Edinburgh Council vote to force EWA to accept males

• Commit to ensuring the rights of all women, including cis and trans women, are protected;

Eye-rolling inwardly at 'cis', couldn't women's aid/refuges 'commit to ensure the rights of transwomen are protected' by generously and voluntarily offering to share their years of experience and expertise in planning, fundraising, delivery of service etc etc with groups which have been set up by transpeople to provide counselling and refuge space to transpeople, and to offer continuing practical advice and support until the trans refuges have 'found their feet'.

That would be a generous and supportive thing to do to ensure that the rights of transwomen are protected, wouldn't it?

edited for grammar

If that is the final wording, I would still object to it in its entirety because of this clause, which demonstrates clearly that transactivism is still foremost in an area where it should be women’s rights that are given first consideration.

• Commit to ensuring the rights of all women, including cis and trans women, are protected;

If we are still being forced to adhere to the lie that there are male and female women (with the underlying insinuation that male women are innately more vulnerable than female) then women’s rights and needs cannot ever be prioritized.

Estimates show that 60.1% of referrals into refuge services were rejected over the past year.

The most common reason for rejection was that the refuge service did not have the capacity to support the client (45.7% of rejected referrals).

This means that when a survivor was referred into refuge, there was a 27.5% chance that the refuge did not have the capacity to support her.

From https://www.womensaid.org.uk/annual-audit-2025/

Not had time to check but as this is WAFE ie WA England, presume the figures are for England but suspect would be about the same throughout the UK/

If you are interested in depressing statistics worth reading the report eg:

A concerning three quarters (71.4%) of domestic abuse organisations responding to the annual survey who were running a service without dedicated funding used their organisational reserves to cover the costs.

And if you eat into too much of reserves it can end up that on an audit basis you are no longer financial viable.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why women's refuges can't exclude transwomen and be entirely single-sex as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', under the terms of the exceptions to the Equality Act.

Well I dont know for a fact, but without having the wording to hand, under the SSE there is reference to providing an alternative, and I suspect in the early days under pressured under funded refuges thought this was the only way to do this.

Then of course as a younger age group started working in refuges I am sure some staff thought of course they should do it.

What isn't clear, and horrible as it is, lets hope that it is only in Scotland that providers of services to women thought services should be trans inclusive.

Not forgetting that funders will also have probably made services to TW conditional on funding having been fed the lie that TW are the most oppressed etc..

What would be interesting is to be able to find out, how many TW in any one year, are provided with services by a WA project.

And dont forget some "women's" refuges provide support to men. Which may be pressure from funders, but much more to do with the fact that although men complain about lack of provision for men, unlike women, they aren't prepared to get off their backsides and do the work. As usual women are expected to pick up the slack.

Thanks for the info, IwantToRetire, it never occurred to me that women's refuges were currently giving spaces to transwomen, and from what I gather from EWA's statements, they are going to continue doing that, it's only shared space and group sessions that they are excluding transwomen from.

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why women's refuges can't exclude transwomen and be entirely single-sex as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', under the terms of the exceptions to the Equality Act.

Thats the final motion?

I dont know. It's based on what the paper is saying.

Presumably at some point there will be public minutes of the meeting.

Maybe the EHRC needs to step in and make a clear statement.

I didn't know that EWA actually houses transwomen in single occupancy refuges:

I think you will find this is the common practice across the UK by Women's Aid refugees.

And although, as in the instance of why dont men set up their own refuge provision, I suspect that this is again part of the trans narrative of insisting that they are seen as part of a female issue.

(Also, though not sure how this is affordable, there is a big push to get more refuges to be able to offer "single occupancy refuges ie a self contained flat, rather than expect women (and their children) to share a house. And judging by a recent news report of a woman complaining her local refuge had put her in a flat that is in a terrible state of repair, I suspect only made possible by local councils going into some sort of dodgy deal with private landlords. I suppose it is about balancing out women feeling safer in a shared house with support, and feeling more able to move on if they are in their own flat.)

Someone is going to have to prove to me that transwomen are a minority.
By definition of the potential pool from the population, they are 49%.
Only the declared are less than 1%.
I think someone is fudging numbers and getting away with it.

I didn't know that EWA actually houses transwomen in single occupancy refuges:

Ms Rodgers said the charity offered 20 spaces in its shared refuges, but trans women could access its 11 single-occupancy refuges. She said fewer than 1 per cent of the 2,336 women the charity worked with in 2024/25 were trans.
"Trans women impacted by domestic abuse can access all of our services, with the exception of group work and shared refuge,”

Personally, I find that unacceptable - I expect women's refuges, be they shared or single-occupancy to be available only to women. I object to scarce and valuable refuge space being denied to women and given to transwomen.
I would be very definite about that, and would expect a women's aid service to be supportive and helpful in referring transwomen elsewhere, but not to expend any further resources on them.

Call me an absolutist, but I believe women's aid should be single sex, full stop.

So EWA are offering refuge space to transwomen, which I think is wrong - but it's still not good enough for the likes of Cllr Staniforth.

What's the point? They might as well say 'biological women only in all our refuges', the outcome would be the same. Nothing less than total capitulation to TWAW will do.

