SNP Government call on services, like rape crisis centres, to 'justify' why they offer single-sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

The Scottish Government has now published its response to the EHRC consultation where it seems to suggest that services which want to provide a single-sex service, including the likes of Rape Crisis Centres, must "justify" why it wants to do so. Female rape victims were reported to have self-excluded from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre because the transwoman Chief Executive refused to guarantee a biologically female support worker.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-government-call-services-like-35619364

I'd have just read that quotes bit to mean "make it clear up front what you're relying on to invoke the single sex exemption" (ie explain why it's a proportional means to a legitimate aim, which should be fairly straightforward)?

Yes, I also read it that way, plus a plea for trans people not to be left without equivalent service for them. Draft EHRC guidance already has similar wording.

This is just what the Equality Act requires but made public, isn't it?

I think it could very much work in women's favour. It will put clear well worded reasoning on record for any women's group trying to get started (or hold the line, or return to better service provision for women) to copy or launch from.

The SNP has failed to read the room. They are prepared to die on this hill. When are the next Scottish elections? May 2026, not much time to undo the damage.

I think as long as they accept the reason given for SSE then the organisation should get funding (and i think they will or they'll end up in court). This should put an end to withholding funding from organisations that were operating SSE.

The Scottish Government has now published its response to the EHRC consultation where it seems to suggest that services which want to provide a single-sex service, including the likes of Rape Crisis Centres, must "justify" why it wants to do so.

I think there is a huge difference between setting up a women only service because it is "proportionate" to do it. ie most of our users say that's what the want, compared to saying it has to be "justified".

That is the arguement used by TRAs, and many women's groups in Scotland sadly, and is part of eroding the accepted rationale within the EA for same sex services. with rape crisis centres being used as the perfect example of the need for women only services.

The use of the word "justify" is the tactic used to say that a trans woman should automatically be part of women only services, and the service provider then has to justify why they cant.

It is hugely retrograde.

And as present by the Supreme Court not what they intended by clarifying the word sex means biology.

It was exactly so as to say "legal women" ie men with a GRC are NOT women.

It should never come up.

If a service provider in addition to providing women only services also wants to provide trans inclusive services, or even trans only, that is their right.

But it is never ever right that if a service provider wants to only provide services to women then nobody, whether a TRA, a politician or a funder can question that right.

The supreme court made that clear as its decision clarifies the part of the EA that has always been there (Exempt under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, and Part 1. Section 7(2) e of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.) That women only services are only for biological women.

Watch out for more weasel words from the Scottish Government, no doubt with an assortment of fan girl funded groups applauding them.

No. A service provider cannot open the service up to trans woman if they choose to. They have to open it up to all men; those who identify as trans woman and those who don’t. Otherwise they are illegally excluding some men whilst allowing others.

They also cannot admit trans women if they claim to be single sex. It’s not a choice. They’re single sex or they allow everyone.

That was my understanding. And confirmed on here a lot. Has that changed now?

That was my understanding. And confirmed on here a lot. Has that changed now?

We think that's true, and nobody anywhere has provided a convincing argument why it's not the case. But, "I heard it on Mumsnet" isn't a strong basis to argue in court. We really need some court decisions to back that up. There are some court actions in progress, so we should find out.

A rape crisis centre shouldn’t have to explain why women receiving support for sexual assault, being needlessly in a room with the weapon used to attack them, is unbelievably stupid.

WE keep having this discussion.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. So could be the basis for a group.

And I wasn't saying a women only service could be opened up to trans women, I am saying if a service providers want to provide a service that includes trans women and women they are entitled to do that. It just wouldn't be a women only service.

Can we move on from this. There are so many threads about how protected characteristics of just one or two, could be the basis for a group or service.

But that is a side track to what this artice is saying.

Can we please focus of what is so dangerous about what the article alleges.

That women only services according to the SNP need to be "justified".

This is the thin edge of the wedge.

Taking something that is a right and demanding the those whose right it is have to justify it.

ie the SNP hasn't moved on from the era of ERCC.

Please focus on this.

If the article is true then the SNP is setting out to undermine the ruling, or the implication of the ruling. That women are a sex ie biological.

Another rule put on women, or those that want to provide a service for us. If an organisation put's it in writing why they want to provide a female only service, it could leave them open to lawfare from the AIB's, because like BU they're claiming that men who identify as women are also female.

Isn’t the key around this that it’s single SEX not gender. A gender reassignment certificate means they have changed their gender however is gender anything in law as regards single sex?

