Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Really worrying "guidelines" for homeless charities on the implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

30 replies

IwantToRetire · 28/01/2026 01:49

I came across this by chance, and was really taken aback as I assumed that even before the Supreme Court ruling groups offering housing would use the "proportionate" SSE to provide biological women with safe housing ie only with other women.

Seeing who they credit for advice what they have written isn't a suprise, accept that it was written this month.

Something makes me think that when there is a court ruling in favour of women, from low paid charity works through to politicians, everyone thinks they can just ignore it.

Disgusted Angry

https://homeless.org.uk/areas-of-expertise/improving-homelessness-services/supporting-innovation-in-homelessness-services/the-equality-act-and-single-sex-spaces-in-the-homelessness-sector/

The Equality Act and single-sex spaces in the homelessness sector

An update on what last year's legal rulings could mean for single sex homelessness services.

https://homeless.org.uk/areas-of-expertise/improving-homelessness-services/supporting-innovation-in-homelessness-services/the-equality-act-and-single-sex-spaces-in-the-homelessness-sector/

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/01/2026 02:57

IwantToRetire · 28/01/2026 02:39

That is untrue. Just because there were big headlines about some so called women's groups in Scotland doesn't mean everyone was behaving as fanatically as they were.

Most women's orgnaisation operate both women only and trans inclusive services.

The point about this article is about women who are homeless having these captured members of one of the largest "support" service for homeless people, showing they never understood or chose not to implement the SSE.

There have been many horror stories of councils places vulnerable women in unsupervised hostels.

And it would be nice to think that those working in the sector would have more respect.

It just doesn't help to make blanket statements that aren't true.

And is insulting to the women's groups who weren't and aren't co-opted.

Although all in all the biggest threat to women only provision is in fact funders.

More Women's Aid projects have been closed because councils say it isn't economic to provide women only provision.

If we really care about women only provision we would be monitoring that as well.

Show quote history

And Brighton, and other places. You don’t seem to understand how far the rot has set in in that sector. And in the charity sector and the public sector in general, which is surprising given how many threads there have been here. The Scottish services weren’t an anomaly.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 28/01/2026 02:48

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/01/2026 02:34

I see this is how they think they can get around the SC ruling. Smacks of GLP reasoning:

  1. The court ruling does not prevent service providers from offering an inclusive service or space to people who live as women (or men) and services for women (or men) could be described as trans-inclusive. If a decision is made to change a service from single-sex to trans-inclusive then this should be carefully considered, co-produced where possible, and with clear communication to everyone who accesses that service.

Again this was always the case. But the issue was those who disguised it.

This is the current guidelines given by the WRC to women's groups.

It gets blurr when the ideologues get into power and to enforce their beliefs on others are not open. If you remember this was the grounds on which Roz Adams won her case. She in fact was not opposed to trans inclusive services. What she was opposed to was lying to potential clients / users about a service being women only but someone (initials MW!) thought they could impose their view of the world on everyone, even if it meant bullying staff.

So it comes down to the ruling.

It is now clear, even to those who tried to bend the line pre the SCR if you advertise a service as women only, they you are advertising a service that is only for biological women.

And that's why so many TRAs hate it.

Thanks to Labour's dodgy wording of the SSE many less confident women were bullied into allowing them to be trans inclusive.

Not that transwomen couldn't be supported in a trans inclusive service, but the victory is to be accepted as a "woman" in a service advertised as women only.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 28/01/2026 02:39

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/01/2026 02:28

Hardly anyone was using the SSE to mean biological sex (or even just allowing men with GRCs) openly before the SC ruling, because they were more scared of TRAs complaining than women.

That is untrue. Just because there were big headlines about some so called women's groups in Scotland doesn't mean everyone was behaving as fanatically as they were.

Most women's orgnaisation operate both women only and trans inclusive services.

The point about this article is about women who are homeless having these captured members of one of the largest "support" service for homeless people, showing they never understood or chose not to implement the SSE.

There have been many horror stories of councils places vulnerable women in unsupervised hostels.

And it would be nice to think that those working in the sector would have more respect.

It just doesn't help to make blanket statements that aren't true.

And is insulting to the women's groups who weren't and aren't co-opted.

Although all in all the biggest threat to women only provision is in fact funders.

More Women's Aid projects have been closed because councils say it isn't economic to provide women only provision.

If we really care about women only provision we would be monitoring that as well.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/01/2026 02:34

I see this is how they think they can get around the SC ruling. Smacks of GLP reasoning:

  1. The court ruling does not prevent service providers from offering an inclusive service or space to people who live as women (or men) and services for women (or men) could be described as trans-inclusive. If a decision is made to change a service from single-sex to trans-inclusive then this should be carefully considered, co-produced where possible, and with clear communication to everyone who accesses that service.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/01/2026 02:28

Hardly anyone was using the SSE to mean biological sex (or even just allowing men with GRCs) openly before the SC ruling, because they were more scared of TRAs complaining than women.

Swipe left for the next trending thread