The agreed council motion stepped back from criticising Women's Aid over their policy on single-sex spaces, but instead called on the council to:

• Recognise the importance of protecting single sex spaces as defined in law to ensure dignity and protection from potential risks, including harassment or violence;
• Recognise the vital importance of Edinburgh Council continuing to fund support services for those facing domestic abuse and sexual violence, and in line with our position on LGBTQ+ equality, believes this support must be available to all those who depend on it, including trans people;
• Commit to ensuring the rights of all women, including cis and trans women, are protected;
• The Green group voted for the amended motion, proposed by the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, telling council they believed their motion would not get the required support on its own.

Councillor Jane Meagher, the Labour leader of Edinburgh Council, introduced a Labour amendment to the motion, which was later not taken to a vote.

She said: “A trauma-informed approach to male violence requires single-sex spaces.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/edinburgh-council-voices-support-womens-175835284.html

What an absolutely despicable excuse for a human being he is. Tragically, Scottish councils (other UK ones too) have long, inglorious form for financial coercion, to force rape crisis centres to accept TW.

A other glorious segment of Ms. Sturgeons legacy.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5289563-support-for-edinburgh-womens-aid Related thread.

Sorry, but as a post script to my post, of course apart from the failure of policitians, is of course the scandalous behaviour of Scottish Women's Aid.

They should have had the guts to do their job and put out a statement about the need for single sex services.

So presumably will have to wait as long for them to do that as the length of time for the First Minister to state what are basic facts.

That.

This confirms the belief of this council that women's bodies are male owned resources, and that women may have no right to resist being used. Their access to the services their taxes pay now come on the condition of providing their body to any man who wishes to be there. Regardless of his agenda.

Absolute fucking bastards. And they dare to throw around words like 'respect'.

You do not 'respect' a man by sacrificing distressed, non consenting women to him.

But also if this article is to be believed the motion was based on a lie.

Cllr Staniforth said it was never their intention to defund services, adding: “I also want to make it clear that I think Edinburgh Women’s Aid does excellent work. However, this council would surely not allow any other minority to be automatically excluded from services.”

EWA provides services to TW, but as recommended by the EA as a separate service (as do most refuges throughout the UK).

So all this madness has been instigated by someone who is now trying to hide the intention of the motion. To demand that services be "inclusive". ie to deny women's rights.

Article has quite a long quote from CE of EWA which makes it clear how services are provided and how both women and TW are provided for.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/domestic-abuse-charity-criticises-veiled-threat-against-its-funding-in-trans-row-5043056

Not that I am saying it will stop the type of male TRA who shows everyday that they are an anti women campaign, the cant tell any group it has to be full trans inclusive when the EA actually used the example of Rape Crisis and Refuge provision as to why there needs to be the right to Single Sex Services.

The problem here is that not just in Scotland, although sometimes it seems it is, people are abusing their power position to try and impose their believes on everyone else.

And the other side of that problem is that (which I think Kemi Badenoch was starting to do) the existing Government is not giving clear enough direction to say what these TRAs propose is not legal.

Although the idea that the current First Minister would make such a statement is something we could wait the rest of our lives for, I suspect.

So yes, as said above, well done to those on the Council who got the motion ammended, but shame on not just the rogue councillor but the Council for including a motion that isn't even legal.

But then we have women members of a Union voting against the right of women to have Single Sex Services.

We have got years of Stonewall etc., indoctrination to undo, and the very real and still existing threat that many feel they have to remain silent.

This is pure malignant evil. That man is a stain on Edinburgh.

It's part of a growing list of councils voting to end SS spaces including for women who have experienced male abuse, and also part of a campaign by TRAs to ensure that women who can't/ won't pretend men are women if they say so are unable to access all sorts of basic public services.

There's a list of some of the others here:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/is-your-local-council-passing-unlawful-policies/

And the TRA background here:
https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

There are other councils who have never voted on it, but have allowed TRAs on the staff to only commission mixed sex 'gender based' services, excluding the most vulnerable women from help. I understand North Somerset Council are an example of this- there are lots of others.

Children of transitioners have written about how women are being told to 'try London' as there is no help across entire council areas for female victims who need SS services.

childrenoftransitioners.org/2024/04/13/the-trans-lobby-has-destroyed-provision-for-female-abuse-victims-in-bristol-and-elsewhere-and-will-do-the-same-for-the-victims-bill/

It's awful. The problem is that in the areas where this is most common, the MPs are also TRAs. We need the government to change the Equality Act to REQUIRE SS services where appropriate (as well as mixed sex/ gender based ones if there is a need) for women -not just 'allow' them- but protecting women/ reality isn't what they are doing. .

For a political party that has opposition to firearms ownership as one of its policies, the Greens sure like to shoot themselves in the foot.

Alex Staniforth is living proof that men don't lose their male entitlement and institutional power when they change pronouns. Staniforth can demand to be "they/them" as much as HE likes but HIS male privilege is fully on display here.

Thank you, Edinburgh Women's Aid, for clearly stating your continued commitment to protecting women and girls. Reminder that you can find EWA's Crowdfunder if you search for it.

Urgh. Doesn't this judgement make a mockery of the Equality Act and the single sex exemption though? Agree it feels like another legal case brewing