Edinburgh Council vote to force EWA to accept males

[ArabellaScott]

https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1902767971535077666

Breaking, I'm not quite sure what the wording of the motion is yet.

'Motion passes with composite amendment from
@EdinburghLibDem
and
@EdinburghSNP
which basically denied rights of women to single sex spaces. Women in public gallery shaken and furious. Shame on you!
'

So.

Court it is, then.

Thanks for the info, IwantToRetire, it never occurred to me that women's refuges were currently giving spaces to transwomen, and from what I gather from EWA's statements, they are going to continue doing that, it's only shared space and group sessions that they are excluding transwomen from.

I think it's really bad that scarce resources are being denied to women and given to transwomen, even if it is only a small number of cases - EWA only have a small number of spaces to offer - 29 in total, according to their website.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why women's refuges can't exclude transwomen and be entirely single-sex as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', under the terms of the exceptions to the Equality Act.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why women's refuges can't exclude transwomen and be entirely single-sex as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', under the terms of the exceptions to the Equality Act.

Well I dont know for a fact, but without having the wording to hand, under the SSE there is reference to providing an alternative, and I suspect in the early days under pressured under funded refuges thought this was the only way to do this.

Then of course as a younger age group started working in refuges I am sure some staff thought of course they should do it.

What isn't clear, and horrible as it is, lets hope that it is only in Scotland that providers of services to women thought services should be trans inclusive.

Not forgetting that funders will also have probably made services to TW conditional on funding having been fed the lie that TW are the most oppressed etc..

What would be interesting is to be able to find out, how many TW in any one year, are provided with services by a WA project.

And dont forget some "women's" refuges provide support to men. Which may be pressure from funders, but much more to do with the fact that although men complain about lack of provision for men, unlike women, they aren't prepared to get off their backsides and do the work. As usual women are expected to pick up the slack.

Estimates show that 60.1% of referrals into refuge services were rejected over the past year.

The most common reason for rejection was that the refuge service did not have the capacity to support the client (45.7% of rejected referrals).

This means that when a survivor was referred into refuge, there was a 27.5% chance that the refuge did not have the capacity to support her.

From https://www.womensaid.org.uk/annual-audit-2025/

Not had time to check but as this is WAFE ie WA England, presume the figures are for England but suspect would be about the same throughout the UK/

If you are interested in depressing statistics worth reading the report eg:

A concerning three quarters (71.4%) of domestic abuse organisations responding to the annual survey who were running a service without dedicated funding used their organisational reserves to cover the costs.

And if you eat into too much of reserves it can end up that on an audit basis you are no longer financial viable.

If that is the final wording, I would still object to it in its entirety because of this clause, which demonstrates clearly that transactivism is still foremost in an area where it should be women’s rights that are given first consideration.

• Commit to ensuring the rights of all women, including cis and trans women, are protected;

If we are still being forced to adhere to the lie that there are male and female women (with the underlying insinuation that male women are innately more vulnerable than female) then women’s rights and needs cannot ever be prioritized.

• Commit to ensuring the rights of all women, including cis and trans women, are protected;

Eye-rolling inwardly at 'cis', couldn't women's aid/refuges 'commit to ensure the rights of transwomen are protected' by generously and voluntarily offering to share their years of experience and expertise in planning, fundraising, delivery of service etc etc with groups which have been set up by transpeople to provide counselling and refuge space to transpeople, and to offer continuing practical advice and support until the trans refuges have 'found their feet'.

That would be a generous and supportive thing to do to ensure that the rights of transwomen are protected, wouldn't it?

edited for grammar

I think it's really bad that scarce resources are being denied to women and given to transwomen, even if it is only a small number of cases - EWA only have a small number of spaces to offer - 29 in total, according to their website.

This is a good point. It's one that has also been made by the sexual health clinics. When men begin to use women's services, they suck up time, money and resources that were designated for women to meet women's identified needs. Those services do not receive more money, they just have to make what they have go further to accommodate men's wishes to have their provision in the women's resource, at the expense of their intended users needs.

Men's resources rarely experience the same impact or loss of funds per head.

There's also the now destruction tested issue: when a resource is mixed sex, it will be dominated by male needs, male service users, male voices, and providers will centre and focus on males over females. As has happened in rape crisis services and refuges for example, proven in depth in court cases. Even when everyone is trying very hard on an illusion that those males are women.

This is why women had separate resources in the first place. This is why men need third space resources and they should be funded from the male resources and funding streams.

Sorry: ONE of the reasons. The many reasons. And a minor one compared to women needing somewhere that men are not, regardless of how those men feel. Because women's lives are not predicated around what men wish.

If any of these people had experienced the terrible violent persecution they all claim, they'd know why vulnerable women don't want to be in the same place as disturbed males.

Surely it's reached the point now where those putting forward these policy views cannot be assumed to be 'kind' and inclusive. That ship must have sailed long ago. Those who continue to press these views, like the Scottish Greens, and pressurise women's support groups, are downright bloody malign, and under the sway of a retrograde and misogynistic ideology.

Yes, i cannot get over anyone thinking this is a good look. Staniforth actively, viciously, vindictively set out to take away services from vulnerable women to punish EWA. It's so nakedly misogynist.

You'd think even a dyed in the wool MRA would consider the optics, if they wanted to continue to work in politics.

The Scottish Greens are a constantly unfolding horror show who seem to worsen their anti-women stance the more obvious it becomes that they are in the wrong. It's both fascinating and depressing.

What's the phenomena where evidence to the contrary actively entrenches views?

Belief perseverance, and the 'backfire effect'.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/belief-perseverance

Here is the creep with greasy hair ranting about women.

https://edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/971088/start_time/16845000

Name changed for this post. Here is the response I had from one of my Lib Dem councillors- I was pleasantly surprised as I had expected they would vote for the Green motion.

”I know the original motion by Cllr Staniforth in the Green Group caused a lot of concern and for some a very stressful wait on the outcome. We received a large number of emails on this and I totally recognise why this was such an anxious time for people. As a Liberal Democrat group, we fully support the vital work of Edinburgh Women’s Aid in providing essential services for victims of domestic violence, and they have operated for a long time and are a trusted support service for many people. We were very concerned that this motion suggested a withdrawal of funding and we could not support it.

We need to ensure that all those who are victims and in need of support, have an opportunity to get this, and we have a responsibility to fund these types of services. We also recognise the importance of single-sex spaces and indeed that is protected in law. We want to make sure that support is also available to trans and non-binary victims and therefore our joint amendment asked the Council Leader to engage with Women’s Aid on how to provide services for different groups. Indeed it was very encouraging to hear from Women’s Aid themselves in their deputation and in answering questions, that they could offer options to meet these different needs if the demand was great enough. We welcome their willingness to look at how to move this forward and how we can help identify and improve gaps in provision generally.”

ArabellaScott · Today 13:09

Here is the creep with greasy hair ranting about women.

I've never heard him speak before, his being English, trying to take money from Scottish women victims must even more galling.

I don't really care what his nationality is, tbh. But the idea that he has any right at all to speak to how a women's dv service should run, and especially that he should try to use his little bit of power to bully, threaten, and pressurise EWA, and to try to force males into women's services, is utterly abhorrent.

" Indeed it was very encouraging to hear from Women’s Aid themselves in their deputation and in answering questions, that they could offer options to meet these different needs if the demand was great enough. We welcome their willingness to look at how to move this forward and how we can help identify and improve gaps in provision generally.”

No, Women's Aid, please do not offer to meet the needs of biological males!

Don't be nicey-nice and don't be the ones to offer the "support is also available to trans and non-binary victims" that the council - quite reasonably - wants to provide.
Let them do the legwork in setting up dedicated trans refuges for biological males, and keep Women's Aid 100% for biological females.

Please let the only options you " could offer.. to meet these different needs" be advice and support for those setting up and running the trans refuges.

It seems likely that the Equality Act exceptions would protect you if you [and I don't just mean EWA of course, I mean all women's aid/refuges/RCCs/etc] drew a line in the sand and said clearly 'single sex means women only, and women only means no biological males'.

I think this man is possibly not coping with life. Who turns up to work, never mind work at a city chambers, without being at least clean?

if I was his line manager I’d be speaking to occupational health. He’s not meeting social expectations.

he can also fuck off to the far side, etc etc

Who was the speaker after Staniforth?

Cllr Alys Mumford

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/green-councillor-accuses-worried-edinburgh-29446041

Crikey, she seems unfit for public office. Imagine telling hooligans to turn up in masks, so as not to be identified.

She sounds nice. 🙄Jeez, where do they find them?

No, Women's Aid, please do not offer to meet the needs of biological males!

This is what is so stupid about the whole fake issue.

EWA CE clearly laid out that TW are catered for via the individual units.

And I can not understand why other Councillors are legitimising this stupid attempt to slur EWA because what the idiots wants is for TW to be allowed into the single sex provision.

When are these moral cowrds going to show that they can read and understand words.

TW are already catered for.

EWA do not need to "engage".

The only people who need to engage are the councillors who need to engage their brains.

I'm afraid this still shows that they are all held in the false narrative of Stonewall etc..

The cretin who put this forward should be censured for bringing false information.

I can not understand why this false narrative is still being given credance.

EWA are not the problem.

The problem is councillors who are hijacking their position to try and impose their politics on constituents.