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

Always with the annoying sleight of hand!

VV is not wrong that it would be illegal to unfairly disadvantage trans people compared to non-trans people, but then sets up a straw man of total trans-exclusion with no alternative compensatory provision.

Attractive though that sounds when I'm in a spiteful mood, that's not what we're asking for. We're currently faced with a situation of total exclusion of religious women and SA survivors, with no alternative compensatory provision (leaving aside for the moment the broader question of why we can't have nice things just because we want them).

So we're asking in the first instance for just some trans-exclusive space, to solve this problem, but they don't want to give us that.

It's a real problem. For instance Kenwood Ladies' Pond is no longer halacha, so local Orthodox Jewish women can't use it any more. Why was admitting men even necessary, when there was already a mixed-sex pond right next door?

PS I asked transwoman friend, and the answer is TWAW, religion is silly, and it would be stigmatising to make TWF use the mixed pond. Of course! That all makes sense 🙄

As said by PP the comment, it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, seems to be the new line of attack.

Most politicians now understand that under the EA SSE biological males, however they identify, are excluded. That is why they are called the Single SEX Exemptions.

So yet again the TRAs are saying what women (biological) want and NEED are not proportionate ie because they dont valide TW.

It just shows you how tenacious the TRA evangelicals are.

They are never going to give up. Even if the EA was clarified to say the sex means biology, you can bet they would be arguing that if a male says they "feel" they are female that that is biological.

Part of the point of posting this newspapere story was that it illustrates so clearly the self serving circle that those in power than create.

So in asking groups that politicians have funded what they think about genuine women only spaces, let alone giving (il)legal advice on trans issues, they get the answers they paid for. ie the groups that have toed the line. And who are then given the role of being the "lead" in the voluntary sector.

How can this be a valid way to assess whether the "operation of the public sector equality duty" is being properly carried out.

Its not as if a group is going to turn up at a committee and say, well we advised as you wanted us to, but we dont thing this meets the standards need to operate the public sector equality duty.

Do they think we are all thick?

Or have they all just settled into their self serving bubbles.

In a motion put to parliament, Tory leader Russell Findlay said the government had "failed to give sufficient clarity to the public sector" about ensuring the availability of single-sex spaces for women and girls.

Findlay said a lack of such provision had seen some women subjected to "horrific incidents of sexual abuse and harassment" and called on ministers to issue a directive to public bodies on the matter.

Green MSP Maggie Chapman said Findlay's party was "deeply, tragically and bitterly wrong", calling the motion wrong "legally and practically".

Citing the US president, she said the "cruelty" of Donald Trump had "excited and emboldened the trans misogynists" elsewhere in the world and called on the Scottish Parliament to reject the motion.

The SNP's Emma Harper accused the Tories of attempting to "distract people from their record on equality for women and girls in our country", including the imposition of the so-called rape clause and two-child cap by Conservative ministers in London.

She said single-sex spaces were "provided legally under the Equality Act" and a "complex area of law" could not produce "easy answers or actions that will fit in a soundbite".

Labour depute leader Jackie Baillie said women "should have the right to access single-sex changing rooms", and colleague Pauline McNeill said practice had "gone beyond the law" at some agencies, with self-ID used despite the veto to the GRR Bill.

MSPs backed an amendment by Somerville which changed Findlay's motion away from its original intention, deleting the call for the urgent provision of guidance and agreement that safety, dignity and privacy had been jeopardised, and instead backing an amended text which "notes that the Scottish Government fully upholds the Equality Act 2010, and requires all public bodies to comply with the law, and welcomes the role of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in providing codes of practice and guidance".

The vote was carried by MSPs by 61 votes to 31, with 20 abstentions.

Not the whole text https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,ministers-jeered-as-msps-vote-on-singlesex-spaces

Are the 20 non voters a sign that they want to support sex based rights but dont want it known?

Or just couldn't be bothered as the motion had been butchered by the Government?

Wrong thread!

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 12:42

Shortshriftandlethal · Yesterday 09:35
" Align we how we live our life "........What nonsense is this?

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

Too much garlic and not enough thyme?

The Engender response to Supreme Court Ruling:
"At Engender it will take us time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment released this week by the Supreme Court. We will share further reflections in due course.

From our initial reading, we are disappointed that this ruling appears to take a regressive view of the protections provided by the Equality Act. For us, the Equality Act represents the floor and not the ceiling of what we need to achieve on equality as a society.
Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms. Generations of feminists have fought against women being defined by our reproductive function and bodies.

We will therefore be paying close attention to what this decision will mean in practice for women. As intersectional feminists, we remain concerned about what this means for trans people’s rights. We urge government and public bodies to uphold protections against discrimination and harassment for a group that is facing such misrepresentation and marginalisation in our culture"

I see a lot of people online claiming to be feminists but using this argument that we shouldn't be defined by our bodies.

What should we use to define women then - our feelz? There's two uses of define at play here - how something is understood, and how it is constrained.
I meet the definition of a mother, as I have children. I'm not defined by this definition though, as I am many other things as well as a mother. But that doesn't mean we should change the definition of what a mother is!
(not suggesting you agree with Engender by the way, just thinking about what you posted)

Isn't it revealing who finds “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” 'complex'?

'regressive'...'backsliding.'.. all this negativity before they have had ' time to fully assess the implications of the lengthy and complex judgment '!

I think this is going to be crunch time for the VAWG Sector as it likes to call itself.

On the Refuge thread where their PR was all about how they wont abandon trans women, I also posted something with similar sentiments from Solace WA.

