Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

271 replies

WarriorN · 26/01/2022 15:46

According to fair play for women.

Awaiting confirmation via a link

EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov
OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Datun · 27/01/2022 19:16

The exemptions aren't "enforceable" because they are optional.

Crikey. You can hear the durs from space.

Let's make laws to protect women's rights, but hand it to sexists to enforce them.

ArabellaScott · 27/01/2022 21:53

Several groups have released a statement:

'the Scottish Government has never reached out to groups or individuals with concerns about its proposals. Even these brief meetings – in some cases, offered with just a few days’ notice – have only been with groups which took the initiative to contact the Government. Some requests for access to the Minister have been rejected. The difficult atmosphere on this topic has been made worse by the Government rejecting responsibility for providing leadership and building consensus at any stage.'

Bayswater Support Group
Fair Play For Women

FiLiA
For Women Scotland

Keep Prisons Single Sex

LGB Alliance Scotland
MurrayBlackburnMackenzie
Safe Schools Alliance

Scottish FeministNetwork

Sex Matters

Transgender Trend

Women Voting With Our Feet
Woman’s Place UK

Women and Girls Scotland

Women Speak Scotland

BlueberryCheezecake · 27/01/2022 22:59

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Yes, Blueberry, any service provider can make use of the exceptions. We can all read the Act.

They don’t because of being Stonewalled and shit scared of the TRA backlash.

Women are being gaslighted that of course service providers can use the exceptions because in practice they can’t.

So if you know the exemptions are voluntary and not enforceable, why are you demanding they be enforced?

They don't because of being Stonewalled and shit scared of the TRA backlash

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught. It's funny how often GCs are guilty of the very behaviour they accuse TRAs of.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/01/2022 23:28

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught. It's funny how often GCs are guilty of the very behaviour they accuse TRAs of.

They're not "coordinated attacks" they are women complaining about disrespect for women and girls, or flagging safeguarding concerns. A lot of the time it gets stoked and stirred up by the organisation in question by some outrageously goady "fuck you and your rights" statement from some social media wokebot.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 27/01/2022 23:31

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught.

I await your evidence.

Arabella - may I borrow your folding chair, lap blanket, and flask, please?

Datun · 27/01/2022 23:40

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught. It's funny how often GCs are guilty of the very behaviour they accuse TRAs of.

You must've gone to the same School of Hopeless Hyperbole and Rhetoric that barley went to 😂

ScreamingMeMe · 28/01/2022 06:47

excluding trans people from certain single sex services

No. Excluding people of the opposite sex from single sex services.

But you know that.

WarriorN · 28/01/2022 07:37

keep orchestrating coordinated attacks

Er U wot now?

When does pointing out loopholes for abusers become an orchestrated attack?

The language involved in all of this is back to front gaslighting crap.

All of it.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 28/01/2022 07:43
MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor · 28/01/2022 07:56

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught

DARVO. It's not an orchestrated attack against women's services by women. As you well know. It's defending those same services against the carefully orchestrated and coordinated attacks from men, who are desperate to access vulnerable women by any means possible. Sex segregated spaces for women are no longer fit for purpose and put women at risk once men start accessing those spaces too. Men go to great efforts to direct resources away from women's services, by forcing women to have to defend these boundaries, and targeting their funding streams when they refuse to accept males.

Incredible really that we've got to this stage. Social media brings the TRA's to the yard to work out how they can best destroy women's boundaries and safeguards. Fucking grim.

MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor · 28/01/2022 08:00

BlueberryCheezecake. Why don't you engage properly for once and address these points, rather than just plopping over these threads with your DARVO, and then moving on to the next one for more of the same. Don't you ever get bored with this? Although on the plus side your contribution shows the lurkers exactly what's happening here.

334bu · 28/01/2022 10:05

Thank you for link.

littlbrowndog · 28/01/2022 10:07

Sham process sums it up in that piece

SamphiretheStickerist · 28/01/2022 10:11

Allow me Blueberry I work for a refuge/crisis centre.

We have to find ways of legitimately refusing transwomen or we lose funding. Simply stating that we are using the legal exemption is no protection against any funding stream deciding we don't meet their diversity aims. We have lost almost half of our funding over the last 5 years because of this. Directly, implicitly, we have been told in a number of formal communications, that, despite providing services for every kind of woman there is, we are not diverse enough and should look to improve this before submitting your revised bid. One very large organisation stated specifically that because we did not cater for men or transwomen we did not meet their funding criteria. We are a centre that has been running for many decades, set up by a small group of women, run by and for women ever since. We started off self funding and now, in the 21st century, will probably have to return to that model of funding. Which will increase the chances of our safe spaces being identified, as we will have to make more and more local, public appeals.

