Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scottish parliament live: Tess White asks Scottish Government whether it will review public sector guidance on single-sex spaces

34 replies

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 14:21

Coming up this afternoon, here's the link:

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-march-18-2025

Meeting of the Parliament | Scottish Parliament TV

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-march-18-2025

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
ArabellaScott · 19/03/2025 12:41

Yeah, I suppse that might well come down at least partly to Supreme Court judgement?

There is no definition of 'woman' and 'man' in the H&S regs, because back in the mists of 1992, such things didn't require endless fucking court cases and arguments.

OP posts:
TheOtherRaven · 19/03/2025 12:09

ArabellaScott · 19/03/2025 07:25

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/law/health-safety-law.htm#:~:text=Health%20and%20safety%20law%20is,on%20the%20type%20of%20workplace.

HSE or local authorities enforce the regs. Potentially a criminal offence not to comply.

Does this mean mixed sex facilities for staff are literally illegal? Interesting times.

Are they still illegal if the providers are pretending hard that mixed sex isn't mixed sex and trying to punish/intimidate anyone who won't play along?

I don't mean to sound flippant, it is after all appalling, as this 'pretence' that mixed sex isn't really, in order to nurture a man's choices and self expression, means actively excluding women from women's spaces (which is illegal, but apparently no one cares since they're women), and requiring that women's right of access to space is predicated on their being willing to undress their body to meet said man's needs and submit to male entitlement over them. Which is plain abhorrent and the kind of thing the Geneva Convention was written to prevent.

OP posts:
ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 19/03/2025 07:37

And yet everyone scrambles to put a yellow hazard sign out when there’s the slightest spill of water … H&S priorities, eh?!

OP posts:
334bu · 19/03/2025 07:09

Thank you for the link and share token.

ArabellaScott · 19/03/2025 06:16

EvelynBeatrice · 18/03/2025 20:28

Nothing on BBC Scotland online news about this that I could see. I keep an eye on how frequently such matters are not covered.

It's not hugely newsworthy, really. But that doesn't mean it's not.important. it's the nitty gritty points like this can end up having actual action taken. For example, the civil service has now had the risk pointed out very clearly of.failing to meet regs.

That could well lead to action.

OP posts:
ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 18/03/2025 21:22

You get the sense they have such tunnel vision (alternative analysis - are so dense) that the minute an organisation has majority women, and/or a few notable women become leaders, it automatically means women are now the privileged oppressors …

EvelynBeatrice · 18/03/2025 20:28

Nothing on BBC Scotland online news about this that I could see. I keep an eye on how frequently such matters are not covered.

SinnerBoy · 18/03/2025 20:28

It's interesting that the possessive its doesn't have a possessive apostrophe, isn't it?

And thanks for the article. Weasel words in there, saying that visitors can only be made to doff coats, hats and gloves, with no mention of pat / rub downs.

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 19:39

Here's the Herald with a good write up on all of today's events:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/25018496.scottish-government-fire-single-sex-space-policy/

OP posts:
SinnerBoy · 18/03/2025 19:23

Yeah yeah!

😄

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 19:07

And it's too late to fix the apostrophe, now. Thanks, auto-cock.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 17:18

TheOtherRaven · 18/03/2025 17:04

This. ^^

They cannot be allowed to fudge the sheer, blatant, misogynistic sexism of this.

It is not about 'being kind'. There is nothing 'kind' or even basically moral about enabling a man to abuse a woman and silencing her for him.

It might be wishful thinking, but sometines I think I see these people trying to defend the rights of men to use women and I swear I see the cognitive dissonance fighting it's way across their facial expression.

See also Carla Denyer last week.

OP posts:
TheOtherRaven · 18/03/2025 17:04

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 16:44

It struck me while listening to the civil servant whiffle on about being kind and inclusive that up until right about now they have not for one tiny second considered being kind and inclusive to women. Only the special men with marginalised feelings.

Realisation must now be dawning that they are obliged to consider women as humans who also must be included. I hope it's a hard realisation.

I hope.the very clearly spelled out legal risks and financial implications are dazzlingly clear.

They cannot prioritise the wants of men and dismiss the rights of women. A reckoning is coming.

This. ^^

They cannot be allowed to fudge the sheer, blatant, misogynistic sexism of this.

It is not about 'being kind'. There is nothing 'kind' or even basically moral about enabling a man to abuse a woman and silencing her for him.

Waitwhat23 · 18/03/2025 16:56

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 15:17

A standing ovation to all the fierce women working so bloody hard to keep this on the agenda. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Not just bravery, it's the tenacity that counts.

Edited

Agreed. As well as the superb FWS, MBM, SWRN et al, there have been several tenacious and outstanding MSP's who will not let this be swept under the carpet, Tess White and Russell Findlay being the two which come to my mind at the moment.

