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:
lifeinthelastlane · 13/03/2025 06:52

Wrong thread!

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 13/03/2025 02:31

In a motion put to parliament, Tory leader Russell Findlay said the government had "failed to give sufficient clarity to the public sector" about ensuring the availability of single-sex spaces for women and girls.

Findlay said a lack of such provision had seen some women subjected to "horrific incidents of sexual abuse and harassment" and called on ministers to issue a directive to public bodies on the matter.

Green MSP Maggie Chapman said Findlay's party was "deeply, tragically and bitterly wrong", calling the motion wrong "legally and practically".

Citing the US president, she said the "cruelty" of Donald Trump had "excited and emboldened the trans misogynists" elsewhere in the world and called on the Scottish Parliament to reject the motion.

The SNP's Emma Harper accused the Tories of attempting to "distract people from their record on equality for women and girls in our country", including the imposition of the so-called rape clause and two-child cap by Conservative ministers in London.

She said single-sex spaces were "provided legally under the Equality Act" and a "complex area of law" could not produce "easy answers or actions that will fit in a soundbite".

Labour depute leader Jackie Baillie said women "should have the right to access single-sex changing rooms", and colleague Pauline McNeill said practice had "gone beyond the law" at some agencies, with self-ID used despite the veto to the GRR Bill.

MSPs backed an amendment by Somerville which changed Findlay's motion away from its original intention, deleting the call for the urgent provision of guidance and agreement that safety, dignity and privacy had been jeopardised, and instead backing an amended text which "notes that the Scottish Government fully upholds the Equality Act 2010, and requires all public bodies to comply with the law, and welcomes the role of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in providing codes of practice and guidance".

The vote was carried by MSPs by 61 votes to 31, with 20 abstentions.

Not the whole text https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,ministers-jeered-as-msps-vote-on-singlesex-spaces

Are the 20 non voters a sign that they want to support sex based rights but dont want it known?

Or just couldn't be bothered as the motion had been butchered by the Government?

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 12/03/2025 17:36

Part of the point of posting this newspapere story was that it illustrates so clearly the self serving circle that those in power than create.

So in asking groups that politicians have funded what they think about genuine women only spaces, let alone giving (il)legal advice on trans issues, they get the answers they paid for. ie the groups that have toed the line. And who are then given the role of being the "lead" in the voluntary sector.

How can this be a valid way to assess whether the "operation of the public sector equality duty" is being properly carried out.

Its not as if a group is going to turn up at a committee and say, well we advised as you wanted us to, but we dont thing this meets the standards need to operate the public sector equality duty.

Do they think we are all thick?

Or have they all just settled into their self serving bubbles.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 12/03/2025 17:27

As said by PP the comment, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, seems to be the new line of attack.

Most politicians now understand that under the EA SSE biological males, however they identify, are excluded. That is why they are called the Single SEX Exemptions.

So yet again the TRAs are saying what women (biological) want and NEED are not proportionate ie because they dont valide TW.

It just shows you how tenacious the TRA evangelicals are.

They are never going to give up. Even if the EA was clarified to say the sex means biology, you can bet they would be arguing that if a male says they "feel" they are female that that is biological.

OP posts:
theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 12/03/2025 15:08

Always with the annoying sleight of hand!

VV is not wrong that it would be illegal to unfairly disadvantage trans people compared to non-trans people, but then sets up a straw man of total trans-exclusion with no alternative compensatory provision.

Attractive though that sounds when I'm in a spiteful mood, that's not what we're asking for. We're currently faced with a situation of total exclusion of religious women and SA survivors, with no alternative compensatory provision (leaving aside for the moment the broader question of why we can't have nice things just because we want them).

So we're asking in the first instance for just some trans-exclusive space, to solve this problem, but they don't want to give us that.

It's a real problem. For instance Kenwood Ladies' Pond is no longer halacha, so local Orthodox Jewish women can't use it any more. Why was admitting men even necessary, when there was already a mixed-sex pond right next door?

PS I asked transwoman friend, and the answer is TWAW, religion is silly, and it would be stigmatising to make TWF use the mixed pond. Of course! That all makes sense 🙄

SidewaysOtter · 12/03/2025 14:40

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

This seems to be the new approach (or at least one I’ve seen more of recently): the focus on “proportionality” and that matters should be considered on a “case by case” basis. Rough translation: we’re going to continue to wheedle our way in to women’s spaces one by one.

Anyway as a PP rightly said, they’re not excluded from single sex spaces, they just have to use the space that aligns with their biological sex.

WandaSiri · 12/03/2025 14:30

popefully · 12/03/2025 14:26

Yes, cake is saying that excluding people from using ANY of the spaces, because they're trans or whatever it's supposed to be, would be disproportionate.

No-one's asking for that, we're asking males to use the male provision.

I'm afraid that still doesn't make sense to me, because what icake says isn't agreeing with what VV said, but I'm not going to make a big thing out of it!

popefully · 12/03/2025 14:26

Yes, cake is saying that excluding people from using ANY of the spaces, because they're trans or whatever it's supposed to be, would be disproportionate.

No-one's asking for that, we're asking males to use the male provision.

lcakethereforeIam · 12/03/2025 14:24

Yes 😊 I thought saying 'aligns with their biological sex' was unambiguous.

