Rape Crisis responds to the Supreme Court judgement (this is Rape Crisis England and Wales)

[IwantToRetire]

Rape Crisis England & Wales (RCEW) want to update our stakeholders on our response to the recent Supreme Court judgement, considering the potential impact and implications it has for our members and the survivors they support.

The outcome of the case has clarified that where the Equality Act 2010 is concerned, the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex and not gender identity, and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not alter this.

This ruling has implications for many aspects of equality law in the UK, and RCEW take the needs and rights of all survivors, and our duties under the EA 2010, seriously. Our current focus is on ensuring we take appropriate advice and update our policies and practices in response to the ruling and any subsequent guidance such as the updated Code of Practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and supporting our members to do the same.

The definition and provision of ‘women-only spaces’ remains a powerfully emotive topic within the women's sector, as it has been in wider society, compounded by divisive media coverage and a lack of legislative clarity or sufficient statutory guidance to support service providers to interpret this complex and emerging area of law and ethics.

As independent organisations, our centres have needed to define for themselves whether and how the women-only spaces they provide include those who identify as trans and nonbinary. All have worked to keep survivors at the heart of their decision-making and service delivery, whilst attempting to navigate significant confusion about the law in this area.

The severe underfunding of Rape Crisis centres (RCCs) over many years has added to this picture, forcing many to make very difficult decisions about who they can help, and how. The forthcoming guidance will be important in supporting our members to provide the best possible support they can, bearing in mind the severe financial pressure they remain under.

Severe under-funding is also an existential crisis for our members, which is why we will continue to push for a level of funding that reflects the scale of sexual violence and allows our members to meet the needs of all survivors who need their help.

We have written a more extensive piece outlining in more detail the background to this issue, which you can find below.

Link to more detailed outline at https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/rape-crisis-responds-to-the-supreme-court-judgement/

Fuck sake

To be fair that sounds like a pretty graceful and tactful statement, with a subtext of "we will be complying with the judgment and await the new guidance". I like how in the longer version they make a point of saying that sexual violence is mainly perpetrated by males against females - that sounds like it's preparing the hostile reader to put things in context.

I think what they are saying, which in fact they always have, is that we dont make the policy.

Each Rape Crisis service makes their own.

Unlike Rape Crisis Scotland who decide they would tell Rape Crisis services in Scotland what they should do. Be trans inclusive.

But glad that in the longer statement they have said each service must make it clear whether their services are truely women only, or are trans inclusive (or even mixed sex?).

And it was the failure to make this clear that led to Roz Adams taking a stand.

But this comes back to the other part of the problem.

We have had funders tell providers they must be trans inclusive.

Lets hope that now is the time funders will tell providers you must provide women only (biological) services.

But will funders ever give up on their right to dictate services, because they can as they hold the purse strings. Maybe they need to go on courses about economic coersive control.

Won't these funders have to change their tunes now? They can hardly insist that the centres go against the EA, and it would be a weird hill to die on if they were going to insist that all services be fully and explicitly mixed sex. I know they hold the purse strings, but I don't think they were the true ideologues here, more the box-ticking idiots.

They can hardly insist that the centres go against the EA

If a rape crisis centre or even funder decides they only want to provide mixed sex services, or gender neutral than that wont be against the law.

It will only be against the law to advertise a service as being women only and then letting a biological male to be included.

That's why it would really help if all funders had an obligation to fund women only services.

If nobody want to provide that service and or if no funder wants to pay for it the only way there will be women only services as per ruling will be for dedicated volunteers to provide it.

I get that. What I'm saying is that it seems unlikely that funders will now insist on fully and explicitly mixed services. I can't imagine most funders are that attached to genderism, that they will swim against the legislative tide even now, and insist on something that clearly nobody wants? Or do you think differently?

This is something that Sarah Summers' case may be relevant for: that tax payer funded, commissioned services must be accessible to the entire population and not just the favoured bits of it, and the days of funding being directed only at services who let men identify into the women's provision are over.

