Edinburgh Council vote to force EWA to accept males

It is the first step towards the dominance of cis het white men over all others.

Yes, that is exactly what the trans movement is.

Every accusation is an admission from these people.

It is the first step towards the dominance of cis het white men over all others.

You've got that right, Mr. Stainfroth. Not in the way you think, however; you're doing your level best to put tims above all others, especially the women whose service you wish to use as a bludgeon.

Have just read this on FWS, who seem to have come to a different conclusion as to the implications of the final agreed motion.

https://forwomen.scot/21/03/2025/city-of-edinburgh-council-meeting/

That. ^^

Women's services do not need to cater for and provide for men. Men's services have their own funding. If this isn't working for people with TQ identities then they need their own funding stream.

Women have serious issues of their own to concentrate on.

Women not taking care of men are not misbehaving in some way.

After all, where are the men and TQ activists and groups/charities running around worrying about are they sufficiently caring for the needs of women? Where are their justifications in their funding streams that they have remembered women and provided for them as well as themselves?

It's sexism. Possession of a vagina does not designate women as everybody's mummy. And it yet again demonstrates, however the words are dressed up, those busy doing the dressing are very clear on a binary sexed basis on exactly who they know the women are.

No, Women's Aid, please do not offer to meet the needs of biological males!

This is what is so stupid about the whole fake issue.

EWA CE clearly laid out that TW are catered for via the individual units.

And I can not understand why other Councillors are legitimising this stupid attempt to slur EWA because what the idiots wants is for TW to be allowed into the single sex provision.

When are these moral cowrds going to show that they can read and understand words.

TW are already catered for.

EWA do not need to "engage".

The only people who need to engage are the councillors who need to engage their brains.

I'm afraid this still shows that they are all held in the false narrative of Stonewall etc..

The cretin who put this forward should be censured for bringing false information.

I can not understand why this false narrative is still being given credance.

EWA are not the problem.

The problem is councillors who are hijacking their position to try and impose their politics on constituents.

She sounds nice. 🙄Jeez, where do they find them?

Crikey, she seems unfit for public office. Imagine telling hooligans to turn up in masks, so as not to be identified.

Who was the speaker after Staniforth?

he can also fuck off to the far side, etc etc

I think this man is possibly not coping with life. Who turns up to work, never mind work at a city chambers, without being at least clean?

if I was his line manager I’d be speaking to occupational health. He’s not meeting social expectations.

" Indeed it was very encouraging to hear from Women’s Aid themselves in their deputation and in answering questions, that they could offer options to meet these different needs if the demand was great enough. We welcome their willingness to look at how to move this forward and how we can help identify and improve gaps in provision generally.”

No, Women's Aid, please do not offer to meet the needs of biological males!

Don't be nicey-nice and don't be the ones to offer the "support is also available to trans and non-binary victims" that the council - quite reasonably - wants to provide.
Let them do the legwork in setting up dedicated trans refuges for biological males, and keep Women's Aid 100% for biological females.

Please let the only options you " could offer.. to meet these different needs" be advice and support for those setting up and running the trans refuges.

It seems likely that the Equality Act exceptions would protect you if you [and I don't just mean EWA of course, I mean all women's aid/refuges/RCCs/etc] drew a line in the sand and said clearly 'single sex means women only, and women only means no biological males'.

ArabellaScott · Today 13:09

Here is the creep with greasy hair ranting about women.

I've never heard him speak before, his being English, trying to take money from Scottish women victims must even more galling.

Name changed for this post. Here is the response I had from one of my Lib Dem councillors- I was pleasantly surprised as I had expected they would vote for the Green motion.

”I know the original motion by Cllr Staniforth in the Green Group caused a lot of concern and for some a very stressful wait on the outcome. We received a large number of emails on this and I totally recognise why this was such an anxious time for people. As a Liberal Democrat group, we fully support the vital work of Edinburgh Women’s Aid in providing essential services for victims of domestic violence, and they have operated for a long time and are a trusted support service for many people. We were very concerned that this motion suggested a withdrawal of funding and we could not support it.

We need to ensure that all those who are victims and in need of support, have an opportunity to get this, and we have a responsibility to fund these types of services. We also recognise the importance of single-sex spaces and indeed that is protected in law. We want to make sure that support is also available to trans and non-binary victims and therefore our joint amendment asked the Council Leader to engage with Women’s Aid on how to provide services for different groups. Indeed it was very encouraging to hear from Women’s Aid themselves in their deputation and in answering questions, that they could offer options to meet these different needs if the demand was great enough. We welcome their willingness to look at how to move this forward and how we can help identify and improve gaps in provision generally.”

Surely it's reached the point now where those putting forward these policy views cannot be assumed to be 'kind' and inclusive. That ship must have sailed long ago. Those who continue to press these views, like the Scottish Greens, and pressurise women's support groups, are downright bloody malign, and under the sway of a retrograde and misogynistic ideology.

If any of these people had experienced the terrible violent persecution they all claim, they'd know why vulnerable women don't want to be in the same place as disturbed males.

Sorry: ONE of the reasons. The many reasons. And a minor one compared to women needing somewhere that men are not, regardless of how those men feel. Because women's lives are not predicated around what men wish.

I think it's really bad that scarce resources are being denied to women and given to transwomen, even if it is only a small number of cases - EWA only have a small number of spaces to offer - 29 in total, according to their website.

This is a good point. It's one that has also been made by the sexual health clinics. When men begin to use women's services, they suck up time, money and resources that were designated for women to meet women's identified needs. Those services do not receive more money, they just have to make what they have go further to accommodate men's wishes to have their provision in the women's resource, at the expense of their intended users needs.

Men's resources rarely experience the same impact or loss of funds per head.

There's also the now destruction tested issue: when a resource is mixed sex, it will be dominated by male needs, male service users, male voices, and providers will centre and focus on males over females. As has happened in rape crisis services and refuges for example, proven in depth in court cases. Even when everyone is trying very hard on an illusion that those males are women.

This is why women had separate resources in the first place. This is why men need third space resources and they should be funded from the male resources and funding streams.