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

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.

That's because in the law as written didn't say that parity on company boards was covered by the SSE. The original arguement was about would it really be equality to have women's "equal" representation on boards if in fact half of the women were TW>

I dont think any one put forward an arguement that being on a Board would be covered by the same justifications as to why a woman would want support in a Rape Crisis Centre or a Women's Aid Refuge?

The single sex services that could use the single sex exemptions were effectively very limited. Which in itself is significant because of what it acknowledges, whether Labour meant it or not, the consequences for women having suffered male violence and needed women only support.

That's why it was so positive that for the Judicial Review other groups such as lesbians were able to put forward arguements ie it wasn't just about not having men being in close proximity to women who have been abused and worse by men. It focused the arguement on sex as a biological fact.

I was quite clear in what I said. The argument was that the definition Scotgov used for women in public boards was the same as in the Equality Act. So they thought it was fine.

Which meant the definition in the Equality Act had to be clarified for the Scottish Government. Which meant that every element of it, such as the SSEs which apply to every single sex space, was considered to establish who the person was who was protected under the protected characteristic of sex, and whether “certificated sex” was the definition in the EA. It was very far from the foregone conclusion you seem to think it was.

^We won a judicial review at appeal in February 2022 where it was ruled that the redefinition
of “woman” in the GRPBA – to include males with the protected characteristic of gender
reassignment – was unlawful and outwith the competency of the Scottish Parliament who are
bound by the Equality Act definitions of protected characteristics. The decision stated that
“sex” and “gender reassignment” are separate protected characteristics which should not be
confused or conflated and that in light of woman meaning a female of any age, provisions for
women, by definition exclude biological males. The Gender Representation on Public
Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2024 removed the unlawful definition from the primary
legislation.^

^In a subsequent judicial review the first instance court ruled in December 2022 that the
definition of “woman” given in the revised statutory guidance for the GRPBA – to include
males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who hold a female Gender
Recognition Certificate (GRC) – was lawful and consistent with the Equality Act. This was
upheld at appeal in November 2023 and it is this decision which is now under appeal to the
UK Supreme Court.^

Definitions
^The Court of Session ruled that section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 applies ”for
all purposes” so that sex in the Equality Act means the sex recorded on a person’s current
birth certificate (either as originally recorded or as altered by a GRC). This interpretation
means that wherever “sex” is referred to in the Equality Act it can be replaced with
“certificated sex” and the definition of “woman” means a female of any age, except those who
hold a GRC, plus males who hold a GRC.^

Apologies really difficult to format, but that is a copy and paste from For Women Scotlands own briefing on the case just before the Supreme Court hearing in November (which I watched online).

I linked this document upthread.