However who would want women's services provided grudgingly and unwillingly by groups who only care about and wish to centre TQ needs. It would make far more sense to move to commissioning different specialists for each group rather than one size fits nobody.

Or do you think differently?

Well I just dont know. The world is so bonkers now. Just look at all the misrepresentation of what the ruling means.

And worth remembering that particularly in relation to safe refuges for women who have suffered domestic violence, more that a few councils has decided that women only as an option is too expensive to be justifiable.

Never forget that part of the sucess of the TRAs is because it is built on the much older and even more entrenched few of the world of the MRAs.

Do you think you local council values women enough to pay for a more expensive single sex service.

not sure that mine does, sadly.

I think it would be discriminatory a) not to provide single sex services for women at all and b) not to provide single sex services for women roughly in proportion to the potential percentage of clients. And of course the RCC in question wouldn't be able to define "women" differently from in the EA2010.

In scenario a) you would not be providing a service which respected women's rights to dignity, privacy and safety and in b) you would not be providing an equally good service to women as to men and women would be disadvantaged - longer waiting times, fewer options for sessions, etc - because most victims are women and girls.

The Council/RCC can choose not to have single sex services or to restrict the number in favour of mixed sex services - as we know, the EA is not prescriptive. But that doesn't mean they would therefore not be discriminating unlawfully against women, since they can provide SS services lawfully.

Edited for clarity

As independent organisations, our centres have needed to define for themselves whether and how the women-only spaces they provide include those who identify as trans and nonbinary.

Surely the crux of the SC clarification is that single sex means single sex only, not single sex ++? If they wish to provide a service for trans clients, all well and good, but surely it has to be separate from the women's provision?

How can a space accepting TIMs and men who say that they're NB be women only? It's a complete contradiction in terms.

I took this part as them conceding they will have to be women-only but are laying the groundwork to pretend this is due to financial limitations.

”The severe underfunding of Rape Crisis centres (RCCs) over many years has added to this picture, forcing many to make very difficult decisions about who they can help, and how.”

I think that's just them explaining why, in the absence of clear guidance, their centres have been doing this up until now.

I saw a long LinkedIn post from the chief of one of their centres, and there was a lot of "we support trans and non binary people, even if lots of meanies think we shouldn't", but it was a total straw man as they also seemed to be saying that they had always had single sex services as well as mixed ones. The usual "of course single sex spaces are fine" without remembering to add "and of course we've probably been letting anyone self identify into them, which is what all the fuss is about".

I agree with @CrocsNotDocs .

I emailed Rape Crisis Scotland and they basically replied with "we have always been at war with Eastasia"

They say they have always offered single sex spaces.

I also fear that this will lead to no single sex services. They are not mandatory, just permitted.

That would involve a change of constitution as most are set up as for women. I can't see them doing that.

Agreed.
Plus what I said upthread - solely or mainly mixed sex services will be direct or indirect sex discrimination against women.

This is the response to the ruling from Women's Aid Federation England

Initial Response: following ruling of the Supreme Court

We have been at the forefront of shaping and coordinating responses to domestic abuse for over 50 years. We have done so by placing the needs of survivors at the heart of our work, prioritising the protection of women and children who have suffered from domestic abuse. The provision of single-sex domestic abuse services is a founding principle of Women’s Aid, and we defend it. You can view our Single Sex Services statement, published in 2022, here.

Our diverse members, each an independent charity in their own right, share a steadfast commitment to supporting survivors. Their positions are shaped by local needs and informed by their unique perspectives and their interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 to date. Over the coming weeks we will seek to engage with the EHRC on their forthcoming guidance which will set out the implications of the ruling. This may impact on various aspects of our work including the general guidance we provide to members and on our national quality standards frameworks.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/initial-response-following-ruling-of-the-supreme-court/

have deleted this as somehow just repeats the post above.