded-feminism-has-let-scottish-women-down-5090150

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/XzvmA

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 19/04/2025 22:59

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

No the judgement had nothing to do with the SSE. They have always excluded TW. It is just that the majority of the population have chosen to believe what Stonewall etc., have said is (was) the law.

The judgement has far more impact on wider, less specific issues such as Rape Crisis support.

It is that that shops, health providers, must accept that sex and gender are not the say thing.

And that is something is meant to be single sex, that that is based on biology.

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 19/04/2025 21:32

lcakethereforeIam · 12/03/2025 08:27

I actually agree with this

Valentine, who uses the pronouns they/them, said the “status quo of the law says that trans people can only be excluded from single-sex spaces and services that align with who we are and how we live our lives if that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
They added: "Sometimes it will be, but in our view, in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, our total exclusion from single sex services and spaces that align with how we live our lives is not needed and also, crucially, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It's also unlawful under the Equality Act, and that has been the same since 2010, and like I say, it very much is the status quo.”

They can use the service that aligns with their biological sex. Excluding people completely would be disproportionate, but I don't see anyone calling for that.

What Valentine has failed to understand from the judgment is that if it's not proportionate to exclude trans people of the opposite sex from the relevant space or service, it's not proportionate for the space or service to be single sex in the first place.

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

Fuck knows what spaces or services Valentine (they/them) believes align with their gender identity anyway.

Grammarnut · 19/04/2025 21:28

MarieDeGournay · 18/04/2025 16:16

Isn't it revealing who finds “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” 'complex'?

'regressive'...'backsliding.'.. all this negativity before they have had ' time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment '!

Show quote history

I saw on the news this evening that the statue of Milicient Fawcett, the Suffragist, has been vandalised by the trans rights demonstration in Parliament Square. Notable absence of GC feminists with loud hailers, loud music and shouting to drown out what the trans activists want to say. They have got a lot of coverage - none of which was afforded the Let Women Speak rallies which were hounded and shouted down by these poor, vulnerable, so upset Men's Rights Activists!

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 18/04/2025 19:52

I think this is going to be crunch time for the VAWG Sector as it likes to call itself.

On the Refuge thread where their PR was all about how they wont abandon trans women, I also posted something with similar sentiments from Solace WA.

It would be so easy for the groups to just say something really simple such as, "We totally respect and provide women only servicies and support based on biological sex, and will continue to support trans women."

The fact that they cant even say of course women only (biological) services are important just seems like they are well past the be kind practice.

Despite the number of threads, maybe there should be one that just collects together statements from groups who are known as women service providers.

Potential service users have a right to know.

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 18/04/2025 16:16

heelander · 18/04/2025 10:27

The Engender response to Supreme Court Ruling:
"At Engender it will take us time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment released this week by the Supreme Court. We will share further reflections in due course.

From our initial reading, we are disappointed that this ruling appears to take a regressive view of the protections provided by the Equality Act. For us, the Equality Act represents the floor and not the ceiling of what we need to achieve on equality as a society.
Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms. Generations of feminists have fought against women being defined by our reproductive function and bodies.

We will therefore be paying close attention to what this decision will mean in practice for women. As intersectional feminists, we remain concerned about what this means for trans people’s rights. We urge government and public bodies to uphold protections against discrimination and harassment for a group that is facing such misrepresentation and marginalisation in our culture"

I see a lot of people online claiming to be feminists but using this argument that we shouldn't be defined by our bodies.

Isn't it revealing who finds “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” 'complex'?

'regressive'...'backsliding.'.. all this negativity before they have had ' time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment '!

lifeinthelastlane · 18/04/2025 15:36

heelander · 18/04/2025 10:27

The Engender response to Supreme Court Ruling:
"At Engender it will take us time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment released this week by the Supreme Court. We will share further reflections in due course.

From our initial reading, we are disappointed that this ruling appears to take a regressive view of the protections provided by the Equality Act. For us, the Equality Act represents the floor and not the ceiling of what we need to achieve on equality as a society.
Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms. Generations of feminists have fought against women being defined by our reproductive function and bodies.

We will therefore be paying close attention to what this decision will mean in practice for women. As intersectional feminists, we remain concerned about what this means for trans people’s rights. We urge government and public bodies to uphold protections against discrimination and harassment for a group that is facing such misrepresentation and marginalisation in our culture"

I see a lot of people online claiming to be feminists but using this argument that we shouldn't be defined by our bodies.

What should we use to define women then - our feelz? There's two uses of define at play here - how something is understood, and how it is constrained.
I meet the definition of a mother, as I have children. I'm not defined by this definition though, as I am many other things as well as a mother. But that doesn't mean we should change the definition of what a mother is!
(not suggesting you agree with Engender by the way, just thinking about what you posted)

heelander · 18/04/2025 10:27

The Engender response to Supreme Court Ruling:
"At Engender it will take us time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment released this week by the Supreme Court. We will share further reflections in due course.

From our initial reading, we are disappointed that this ruling appears to take a regressive view of the protections provided by the Equality Act. For us, the Equality Act represents the floor and not the ceiling of what we need to achieve on equality as a society.
Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms. Generations of feminists have fought against women being defined by our reproductive function and bodies.

We will therefore be paying close attention to what this decision will mean in practice for women. As intersectional feminists, we remain concerned about what this means for trans people’s rights. We urge government and public bodies to uphold protections against discrimination and harassment for a group that is facing such misrepresentation and marginalisation in our culture"

I see a lot of people online claiming to be feminists but using this argument that we shouldn't be defined by our bodies.

SinnerBoy · 13/03/2025 07:05

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 12:42

Shortshriftandlethal · Yesterday 09:35
" Align we how we live our life "........What nonsense is this?

That is beautifully crafted word salad, I don't know what you're complaining about.

Too much garlic and not enough thyme?