I think the explanation up thread about Lady Haldane rulings is wrong. She wasn't just indicating Forensic Medicine (or whatever it was) but referencing the EA which has the specific example of say Rape Crisis Centres.
And as Scottish Ministers and trans activists are all saying post Haldane that single sex exemptions remain as they always have been, I just dont understand why this keeps coming up.
I think certainly there is a case, not just Scotland although that seems to have been more overt, where funders, possibly management committee members, have intimidated women's groups who could legitimately put in place single sex services into not doing this. But equally Scotland has been guilty of overtly perverting the SSE by allowing a funded group (ERCC) to advertise a post as being under the SSE and then appoint a trans woman. And when complaints were made nothing was done. (Didn't two women in Scotland ex DV workers set up a group to campaign against this?)
This is why I said in an earlier post it would be really good it women's groups in Scotland were able to compile examples of when this was happened and / or funders implied they would lose money if not trans inclusive. (Let alone the fact that if they have been advertising SSE services under the EA and then not providing them, they are guilty of misrepresentation)
Add to which the hypocrasy of NS who went to such lengths to not promote SSE services up until a few days ago.
All the other areas where any of us would have thought that the provision of SSS was obvious are caught up in the catch 22 of having to prove they are proportionate.
I think for the public at large the issue of 16 year olds being able to get a GRC based on self identityand then being able to claim the right to attend an all girls school, is one that they will more readily see as problematic.
But this comes back to the fact that the EA was drafted on the basis that GRC protected characteristics too precedent over sex as a proptected characteristic. So sex based rights aren't automotic, except when they can prove to qualify as an exemption.
Whereas, it would have been more obvious, and easier to administrate, if sex based rights remained primary, and in a very few instances there were exemptions for GRC holders for purely bureaucratic purposes such as a marriage or death certificate.
But what is so sad if that here we are, and many on twitter, facebook etc., going on about the vital necessity of SS services and yet there has been no statement from the very service providers saying they are glad NS and other ministers have confirmed the right to sex based single sex services, or groups in other parts of the UK saying they are glad that the need for SS services has been recognised.
What a topsy turvy world.
And no, I dont think this is because of fear of funders, I think that too many in executive positions in the women's sector are too aligned, if not to the Labour Party itself, but the strands of the left stream that mean you cant in any way say maybe the Tories have got something right.
Just like they will issue a joint statement about the Met, as though it were the source of all violence against women, because the Met is the pet hate figure to the left, but dont equally criticise other institutions where men abuse their power position to harass and sexually assualt women.