SNP Government call on services, like rape crisis centres, to 'justify' why they offer single-sex spaces

It’s single sex services that need a justification: such as the service isn’t needed by the other sex etc.

single sex associations are always lawful and need no justification. A single sex reading group or walking group can be just because you want one, no other reason is needed.

and that’s nothing to do with the SC: it was written into the Equality Act 2010 by parliament.

Oh, I agree. It's more about Scottish government trying to look as though they're doing something, and to cause exactly the type of confusion seen on this thread.

tbh I think TRAs can do one. The SC has said single sex is allowed for all purposes where it can be justified. One could justify a single sex walking group or detective book reading club (reasons? single sex walking group = every one can keep up, nothing done that is dangerous for women; single sex detective reading group may bring up issues of VAWG and women's need to constantly check their surroundings - men know b-all about that and would inhibit and possibly derail important therapeutic conversations).

In my house, in England, I have held in trust for the family some rather nice Arts and Crafts furniture bought from auction by my smallholder grandparents, when it was sold to pay the taxes withheld by the owner, Mrs Charlotte Despard, one of whose many interests was "No taxation without representation". (Previously her supporters had bought it back for her, but she refused to have it back after several occasions.)

My grand[arents didn't tell us of all her doings, but I think this issue needs to be flagged up again.

The Scottish government is planning to withhold services from women, for which they have paid, and to which they are entitled. I'm not sure how one deals with PAYE, but council tax, car registration and other payments could be withheld. It helps to be rich, like Mrs D, and to be prepared, as she was, to go to jail, but some theatricals might help. I'm thinking tipping tea into the Forth off Edinburgh - might get some American interest - dressed as indigenous peoples.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTION.
And that includes
NO TAXATION WITHOUT SERVICES.
Woman aren't prepared to fund men's extravagances.

I'm sorry I'm in England and a pensioner, so this is a bit - well, I'm not sure what - colonial? Mrs D. was at least born in Edinburgh. Looking at her life, I'm pretty sure which side she'd be on. I look at her gate-leg table, which Nana taught my mother how to polish with great respect, and I think, what can I do?

Another Scottish government body (museum's this time) with the same discrimination bs and the added threat of museum's closing. Oh and apparently the guidance needs to change so that it tells organisations how they can legally discriminate against women if that organisation wants to be inclusive of men 🤬🤬

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-quango-claims-museums-forced-35625876?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

As current events show, men insisting on their right to view women undressing feel they're in the ascendent so getting access to women talking about rape and sexual assault is just the next step in gratifying their demands.

It's evident that they still don't realise that society accurately identifies this as men committing voyeurism and indecent exposure.

That's not what they''re asking though. They're demanding that the fact that single sex services or being offered (instead of both sex services) be justified - which the EA does specify. But of course it should be obvious why its justified for, say, a rap crisis center, and raises the question of why after years, these services are now being required to justify being for women only.

That is exactly what the SC meant. It is not what TRAs wanted to hear so they are resolutely putting their fingers in their ears and stamping their feet, saying if a service is for women it must justify excluding transwomen. It doesn't have to, it just has to say no men (which includes transwomen). So you can have a Lesbian book club or a women's swimming session if you wish. Or you could have a mixed session or a male only one - those are the only choices.

The legitimate aim part is important too. Without that nothing can be proportionate because part of the test of proportionality is whether the means meet the aim.

The EA says single or separate sex services must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I read 'justified' in this article as a shorthand for that.

Service providers don't have to 'justify' up front - i.e. produce some sort of document outlining the legitimate aim and how their service is proportionate, but they do have to be able to justify it if someone threatens to take them to court.

If they apply it as a punishment, then yes I agree. But remember where we are coming from: where stating these (seemingly) obvious things was career-ending heresy.

And legally speaking there does need to be a justification. Documenting it seems fair, even helpful.

If they can easily meet it, and it’s obvious it’s the case, why should they have to?

The process is the punishment. That’s why. Put an unreasonable burden on already stretched services for women. That’ll learn them.

That was always the goal because transactivism is a mens right movement and its inherently sexist with many of its followers actively full on incel.

They will end up providing funding only for men's services, mixed-sex services, and trans services (all fine and worthy) but deliberately withholding it from women's services.

Quite apart from being discrimination, it will reveal the underlying motive rather starkly. Woman-hatred.

This is the latest TRA gambit. Since since it's now not possible to permit transwomen into single sex spaces and services for women, the goal is to eliminate as many of those as possible, making them unisex.

This seems like a good thing. It moves the issue into the domain of logic and law.

And ‘justifying’ is in line with how EA2010 works. Plus, on principle, discrimination on the basis of PCs probably should be justified. It’s a sensible balancing test, and one that rape crisis centres, toilets, etc should easily meet especially as they are explicitly named either in the act examples or in EHRC interim statutory guidance.

Of course scotgov might apply this in an ideological way, but they’re already behaving like that. If you’re an optimist, you might even hope this is them preparing the ground to say no to the trans lobby. To present a policy reversal as the minimum they could get away with in the face of the horrid UK SC which regretfully they must comply with.

Women have to justify their desire for single sex services whilst the data on which sex commits the vast majority of violent crime (never mind sexually motivated crime where we also know which sex is overwhelming likely to be the victim) is well known, not exactly difficult to find.

Men only have to declare their 'new sex' and they are to be believed without question or justification. Questioning motivation is often regarded as 'hate'.

Hmmm.

It's almost as if women are seen as lesser and this is all driven by monumental levels of sexism.

But na, can't be. It's the progressive Scottish Government who are well known for being feminist and promoting women's rights and achievements. Especially the male women.

The law is already settled. Any service of the type covered by Schedule 3 must be either single-sex, or mixed sex with no restrictions on which men can use the service. And, yes, the former has to be 'justified'.

We could read this as a threat to withhold funding from providers who don't cater for trans clients, but most providers do (why wouldn't they?).

The one thing they can't do is force them to include transwomen in women's services. And if they want to kick off publicly about single-sex services generally, then let them. They'll look ridiculous.

Isn’t the key around this that it’s single SEX not gender. A gender reassignment certificate means they have changed their gender however is gender anything in law as regards single sex?

Surely organisations can simply say under the clarification they are providing a single sex space. End of. Let others take this to court, for too long women have been the ones having to justify and prove and pay to go through the courts. How about trans groups set up their own groups!

Another rule put on women, or those that want to provide a service for us. If an organisation put's it in writing why they want to provide a female only service, it could leave them open to lawfare from the AIB's, because like BU they're claiming that men who identify as women are also female.