Surely organisations can simply say under the clarification they are providing a single sex space. End of. Let others take this to court, for too long women have been the ones having to justify and prove and pay to go through the courts. How about trans groups set up their own groups!

The law is already settled. Any service of the type covered by Schedule 3 must be either single-sex, or mixed sex with no restrictions on which men can use the service. And, yes, the former has to be 'justified'.

We could read this as a threat to withhold funding from providers who don't cater for trans clients, but most providers do (why wouldn't they?).

The one thing they can't do is force them to include transwomen in women's services. And if they want to kick off publicly about single-sex services generally, then let them. They'll look ridiculous.

Women have to justify their desire for single sex services whilst the data on which sex commits the vast majority of violent crime (never mind sexually motivated crime where we also know which sex is overwhelming likely to be the victim) is well known, not exactly difficult to find.

Men only have to declare their 'new sex' and they are to be believed without question or justification. Questioning motivation is often regarded as 'hate'.

Hmmm.

It's almost as if women are seen as lesser and this is all driven by monumental levels of sexism.

But na, can't be. It's the progressive Scottish Government who are well known for being feminist and promoting women's rights and achievements. Especially the male women.

This seems like a good thing. It moves the issue into the domain of logic and law.

And ‘justifying’ is in line with how EA2010 works. Plus, on principle, discrimination on the basis of PCs probably should be justified. It’s a sensible balancing test, and one that rape crisis centres, toilets, etc should easily meet especially as they are explicitly named either in the act examples or in EHRC interim statutory guidance.

Of course scotgov might apply this in an ideological way, but they’re already behaving like that. If you’re an optimist, you might even hope this is them preparing the ground to say no to the trans lobby. To present a policy reversal as the minimum they could get away with in the face of the horrid UK SC which regretfully they must comply with.

This is the latest TRA gambit. Since since it's now not possible to permit transwomen into single sex spaces and services for women, the goal is to eliminate as many of those as possible, making them unisex.

They will end up providing funding only for men's services, mixed-sex services, and trans services (all fine and worthy) but deliberately withholding it from women's services.

Quite apart from being discrimination, it will reveal the underlying motive rather starkly. Woman-hatred.

That was always the goal because transactivism is a mens right movement and its inherently sexist with many of its followers actively full on incel.

If they can easily meet it, and it’s obvious it’s the case, why should they have to?

The process is the punishment. That’s why. Put an unreasonable burden on already stretched services for women. That’ll learn them.

If they apply it as a punishment, then yes I agree. But remember where we are coming from: where stating these (seemingly) obvious things was career-ending heresy.

And legally speaking there does need to be a justification. Documenting it seems fair, even helpful.

Its the whole implication in the use of the word "justify".

The EA talks about proportionate.

And you would have thought, even dated to hope, that 50+ years since the first refuges and RCC were set up and accepted as women only, most people would accept and not presume to challenge a provider saying their service was women only (ie sex based).

And the EA uses the example of RCC as being the obvious example of why single sex services are needed. (maybe the TRAs will try and get that example deleted from the act!)

Its like saying schools shouldn't have classes based on age or some such. Whilst there will always be exceptions, there is a basic logic to these sort of decisions.

The only people questioning it, and feeling confident they can, is because they are TRAs. On one level they probably dont care.

But this is about creating the ongoing campaign that biological women are mean and angry, and TW are as always the victims of biological women.

Because their goal it to try and make women accept them as though TWAW.

Just to back track on when I said please dont lets take the focus of what the SNP are trying to do. Telling women they have to justify themselves.

Any number of groups etc., can organise how they want. But they cant then say that what they are doing is covered by the EA.

(Although can imagine that given the multiple identities that increase each day someone will say I feel excluded because you didn't mention my very own individual identity.)

But what the Supreme Court has done is made it clear what the word woman means. Biology.

So if someone advertises something as women only then it has to be based on sex.

Or it could be sex and one or more of the other protected characteristics. eg an event or service for Black Women.

The EA says single or separate sex services must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I read 'justified' in this article as a shorthand for that.

Service providers don't have to 'justify' up front - i.e. produce some sort of document outlining the legitimate aim and how their service is proportionate, but they do have to be able to justify it if someone threatens to take them to court.

You might, but we know and have seen (sadly mainly in Scotland) individual women and women's groups being bullied.

We must all be aware by now that what from someone who isn't a full on TRA would seem just a choice of words, with the SNP and others it is to send a message.

Justify as putting the onus on someone as though they are asking for something outrageous.

Proportionate is just saying if asked could you produce facts that support your proposal.

The legitimate aim part is important too. Without that nothing can be proportionate because part of the test of proportionality is whether the means meet the aim.