Leading feminist organisation 'fails to give straight answers' on single-sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Scotland’s leading feminist policy organisation has been accused of failing to provide straight answers on single-sex spaces while appearing before a Holyrood committee.

Jill Wood, the policy manager for Engender, repeatedly refused to comment when pressed on issues relating to trans people accessing women-only spaces.

Engender, which is partly funded by the Scottish Government, supports the principle of self-ID, in which trans people can self-identify their gender.

Asked about Engender’s support for self-ID, and what analysis it had done on other women, including those of faith, “self-excluding” on the back of this, Ms Wood said she would need to get back to the committee, “but we’d be happy to do that”.

NB only a few paragraphs from a longer article - but strange this was happening on the same day as the discussion at Westminister.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/leading-feminist-organisation-fails-to-give-straight-answers-on-single-sex-spaces-5028796

A campaign group which is reliant on Scottish Government funding has issued a legal warning to public sector bodies if they exclude all trans people from female-only spaces.

The Equality Network claimed it would be ‘unlawful’ to introduce a total exclusion policy for trans people accessing single-sex toilets, changing rooms and other services.

During the appearance at committee, the Equality Network also committed to providing MSPs with a list of public sector organisations it has advised on single-sex spaces - but argued it provides ‘advice on good practice’ and not legal advice. It also confirmed that it is largely funded by the Scottish Government but could not give the exact figures.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14487811/Transgender-ban-female-toilets-unlawful-warns-taxpayer-funded-group.html

Engender and Equality Netwok are not feminist groups, if they campaign for self-ID. That is an anti-feminist policy which directly opposes women’s rights.

Quite. They might identify as feminist groups though

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5292123-scottish-parliament-committee-questions-on-single-sex-provisions-in-ea-and-psed

I had to meet with Engender, Close the Gap, Scottish Trans Alliance (now Equallity Network) frequently in a previous job. This does not surprise me.

Never liked any of them. They don't care about women.

(have nc'd just in case)

I actually agree with this

Valentine, who uses the pronouns they/them, said the “status quo of the law says that trans people can only be excluded from single-sex spaces and services that align with who we are and how we live our lives if that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
They added: "Sometimes it will be, but in our view, in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, our total exclusion from single sex services and spaces that align with how we live our lives is not needed and also, crucially, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It's also unlawful under the Equality Act, and that has been the same since 2010, and like I say, it very much is the status quo.”

They can use the service that aligns with their biological sex. Excluding people completely would be disproportionate, but I don't see anyone calling for that.

I don't agree with that. A legitimate aim is ensuring the privacy, dignity and safety for women in places where they are vulnerable or would be made uncomfortable by male presence or be disadvantaged or endangered by male presence. That covers not only changing rooms and public lavatories but also prisons, refuges, prizes, sports etc. Excluding all TiMs is a proportional response to the legitimate aim of keeping those areas for women only (for clarity TiMs are not women).
And TiMs are not excluded (and TiFs would be included) - they can access the changing rooms, lavatories, sports, prizes, prisons and refuges that align with their sex.
The GRA must be repealed and the EA2010 amended to make it clear it is biological sex which is the protected characteristic and that this definition excludes 'legal' sex.

our total exclusion from single sex services and spaces that align with how we live our lives is not needed and also, crucially, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Excluding men (whether or not they identify as women) from women’s single-sex spaces certainly is needed.

Single-sex spaces are necessary to preserve women’s privacy and safety, especially where they are undressing, eg toilets and changing room, or vulnerable in other ways eg in hospital. And excluding men from these is, as the Equality Act states, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

We all have to cope with certain restrictions in our lives in order to preserve other people’s rights, eg not stealing things we like the look of, not driving at 90mph. Trans-identifying men have to cope with not intruding in women’s spaces.

Valentine is talking out of her arse. I assume this will be the substance of her written submission in the Sandie Peggie tribunal.

Possibly missed the sentence I added at the end? Your post sets the 'legitimate aim/proportionate' context out very well.

It's called 'Engender'.......what else to expect?

" Align we how we live our life "........What nonsense is this?

issues relating to trans people accessing women-only spaces.

Why do articles always make this glaring error? Whether they are trans or not is irrelevant. It's what sex they are that is the discerning factor.

Trans females accessing female-only spaces is not an issue.

They self identify as feminists but they are not.

anyone saying that women shouldn’t have single sex spaces, services and sports is not a feminist. Anyone saying that women should be forced to undress in front of males as a condition if accessing employment is not a feminist.

I wish politicians would puncture this excluded myth. TW/TM are not being excluded from single sex services and facilities, they can access the ones set up for their sex just like everyone else. They do not need to have access to opposite sex services and facilities, they just want to and that is not a good enough reason.

Totally agree with all the comments above except for IcakethereforeIam. It doesn't matter how a male identifies, he is still male. Single-SEX facilities are divided on the basis of SEX, not identity or any other basis. So a male who identifies as a women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a female-only toilet, changing room, prison, hospital ward, etc. Why politicians and much of the media can't grasp this basic point is shocking.

That is beautifully crafted word salad, I don't know what you're complaining about

🎯

Did you read all of my post?

They aren't feminists

I read it. It's this bit:
They can use the service that aligns with their biological sex. Excluding people completely would be disproportionate, but I don't see anyone calling for that.

VV is saying males should be permitted in single sex spaces most of the time:
"Sometimes it will be, but in our view, in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, our total exclusion from single sex services and spaces that align with how we live our lives is not needed and also, crucially, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
You appear to agree with this, but I disagree because as soon as any male is in a single sex space it becomes mixed sex and no distinction can be made regarding right of entry between different classes of male person. So all males should be totally excluded. Excluding males from a service for women is always a proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aim of a single sex space or service needed for women. If the service doesn't need to be single sex, then there's no problem anyway.

Have I misunderstood your point?

Yes 😊 I thought saying 'aligns with their biological sex' was unambiguous.

Yes, cake is saying that excluding people from using ANY of the spaces, because they're trans or whatever it's supposed to be, would be disproportionate.

No-one's asking for that, we're asking males to use the male provision.

I'm afraid that still doesn't make sense to me, because what icake says isn't agreeing with what VV said, but I'm not going to make a big thing out of it!

our total exclusion from single sex services and spaces that align with how we live our lives is not needed and also, crucially, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

This seems to be the new approach (or at least one I’ve seen more of recently): the focus on “proportionality” and that matters should be considered on a “case by case” basis. Rough translation: we’re going to continue to wheedle our way in to women’s spaces one by one.

Anyway as a PP rightly said, they’re not excluded from single sex spaces, they just have to use the space that aligns with their biological sex.