Scottish parliament live: Tess White asks Scottish Government whether it will review public sector guidance on single-sex spaces

[ArabellaScott]

Coming up this afternoon, here's the link:

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-march-18-2025

You get the sense they have such tunnel vision (alternative analysis - are so dense) that the minute an organisation has majority women, and/or a few notable women become leaders, it automatically means women are now the privileged oppressors …

It's not hugely newsworthy, really. But that doesn't mean it's not.important. it's the nitty gritty points like this can end up having actual action taken. For example, the civil service has now had the risk pointed out very clearly of.failing to meet regs.

That could well lead to action.

There is this in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/8c465ce9-1ad4-4d95-9dd9-0e6a8bc68aa8?shareToken=a684ce06972840496bc3bbcf4589b1e8

Thank you for the link and share token.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/law/health-safety-law.htm#:~:text=Health%20and%20safety%20law%20is,on%20the%20type%20of%20workplace.

HSE or local authorities enforce the regs. Potentially a criminal offence not to comply.

Does this mean mixed sex facilities for staff are literally illegal? Interesting times.

And yet everyone scrambles to put a yellow hazard sign out when there’s the slightest spill of water … H&S priorities, eh?!

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

The regs.

Are they still illegal if the providers are pretending hard that mixed sex isn't mixed sex and trying to punish/intimidate anyone who won't play along?

I don't mean to sound flippant, it is after all appalling, as this 'pretence' that mixed sex isn't really, in order to nurture a man's choices and self expression, means actively excluding women from women's spaces (which is illegal, but apparently no one cares since they're women), and requiring that women's right of access to space is predicated on their being willing to undress their body to meet said man's needs and submit to male entitlement over them. Which is plain abhorrent and the kind of thing the Geneva Convention was written to prevent.

Yeah, I suppse that might well come down at least partly to Supreme Court judgement?

There is no definition of 'woman' and 'man' in the H&S regs, because back in the mists of 1992, such things didn't require endless fucking court cases and arguments.