It would be so easy for the groups to just say something really simple such as, "We totally respect and provide women only servicies and support based on biological sex, and will continue to support trans women."

The fact that they cant even say of course women only (biological) services are important just seems like they are well past the be kind practice.

Despite the number of threads, maybe there should be one that just collects together statements from groups who are known as women service providers.

Potential service users have a right to know.

I saw on the news this evening that the statue of Milicient Fawcett, the Suffragist, has been vandalised by the trans rights demonstration in Parliament Square. Notable absence of GC feminists with loud hailers, loud music and shouting to drown out what the trans activists want to say. They have got a lot of coverage - none of which was afforded the Let Women Speak rallies which were hounded and shouted down by these poor, vulnerable, so upset Men's Rights Activists!

What Valentine has failed to understand from the judgment is that if it's not proportionate to exclude trans people of the opposite sex from the relevant space or service, it's not proportionate for the space or service to be single sex in the first place.

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

Fuck knows what spaces or services Valentine (they/them) believes align with their gender identity anyway.

The judgment confirms that for the purposes of the single sex exemption there is no difference between a trans woman and a man. You either exclude both or you include both.

No the judgement had nothing to do with the SSE. They have always excluded TW. It is just that the majority of the population have chosen to believe what Stonewall etc., have said is (was) the law.

The judgement has far more impact on wider, less specific issues such as Rape Crisis support.

It is that that shops, health providers, must accept that sex and gender are not the say thing.

And that is something is meant to be single sex, that that is based on biology.

Think this article is really good and wondered if it should have its own thread (if someone wants to start one).

But posting it here to link to the Engender statement.

This article really tears them apart. (And suspect there are other funded "women's equality" groups that are just as bad.)

£600,000 a year? How state-funded feminism has let Scottish women down
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/ps600000-a-year-how-state-funded-feminism-has-let-scottish-women-down-5090150

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/XzvmA

Not sure how it is possible to have read the judgment and think that it has nothing to do with the SSE...

I think just restating that the EA always protected SSE/S, the judgement restated that. Stonewall and its imitators just deliberately misinterpreted the EA to teach its patsies believers (who paid £s for this illegal nonsense!) that the EA was about gender not sex.

It does seem strange that all this time and money has been spent and we're exactly where we always were, where we always should have been.

Apologies if I've misunderstood. In light of my previous paragraph i almost hope i have.

This is completely wrong. The judgment is about single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. As pp said, the Scottish government claim here was that the Equality Act recognised GRCs as a change of sex in terms of SSEs. This was refuted by the SC. Hence the wailing and tantrums from TRAs.

Exactly. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the “proportionate means and legitimate aim” relating to this SC judgment and I think some of it is deliberate misinformation by trans orgs and captured media.

This is a briefing from FWS ahead of the SC hearing explaining what the case was about. It rested on the concept of “certificated sex” which among several other things meant that a GRC would mean a man would be treated as a woman according to the Equality Act, including for the single sex exceptions which permit the legal existence of female only spaces like women’s refuges, unless it could be shown necessary to exclude him and other “certificated women”.

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FWS-Supreme-Court-Briefing.pdf

And the Supreme Court held that actually, a GRC should make no difference whatsoever.

Because whether it is reasonable for women to object to members of the opposite sex in their spaces or not cannot be based on whether those members of the opposite sex have a piece of paper.

Exactly. A thoroughly sensible, rational decision.

This is completely wrong. The judgment is about single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. As pp said, the Scottish government claim here was that the Equality Act recognised GRCs as a change of sex in terms of SSEs. This was refuted by the SC. Hence the wailing and tantrums from TRAs.

The original case bought by FWS was about Equal representation on boards, which were not about SSE.

How Labour wrote the EA meant that apart from the SSE (when to have a biological women only service eg rape crisis) a TW was a legal woman so that a company could say their Board had 50/50 representation even if all the "women" were trans women.

The final court case that went to the Supreme Court became a wider case about the meaning of the word sex because of the allowed intervations by lesbians etc..

That is why TRAs are so angrty that the Supreme Court allowed additional submissions broadening in it out to be about the actual word sex, and (they say) they weren't allowed to make any submissions.

That's why at the first hearing Lady Haldane ruling was strictly in line with the EA as written to give the GRA/GRC supremacy over sex.

And if the case had kept to the initial narrow basis (representation on boards).

Also I dont think the Scottish Government ever said TW were allowed acess to SSS advertised under the SSE.

But they certainly did ignore complaints about ERCC doing this, as did the charity overseers etc..

Also I dont think the Scottish Government ever said TW were allowed acess to SSS advertised under the SSE.

Yes, they did. The Scotgov argument was that if someone had a GRC they had changed sex, legally, and therefore must be treated as the 'acquired sex' in all circumstances.

The reason the EA became part of it is because the Scottish government justified their decision on the Public Boards bill by saying that was how women are defined in the Equality Act.

Yes, they did. The Scotgov argument was that if someone had a GRC they had changed sex, legally, and therefore must be treated as the 'acquired sex' in all circumstances.

Well I as I heard Nicola Sturgeon on radio 4 say they (not sure if she meant the SNP or the Government) had always recognised the SSE either she was lying or had had a memory lapse.

This was just after the Lady Haldane ruling and was being inteviewed based on that, where it says that "for all purposes" those with a GRC are "legal women" except when a SSS was in place using the SSE.

Is there any where that you have a link to her being quoted as saying that. Or even a recording?