Waitwhat23 · 18/03/2025 16:54

Shirley Anne Sommerville. Ugh. One of the biggest cheerleaders for the GRR. I wouldn't trust her to take a pot off the heat after the oven timer had gone, let alone trust her to do her job competently.

Just, ugh.

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 16:44

TheOtherRaven · 18/03/2025 16:33

However it's phrased and however it's dressed up in nice figleafs like 'same gender' it always equals the same thing - men get to do what they want and women get to submit or else.

On a binary, sexed basis.

And when I say 'men' - well, decent men don't treat other people's boundaries, feelings and equalities like this, so draw your own conclusion about the kind of man who is willing to take advantage of this mess and coercively control and handle a woman for their own gratification. The woman will have no idea whether that gratification is a validation of identity or something entirely carnal, but it's not like to her it matters when the man's hands are on her body against her will and to her distress and she has no choice but to let him.

This is despicable cowardice. This is assault. To try to avoid facing up to it by a lot of word salad and buck passing makes it worse. If the Scots govt are fully in favour of men being permitted to assault non consenting women with the women under threat of punishment for daring to question never mind resist, then they can stand up and own it. And justify it.

It is not because they believe those men are women. It cannot be when they are dividing who has rights and who doesn't on a binary sexed basis. They know exactly what the sex is of everyone in the situation.

It struck me while listening to the civil servant whiffle on about being kind and inclusive that up until right about now they have not for one tiny second considered being kind and inclusive to women. Only the special men with marginalised feelings.

Realisation must now be dawning that they are obliged to consider women as humans who also must be included. I hope it's a hard realisation.

I hope.the very clearly spelled out legal risks and financial implications are dazzlingly clear.

They cannot prioritise the wants of men and dismiss the rights of women. A reckoning is coming.

OP posts:
TheOtherRaven · 18/03/2025 16:33

SinnerBoy · 18/03/2025 15:14

ArabellaScott · Today 14:29

SA Somerville: New rules from SPS in 2023, law states 106 in rules - consent is required for searching. Rules 103, officer of same 'gender' as visitor.

Hmm. So if she doesn't want to be mauled by a TIM, she's either going to have life made difficult by being branded transphobic, or they'll throw her out, for "Refusing to be searched."

They've made it lose - lose, haven't they?

However it's phrased and however it's dressed up in nice figleafs like 'same gender' it always equals the same thing - men get to do what they want and women get to submit or else.

On a binary, sexed basis.

And when I say 'men' - well, decent men don't treat other people's boundaries, feelings and equalities like this, so draw your own conclusion about the kind of man who is willing to take advantage of this mess and coercively control and handle a woman for their own gratification. The woman will have no idea whether that gratification is a validation of identity or something entirely carnal, but it's not like to her it matters when the man's hands are on her body against her will and to her distress and she has no choice but to let him.

This is despicable cowardice. This is assault. To try to avoid facing up to it by a lot of word salad and buck passing makes it worse. If the Scots govt are fully in favour of men being permitted to assault non consenting women with the women under threat of punishment for daring to question never mind resist, then they can stand up and own it. And justify it.

It is not because they believe those men are women. It cannot be when they are dividing who has rights and who doesn't on a binary sexed basis. They know exactly what the sex is of everyone in the situation.

ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 15:17

A standing ovation to all the fierce women working so bloody hard to keep this on the agenda. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Not just bravery, it's the tenacity that counts.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 15:16

SinnerBoy · 18/03/2025 15:14

ArabellaScott · Today 14:29

SA Somerville: New rules from SPS in 2023, law states 106 in rules - consent is required for searching. Rules 103, officer of same 'gender' as visitor.

Hmm. So if she doesn't want to be mauled by a TIM, she's either going to have life made difficult by being branded transphobic, or they'll throw her out, for "Refusing to be searched."

They've made it lose - lose, haven't they?

Yes, this point was made in articles about the rule. It's not fair on vulnerable women to put them in this position.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 18/03/2025 15:15

Busy day in Scotparl!

There was also an Equalities Committee meeting, it seems, but I can't find a record of it on the website. Contributions from Kaukab 'Decapitate Terfs' Stewart, Maggie Chapman, Tess White, Pam Gosal.

Thread from Lucy Hunter Blackburn:

x.com/LucyHunterB/status/1901966025920319880

OP posts:
SinnerBoy · 18/03/2025 15:14

ArabellaScott · Today 14:29

SA Somerville: New rules from SPS in 2023, law states 106 in rules - consent is required for searching. Rules 103, officer of same 'gender' as visitor.

Hmm. So if she doesn't want to be mauled by a TIM, she's either going to have life made difficult by being branded transphobic, or they'll throw her out, for "Refusing to be searched."

They've made it lose - lose, haven't they?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread