Rape Crisis Scotland "new" rules on how to define women.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

Sigh. Looks like they are doubling down.

x.com/sunday_post/status/1883259033450393933?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Hopefully a link to the full article will be available later in the day.

@IwantToRetire
Yes we all know Uk's Equality Act doesn't outright require Ss services for rape victims(we will see from Sarahs upcoming court case) - but the international Istanbul convention does.
The Uk government has signed the istanbul convention and the MoJ is supposed to abide by it. The MoJ funds rape services via Pccs across England and sets funding conditions.

I find it weirdly trad-wifey that they take such pleasure in being subservient to pricks.

You're not wrong @SereneCapybara

This is interesting thank you.

They dont.

Indeed. So it will be interesting if the UN special Envoy raises this failure with the Uk government later this year. The closing date for evidence to be submitted to the UN for these Vawg issues is this week if thats of interest.

Agree with this but a reminder that this is Rape Crisis Scotland so funding comes via approval from the misogynistic SNP with all their incestuous links within the third sector in Scotland.

Sorry, that was in reply to this.

The EA doesn't explicitly require SS services or sports but it does explicitly forbid discrimination on the grounds of sex and case law (Miller and others) has established that failure to provide women's single sex services, or provide them in a proper way, is direct discrimination against a specific woman or indirect discrimination against women as a group.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me can advise if the Uk gov signed on behalf of the whole UK!

Okay - none of the descriptions of the Istanbul Convention refer to this, and in fact drone on about the use of the word gender to ensure that all "women" are covered by the Convention.

So can someone quote me the passage where this is said, and in which section it is from.

Thanks.

And if it is true, the implementation of this has nothing to do with any Government department.

RCS etc., aren't Government services. Govermental funding could maybe include this as a clause, but other funding sources wouldn't be bound by it.

Although of course most of them do talk about being trans inclusive.

Thanks to anyone who can provide the link to the relevant section of the Convention.

There was an interesting post by Reem Alsalem on Twitter -

'I take this opportunity to remind all stakeholders that the deadline for submitting input to my forthcoming report that I will present at #HRC59 session in June 2025 on “Forms of sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues” is fast approaching and is the 30th of January 2025.

ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-report-special-rapporteur-violence-against-women-and-girls-hrc

It has come to my attention that a letter, spearheaded by two international NGOs, is being circulated among stakeholders, calling on them not to respond to my call for inputs for my thematic report due to the allegedly troubling way I raise/frame the issues

It is regrettable that certain organizations, which position themselves as champions of human rights and feminism, have chosen to engage in a campaign to undermine the independent work of a UN-appointed rapporteur because they disagree with the mandate-holder's positions. Such actions are antithetical to the principles that these organizations purport to uphold and are part of an intolerable pattern of direct and indirect incitement against, pressure on, and interference with my mandate and the broader integrity of the system of special procedures of the Human Rights Council.

Any organization that has engaged with special procedures over time are well aware that their advocacy for respect towards mandate-holders can only be credible if applied across the board. Selectivity, including boycott attempts and other incitements to disengage, is anything but principled. If anything, it exposes double standards, hypocrisy and intolerance towards anyone whose views differ from their own - a symptom of the toxic “us versus them” mentality that seeks not to engage, but to vilify and silence. As stated by the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures last year, disagreements should be evidence-based and expressed in a respectful and constructive way instead of resorting to disparaging personal remarks and attacks.

To conclude, I wish to emphasize that my approach to this report - as with previous ones - remains inclusive and impartial. I welcome and encourage input from all stakeholders, irrespective of their stance on the questions contained in the call for input. I will invite stakeholders with diverse perspectives to take part in online consultations to discuss constructively some of the complex issues that the report will raise. Stakeholders who may disagree with the framing or content of any of the questions are invited to articulate their concerns, either in writing and/or during the consultations. As always, written contributions will be published after the report is released, unless submitting organizations and individuals request that they remain confidential.

Thank you very much to all those that have already contributed or are planning to do so.'

From - x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1883098565054026201

Interesting position from Sex Matters re clarifying the meaning of sex in UK Law re Istanbul Convention
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Istanbul-Convention-and-sex-based-rights-two-pager.pdf

House of Lords Library briefing:
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/istanbul-convention-preventing-and-combating-violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence/

I'm wading through the convention now and it certainly seems to referring to women as a sex, not an identity.

And from Sex Matters
When it says “women” and “men” it is using the ordinary meanings. It does not seek to promote gender-identity ideology or use “gender” to supplant the meaning of sex in law.

This the text of the Istanbul Convention:
https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

Yes, the funding which comes from Inspiring Scotland, through the Equally Safe strategy, is headed by Kaukab Stewart (Minister for Equalities) who is rather infamous for publically affirming that she wishes for terfs to be decapitated.

So despite the public handwringing, the SNP have no intention of supporting single sex services in Scotland.

Thanks - I did try and at the start was hopeful as it talks about sex as being the reality and gender as being behaviour (my wording).

But then it all got a bit vague and not specific. ie how NGOs are the best means of support and should be recognised by Governments for this role.

However I took it from the Sex Matters briefing that they felt that unless the UK clarified the meaning of the word sex in law, then it wasn't about biology.

And certainly from the EU briefings, they are all saying it is about any number of groups suffering "domestic" violence ie violence within a family setting.

And in most other briefings they are all more focused on how the Tories didn't want any of this to apply to migrant women. ie women seeking asylum shouldn't have the right to be protected from male violence!

And under "Definitions"

“violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life;

“domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim;

“gender” shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;

“gender-based violence against women” shall mean violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately;

“victim” shall mean any natural person who is subject to the conduct specified in points a and b;

“women” includes girls under the age of 18.

(my bold)

Seems fine to me.

Seems fine to me.

Well yes, but none of that is then applied to provision of services.

In fact, alarmingly given the context of this thread, Governments should defer to the "expert providers" (already identified as NGOs) as to best practice.

For one brief moment I thought I have found a link through a new google AI search function, which only goes to prove AI doesn't always know what it is talking about.

Google AI stated as fact that it should include single sex provision, but it turns out that its source was in fact the Sex Matters document which says there is nothing in the convention to say single sex provision shouldn't be provided.

1- The Istanbul convention applies to Scotland too. https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/-/the-united-kingdom-ratifies-the-istanbul-convention

2- Articles re provision of services and Cedaw/ Istanbul - apparently the writer's expertise 'is regularly sought by the European Union, Council of Europe, the UN..etc.' so hope it's helpful.
https://claireob1.substack.com/p/does-international-human-rights-law
https://claireob1.substack.com/p/mixed-sex-survivor-services-gender?r=4pclif&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

3- Here is an excerpt from a waffly letter (with no detail and no requirement) from the MoJ last year to campaign groups following Baroness Fox' intervention in the Lords :
'For providers funded by Ministry of Justice’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, the current expectation is that in delivering female-only and/or male-only services, providers should take reasonable steps to provide a single-sex space excluding service users with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment where requested by a service user who is biologically female/male, and where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (in line with the Equality Act 2010). '

5- I think (?) Sarah's delayed legal case for failing to provide SS rape support has now been amended to include claims of direct discrimination on the basis of sex too.

The government's failure to clarify the Equality Act is affecting female access to services everywhere.

I hate our politicians. Honestly have failed women and girls completely. I really hope Scotland sees sense in 2026 and we get rid of them.

Thanks - will try and make time to read tomorrow.

Only the Tories haven't been captured by this gender nonsense so unlikely.

Do not forget TRAs are pushing their ideology at the level of these international organisations, with UN, European Council and WHO showing evidence of significant capture.

Some of them have, but not the whole party. I think the SDP haven’t though they are minnows (do they even have a counsellor?).

What is Reforms position? However much you dislike them they are a significant feature of the political landscape now. I thought they were against gender ideology? Though they are an immature party without a democratic internal structure and lacking an agreed position on many (most?) things.