Just wanted to flag this up for anyone still to finish their response.
Thread from twitter is here but here's what is said:
We wanted to highlight some information relating to the research we carried out on one specific aspect of the EQIA that scotgov completed in relation to the GRRB. We think it’s important to highlight this, to underpin why the concerns we women are raising over the unrestricted Access to apply for a self declared GRC with effectively no safeguarding & no gatekeeping, are not ‘misplaced’, ‘moral panic’ or any other dismissive term that’s been used to minimise & undermine our very reasonable objections to this bill.
The UK Department for International Development (DfID) sets out clear guidelines for safe spaces for women and girls, supported by rigorous evidence from the UN and World Health Organisation. They state that all VAWG programming actions should be informed by consultations with women and girls and this must include why some women and girls are not using the facilities available. The Scottish government is therefore failing by not addressing why and where women may self-exclude from single sex spaces with males allowed access, including self-excluding from women’s services, as part of its EQIA.
Internationally, DfiD, the World Health Organisation (WHO), and UN agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) understand the importance of female-only spaces in supporting women and girls recovering from male violence, and the WHO states that ‘safe’ in the context of female-only spaces includes “absence of trauma, excessive stress, violence (or fear of violence) or abuse”. Thus if a woman or girl enters what should be a safe space and experiences distress/trauma/re-traumatisation/fears male violence due to male inclusion, then the space is no longer safe according to international best practice standards.
As such, it is clear if international best practice standards are to be upheld in relation to women and girls, that ‘safe spaces’ for women and girls are to be understood not just as spaces that are safe from male violence, but which are also spaces where women are safe from distress, trauma and re-traumatisation, as well as from the fear of male violence – i.e. where women and girls are also psychologically and emotionally safe.
Therefore if the government is to uphold international best practice regarding provision for women, particularly for survivors, it must do all it can to understand the ways in which we require female-only provision in order to have safe spaces free from distress, trauma and re-traumatisation. The government has no basis on which to claim women do not require female-only provision in relation to transwomen for the same reasons we do in relation to men, and also has not in any way demonstrated that the vast body of evidence collated over decades in relation to the needs of women regarding male people, is irrelevant to the inclusion of transwomen in women’s provisions.
So long as there is evidence that women would not be safe from distress, trauma and re-traumatisation due to the inclusion of transwomen in women’s provisions, the government must recognise that those spaces are no longer safe for women.
Women asking for, expecting or requiring female only provision is not ‘misplaced’, it is not ‘moral panic’, it is not ‘bigoted or akin to racism’ and it is not unreasonable.
It is INTERNATION BEST PRACTICE for Women & Girls, that female only provision when privacy, dignity Safety, recovery from trauma & participation in the public sphere that female only provision “...to be understood not just as spaces that are safe from male violence, but which are also spaces where women are safe from distress, trauma and re-traumatisation, as well as from the fear of male violence – i.e. where women and girls are also psychologically and emotionally safe.”
Women & girls have the right, as legislated for in the EA2010, to single sex female only provision to meet their human rights. Don’t let scotgov tell you otherwise.