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

Slightly different story based on sme statements by SNP.

Watchdog's gender guidance 'may lead to discrimination', says Scottish Government
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/watchdogs-gender-guidance-may-lead-to-discrimination-says-scottish-government-5243146

That is exactly what the SC meant. It is not what TRAs wanted to hear so they are resolutely putting their fingers in their ears and stamping their feet, saying if a service is for women it must justify excluding transwomen. It doesn't have to, it just has to say no men (which includes transwomen). So you can have a Lesbian book club or a women's swimming session if you wish. Or you could have a mixed session or a male only one - those are the only choices.

That's not what they''re asking though. They're demanding that the fact that single sex services or being offered (instead of both sex services) be justified - which the EA does specify. But of course it should be obvious why its justified for, say, a rap crisis center, and raises the question of why after years, these services are now being required to justify being for women only.

As current events show, men insisting on their right to view women undressing feel they're in the ascendent so getting access to women talking about rape and sexual assault is just the next step in gratifying their demands.

It's evident that they still don't realise that society accurately identifies this as men committing voyeurism and indecent exposure.

Another Scottish government body (museum's this time) with the same discrimination bs and the added threat of museum's closing. Oh and apparently the guidance needs to change so that it tells organisations how they can legally discriminate against women if that organisation wants to be inclusive of men 🤬🤬

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-quango-claims-museums-forced-35625876?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

In my house, in England, I have held in trust for the family some rather nice Arts and Crafts furniture bought from auction by my smallholder grandparents, when it was sold to pay the taxes withheld by the owner, Mrs Charlotte Despard, one of whose many interests was "No taxation without representation". (Previously her supporters had bought it back for her, but she refused to have it back after several occasions.)

My grand[arents didn't tell us of all her doings, but I think this issue needs to be flagged up again.

The Scottish government is planning to withhold services from women, for which they have paid, and to which they are entitled. I'm not sure how one deals with PAYE, but council tax, car registration and other payments could be withheld. It helps to be rich, like Mrs D, and to be prepared, as she was, to go to jail, but some theatricals might help. I'm thinking tipping tea into the Forth off Edinburgh - might get some American interest - dressed as indigenous peoples.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTION.
And that includes
NO TAXATION WITHOUT SERVICES.
Woman aren't prepared to fund men's extravagances.

I'm sorry I'm in England and a pensioner, so this is a bit - well, I'm not sure what - colonial? Mrs D. was at least born in Edinburgh. Looking at her life, I'm pretty sure which side she'd be on. I look at her gate-leg table, which Nana taught my mother how to polish with great respect, and I think, what can I do?

And you can bet if someone said an organisation offering services only to those with or on the pathway to a GRC (protected characteristic gender reassignment) should "justify" doing it, there would be a complete TRA meltdown at the unkindness and erasing of tvalidity that would imply.

Not forgetting of course that most of those squealing about this aren't even covered by gender reassignment as they are part of Stonewall's expanded definition of (cant be bothered to list them) identities.

tbh I think TRAs can do one. The SC has said single sex is allowed for all purposes where it can be justified. One could justify a single sex walking group or detective book reading club (reasons? single sex walking group = every one can keep up, nothing done that is dangerous for women; single sex detective reading group may bring up issues of VAWG and women's need to constantly check their surroundings - men know b-all about that and would inhibit and possibly derail important therapeutic conversations).

Oh, I agree. It's more about Scottish government trying to look as though they're doing something, and to cause exactly the type of confusion seen on this thread.

It’s single sex services that need a justification: such as the service isn’t needed by the other sex etc.

single sex associations are always lawful and need no justification. A single sex reading group or walking group can be just because you want one, no other reason is needed.

and that’s nothing to do with the SC: it was written into the Equality Act 2010 by parliament.