So please, stop with the grand standing long enough to consider the realities of that situation.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 28/01/2022 10:14

Ah, @BlueberryCheezecake, glad I found you. They are looking for your valuable insight on the thread about the trans swimmer.

Seems the young female swimmers have tried Laurie Penny's advice of "just don't look" but the genitals just keep popping up in their singles sex space.

They are hoping you might have some bon mots from a trans inclusion POV.

Surprised you, and the other cheer leaders, haven't seen the thread, actually. You pop up, like a penis in a changing room, on ones like these ALL the time.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4465281-Lia-Thomas-again

DialSquare · 28/01/2022 10:19

Surprised you, and the other cheer leaders, haven't seen the thread, actually. You pop up, like a penis in a changing room, on ones like these ALL the time.

Grin
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 28/01/2022 10:20

@SamphiretheStickerist what do you think will happen?

Do we just have to somehow find the money to do what they did in the 70s and build up a network of refuges from nothing?

SamphiretheStickerist · 28/01/2022 10:35

We are spending more time looking at other funding streams (that's what I do, I search funding databases). We now have some funding from some very diverse places, e.g. small donations from a charity that supports refugee women improve their English, spoken and written. They now divert some of their money to us. They shouldn't have to, we previously covered all of that via mainstream funders. But now they do divert some of their funding to us, taking away from their core spaces.

That and we are making connections with other organisations that offer similar services tour our to men and transwomen.

We have to be careful though, as we can't partner with them, our client base doesn't want or need that to happen. So we have to find other ways of working in partnership, that satisfy the funding stream demands.

We have got better at this over the last few years. But it still pains me that a service less than 20 miles away provides a far less robust service (fewer associated support links for when to move on) than we do and gets hundreds of thousands a year, because they serve "all women, those who identify as women and non binary people alike". We have almost double their user numbers and get less than £5K from the same funder.

This is why posts like Blueberry annoy me. They have little care for the damage their misunderstanding, spreading of disinformation does to women in need.

Longer term I think the Lottery etc will lose their importance to a large swathe of organisations like ours. There always was an inherent danger to having single donor support. We will have to go back to our grass roots supporters.

SamphiretheStickerist · 28/01/2022 10:37

Apologies for the typos. I'm on my phone and, yet again, my arthritic fingers are feeling a little fat 🙂

ArabellaScott · 28/01/2022 10:44

@334bu

Thank you for link.
I notice how SNP response to extra info/input is to be ratty that EHRC's response has changed. It seems reasonable that a body has responded and updated policy/stance in response to a rapidly developing area of law (we've had a few judgements since the consultation, not least Maya Forstater's).

Why can't the gov be grateful that a body is offering help and support and expertise? Instead, pissed off that they are not fully cheerleading. I do notice this with the SNP - so defensive, so quick to jump to ad hom insinuations.

Mochudubh · 28/01/2022 10:52

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

"You pop up, like a penis in a changing room".

You have such a way with words, Viv.

Please can this become a meme?

TheAbbotOfUnreason · 28/01/2022 11:09

I can see why our busy little ploppers haven’t indulged themselves on the Lia Williams threads.

Sometimes, however hard you try, the indefensible really is just … indefensible.

TheAbbotOfUnreason · 28/01/2022 11:19

Oops, Lia Thomas threads. I do keep getting William and Lia Thomas mixed up.

NecessaryScene · 28/01/2022 11:26

Longer term I think the Lottery etc will lose their importance to a large swathe of organisations like ours. There always was an inherent danger to having single donor support. We will have to go back to our grass roots supporters.

This is something for the EHRC/Baroness/whoever else to look at.

If large funding bodies like the Lottery/central government/whatever are insisting that ALL services need to meet one set of rules and cater to everyone, then they are undermining specialist services, and harming diversity.

Or, if they're permitting certain specialist services (eg trans) but not others (eg female), then they are discriminating.

I think they can be hauled over the coals for this if the funding is governmental or quasi-governmental. (Private funders can presumably do what they want, but the government has more equalities responsibility, right?)