WandaSiri · 12/03/2025 14:14

lcakethereforeIam · 12/03/2025 14:04

Did you read all of my post?

Show quote history

I read it. It's this bit:
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.

VV is saying males should be permitted in single sex spaces most of the time:
"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.
You appear to agree with this, but I disagree because as soon as any male is in a single sex space it becomes mixed sex and no distinction can be made regarding right of entry between different classes of male person. So all males should be totally excluded. Excluding males from a service for women is always a proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aim of a single sex space or service needed for women. If the service doesn't need to be single sex, then there's no problem anyway.

Have I misunderstood your point?

maximalistmaximus · 12/03/2025 14:08

They aren't feminists

lcakethereforeIam · 12/03/2025 14:04

SophiaBlake · 12/03/2025 12:22

Totally agree with all the comments above except for IcakethereforeIam. It doesn't matter how a male identifies, he is still male. Single-SEX facilities are divided on the basis of SEX, not identity or any other basis. So a male who identifies as a women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a female-only toilet, changing room, prison, hospital ward, etc. Why politicians and much of the media can't grasp this basic point is shocking.

Did you read all of my post?

WandaSiri · 12/03/2025 13:56

SophiaBlake · 12/03/2025 12:22

Totally agree with all the comments above except for IcakethereforeIam. It doesn't matter how a male identifies, he is still male. Single-SEX facilities are divided on the basis of SEX, not identity or any other basis. So a male who identifies as a women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a female-only toilet, changing room, prison, hospital ward, etc. Why politicians and much of the media can't grasp this basic point is shocking.

🎯

ArabellaScott · 12/03/2025 12:42

Shortshriftandlethal · 12/03/2025 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

SophiaBlake · 12/03/2025 12:22

Totally agree with all the comments above except for IcakethereforeIam. It doesn't matter how a male identifies, he is still male. Single-SEX facilities are divided on the basis of SEX, not identity or any other basis. So a male who identifies as a women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a female-only toilet, changing room, prison, hospital ward, etc. Why politicians and much of the media can't grasp this basic point is shocking.

GailBlancheViola · 12/03/2025 11:57

I wish politicians would puncture this excluded myth. TW/TM are not being excluded from single sex services and facilities, they can access the ones set up for their sex just like everyone else. They do not need to have access to opposite sex services and facilities, they just want to and that is not a good enough reason.

HermioneWeasley · 12/03/2025 09:39

They self identify as feminists but they are not.

anyone saying that women shouldn’t have single sex spaces, services and sports is not a feminist. Anyone saying that women should be forced to undress in front of males as a condition if accessing employment is not a feminist.

popefully · 12/03/2025 09:36

issues relating to trans people accessing women-only spaces.

Why do articles always make this glaring error? Whether they are trans or not is irrelevant. It's what sex they are that is the discerning factor.

Trans females accessing female-only spaces is not an issue.

Shortshriftandlethal · 12/03/2025 09:35

" Align we how we live our life "........What nonsense is this?

Shortshriftandlethal · 12/03/2025 09:33

It's called 'Engender'.......what else to expect?

lcakethereforeIam · 12/03/2025 09:28

Grammarnut · 12/03/2025 08:38

I don't agree with that. A legitimate aim is ensuring the privacy, dignity and safety for women in places where they are vulnerable or would be made uncomfortable by male presence or be disadvantaged or endangered by male presence. That covers not only changing rooms and public lavatories but also prisons, refuges, prizes, sports etc. Excluding all TiMs is a proportional response to the legitimate aim of keeping those areas for women only (for clarity TiMs are not women).
And TiMs are not excluded (and TiFs would be included) - they can access the changing rooms, lavatories, sports, prizes, prisons and refuges that align with their sex.
The GRA must be repealed and the EA2010 amended to make it clear it is biological sex which is the protected characteristic and that this definition excludes 'legal' sex.

Show quote history

Possibly missed the sentence I added at the end? Your post sets the 'legitimate aim/proportionate' context out very well.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/03/2025 08:51

Valentine is talking out of her arse. I assume this will be the substance of her written submission in the Sandie Peggie tribunal.

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 12/03/2025 08:45

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

Excluding men (whether or not they identify as women) from women’s single-sex spaces certainly is needed.

Single-sex spaces are necessary to preserve women’s privacy and safety, especially where they are undressing, eg toilets and changing room, or vulnerable in other ways eg in hospital. And excluding men from these is, as the Equality Act states, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

We all have to cope with certain restrictions in our lives in order to preserve other people’s rights, eg not stealing things we like the look of, not driving at 90mph. Trans-identifying men have to cope with not intruding in women’s spaces.

Grammarnut · 12/03/2025 08:38

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.

I don't agree with that. A legitimate aim is ensuring the privacy, dignity and safety for women in places where they are vulnerable or would be made uncomfortable by male presence or be disadvantaged or endangered by male presence. That covers not only changing rooms and public lavatories but also prisons, refuges, prizes, sports etc. Excluding all TiMs is a proportional response to the legitimate aim of keeping those areas for women only (for clarity TiMs are not women).
And TiMs are not excluded (and TiFs would be included) - they can access the changing rooms, lavatories, sports, prizes, prisons and refuges that align with their sex.
The GRA must be repealed and the EA2010 amended to make it clear it is biological sex which is the protected characteristic and that this definition excludes 'legal' sex.

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.