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.

Even if it isn't new, the article means people will notice. It's as well if they get to see that the result is that they get increased support, rather than decreased.

You can take it up with The Times. Meanwhile I will continue to be glad that a policy that centres women has been brought to more people's attention. I'm sure Edinburgh Women's Aid will set the record straight if there has been some kind of misunderstanding.

Indeed @fanOfBen

‘An internal government communication sent to the Presiding Officer says Edinburgh Women’s Aid had flagged its policy position ahead of taking part in a BBC Radio Scotland programme due to air on March 9’

Archive archive.ph/8IxJK

I don't think it was their position before, as surely the rationale for JK Rowling opening Beira's Place was the lack of (genuinely) single sex women's services.

That was rape crisis rather than women's aid.

Obviously ERCC were a nightmare, but I thought the point was the lack of women's services generally.

I'm wondering though, how this will play out in practice.

If (when?) a man with a GRC turns up, having a passport, birth certificate, driving licence all saying he's a woman, but the staff see he's a man and won't let him in, how would that play out? "I'm a woman." "No, you're not." "Here are my documents." "But we can see you're not." etc. I guess they just wouldn't let him in, and then what, would that be the end of it, or would he take it further? Would there remain any documentation anywhere saying he is a man, or is the only proof down to looks, cheek swabs and the mythical genital inspection?

Maybe I'm just thinking of problems where there aren't any, but we all know there are TRAs who wouldn't just let this go.

Yes, it's always been a question for me too @DuesToTheDirt

This suggests it certainly wasn’t the standard operating policy of refuges in Scotland

https://athousandflowers.net/2018/02/01/we-asked-womens-aid-centres-if-theyre-trans-inclusive-and-heres-what-they-said/

I do wish all these articles would make it clear that the refuges and aid and support for women is because those women have suffered at the hands of men. They need the support because of men's abuse. Name the perpetrators but centre the women.

This 2022 statement from WA does reference trauma responses to the presence of males.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-single-sex-services-statement/

This suggests it certainly wasn’t the standard operating policy of refuges in Scotland

It's been a while since I encountered a writing style quite as irritating as that one @BackToLurk

It's great news, isn't it? Now I want to see other Women's Aid services and their affiliates taking the same stance. (And preferably the sacking of all those who argued to accept men).

I think it's a risk, but as we all know most trans people don't have GRCs, and actually I don't think that many trans people at all would go through the process of sharing (real or imaginary) sexual trauma in bad faith AND repeating that they were born female when they clearly weren't.

Also I imagine that women's services are pretty good at identifying potential female clients who they felt they wouldn't be able to work with and kindly signposting them elsewhere. So hopefully they could follow the same process here.

But agree that there is a small risk of a really difficult situation.

I think this is the first time I've seen an organisation specifically lay out what using the SSE actually means. Excluding males.

Indeed, @ArabellaScott and I think it's extremely useful.

I’m not sure but if they are claiming they’re female à la Upton, then how would they be able to claim unlawful discrimination? Discrimination would be on the basis of them being female but frightening (disconcerting?) looking to other service users. Being frightening looking to other service users isn’t a protected characteristic. Women’s Aid are allowed to refuse service to anyone provided it isn’t on the basis of a protected characteristic, aren’t they?

I agree. This is good news, whether it’s a recent policy change or not.

And the Scottish government response— what a welcome turnaround from Sturgeon’s slavish allegiance to trans orthodoxy!

Discrimination based on their gender transition would have a comparator of any other male. So if males are excluded, they're not being discriminated against.

And sex discrimination of course would be based on their sex. Not gender.

The only way it would fly is if they've had a GRC, and if the Supreme court decides that has actually changed their legal sex. Because ... and here I am unsure ... if a GRC changes legal sex, the comparator becomes that of a woman? But then, if a GRC changes legal sex and if that sex has been changed, then surely a male with a GRC is legally no longer 'transitioning' but has now become, legally, female for all purposes.

This nonsense is where we are at. A man cannot become a woman, whatever certificate he holds. Repeal the GRA.

Very very good news. And yes, I too hope other Women's Aid services watch, learn and copy. There are over 300 dedicated trans charities many of which are extremely well funded. They don't need to muscle in on already stretched women's services

But also, if they have a GRC then they are a trans woman and WA can legally exclude them using the SSE.

Well, I don't know. It depends what the Supreme court say. The Scotgov argued that a man without a GRC remains a man and can be excluded, but also suggested that a man with a GRC has become a woman for all purposes. So I'd assume he no longer has a 'trans' status.

It's not like any of it makes sense.

Through gritted teeth….