Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

88 replies

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 01/03/2025 19:44

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.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 03/03/2025 21:06

And:

' The exceptions outlined in this guidance therefore do not depend on whether or not an individual has a Gender Recognition Certificate.'

GailBlancheViola · 03/03/2025 21:11

Exclusion must be assessed individually, not as a blanket policy. A case-by-case approach is required, and outright refusal without individual assessment could be unlawful

Why do they parrot this risible nonsense. The law does not require a case by case approach, a blanket policy is lawful. No wonder they lose so many cases.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/03/2025 21:12

They've picked the worst possible area to use this argument. It's very clearly laid out in the EA notes that both general occupational requirements for female staff only and exclusion of all men including those with a GRC from support services are potential examples of "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/03/2025 21:13

In women's crisis services, I men.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/03/2025 21:13

I don't have edit!

ArabellaScott · 03/03/2025 21:18

Yes, absolutely. But it'll be good to push SNP government to read those parts of the EA guidance. Just to make it crystal clear.

ArabellaScott · 03/03/2025 21:19

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/03/2025 20:58

Trans Reddit are often quite clueless.

This is the Trans Complaints Collective, or something.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/03/2025 21:31

I know, I was replying to @ThePeppyMoose who cross posted with you about the Reddit thread.

Tallisker · 03/03/2025 23:02

I'm sure 'case by case' relates to the situation/provision, not the individual person accessing it. So a women's refuge is an example of a 'case' which can exclude male people as part of the legitimate aim thing.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/03/2025 00:16

Someone said that but they got ignored by the confidently wrong person man and downvoted.

ArabellaScott · 04/03/2025 05:45

GailBlancheViola · 03/03/2025 21:11

Exclusion must be assessed individually, not as a blanket policy. A case-by-case approach is required, and outright refusal without individual assessment could be unlawful

Why do they parrot this risible nonsense. The law does not require a case by case approach, a blanket policy is lawful. No wonder they lose so many cases.

Edited

I suppose its desperate wishful thinking. And for a while, trans activists got away with convincing quite a lot of people that 'stonewall law' was correct. So they just make any crap argument, forcefully, and hope that people don't ask any questions.

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 04/03/2025 07:12

I think the message is:

We had this policy all along but were in breach bcos stonewall/ahead of the law, etc etc… but we are now going back to respecting the law and getting rid of the doublespeak.

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 04/03/2025 07:41

That’s shocking re Cameron Downing.

And was an SNP Equalities Officer…! It’s utterly perverse.

Resources intended to help the disabled, women and victims of racism and bigotry siphoned off by absolute chancers! “At it…?” They certainly are. Enabled by a legion of cowards in thrall to a cult.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread