Edinburgh Women's Aid is to use the equality act exceptions

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

And its services and staff will be female only.

No males with a GRC either.

Will be interesting to see whether this opens the floodgates.

I predict tantrums and nailed dead rats.

About fucking time.

That's fucking marvellous! (And frustrating I have to feel that it's marvellous, not merely normal.)

Linky, please?

I'm sure they would appreciate some donations.

edinwomensaid.co.uk/donations-fundraising/

Oh damn I forgot the link!

www.thetimes.com/article/2d9045f4-2fc5-41a1-bf7a-63ded467081e?shareToken=8e1ebd311d082bf0bce754432194a7a6

Thank you thank you, @GargoylesofBeelzebub

From that:
The statement goes on to quote the Equality Act 2010 and says “we lawfully exclude transgender women and males who have transitioned to non-binary, including those with a gender recognition certificate, in our adult groupwork services and in our shared refuge spaces, including our 24-hour refuge”.

Also from that link:
The Scottish government said: “The needs and safety of survivors of domestic abuse must be the utmost priority of support services. The Scottish government cannot intervene in the operational running of Edinburgh Women’s Aid or any other charitable organisation.
“We expect all relevant organisations to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.
“As employers, organisations may need to consider the impact of other legislation, such as the requirements of the law on health and safety in workplaces.
“The Scottish government strongly supports the separate and single sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, which can allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is not in conflict with our support for trans rights.”

Excellent news!
<awaits mantrums>

🙄🙄🙄🙄

I have some donations of underwear and toiletries packaged up looking for a home. They'll be winging their way to EWA along with a card of thanks.

The Scottish government strongly supports the separate and single sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, which can allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Of course they do! We never doubted it for a minute!😏

Can anyone give me the link to the statement on the Edinburgh WA website.

As far as I know this has always been their policy, so cant see how this is news and isn't posted on their news section.

I think a lot of women who aren't familiar with the "women's sector" have some how assumed that because there are some rogue operators like Edinburgh RC and others that everyone else is.

And also newspapers who for years haven't bothered with the work of women's groups are now thinking they are experts.

Thanks

This is excellent news! Well done them!

Yes! Well done Edinburgh Women's Aid. Bon courage.

Statement is at bottom of this page, although I can't open it - not sure what kind of file.it is.

edinwomensaid.co.uk/womens-support-services/#refuge-services

This is excellent news. I expect other orgs will be watching very carefully to see if it’s safe to do the same.

Perhaps those who can afford to set up a standing order (maybe £5/month) and post here that they have done so?

It would be a great way to show that these local groups don’t have to be reliant on their central bodies and their warped priorities.

It will be interesting to see if the Scottish government feels this view applies in the Sandie Peggie case.

Brilliant news!

I think the reference to health and safety law while talking about single sex spaces is interesting - single sex toilets and changing rooms are mandatory under that legislation. It's clearly deliberately chosen.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/time-for-the-health-and-safety-executive-to-step-up/#:~:text=It%20is%20responsible%20by%20statute,single%2Duser%20fully%20enclosed%20rooms.

Yes indeed.

And the bit correctly invoking "the separate and single sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, which can allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is not in conflict with our support for trans rights."

They've deliberately and explicitly burst the bubble.

Well done them.

So none of those posting actuallly know if this is new.

ie it could always have been there as it is the standard operating positions for women's refuges.

Surely if it was a new policy they would make it obvious as it would imply that those who had previously used their services now could not longer do so. And in which case they should make that clear.

So I repeat, is this actually a news story of has the Times got itself in a muddle.

I don't really see that it matters much tbh. The message it's sending is a strong one.

Not if its always been there and people are too sloppy to have realised.

There's a huge difference between having always stated that as opposed to saying we have now changed our view on the issue.

Its totally disrespectful to women who are actually providing services as unengated commentators, to ramp up something that actually isn't even true.

Its ridiculous if it isn't a new statement to write a newspaper article about it, and to then try and make out its some sort of victory, instead of recognising and respecting the work of actual providing services as opposed finding a non story to post randon comments on FWR.

These groups are providing frontline services to women who are victims of male violence. They dont exist as objects of a spectator sport.

Will wait and see if EWA responds to the news paper article.

as opposed finding a non story to post randon comments on FWR.

It's a story in the Times, no one here made it up.