Edinburgh Council 'flouting law' by allowing trans women to use female-only post-prison support service

[IwantToRetire]

City of Edinburgh Council has been criticised over its decision to allow trans women to use the female only Willow Service

The Willow Service is a women-only project for those who have been involved in the criminal justice system and suffer trauma.

However, figures released under freedom of information show the service is also open to trans women.

The council’s response said: “The Willow Service offers a gender specific service to women who are or have been involved with the Justice System, irrespective of whether they were born female at birth or not.”

This is despite the Supremem Court's ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers that determined “sex” means biological sex and not gender.

Extracts from longer article at https://www.scotsman.com/education/edinburgh-council-flouting-law-over-allowing-trans-women-to-use-female-only-post-prison-support-service-6564014

And at https://archive.is/MLQkL

Just to add a point which I meant to do in the OP.

If you take the news as being an accurate reflection of what is happening in the UK, it would seem that Scotland is endlessly intentionally or unintentionally failing to uphold the legal decision that sex means biology.

I suspect that there seems tthat media in Scotland is far more prepared to publish articles that question the trans rights before all other rights mode of governing.

I am sure that in all over other parts of the UK there are just as many breaches similar to the one written about in this article.

But somehow the relevant news and medai outlets elsewhere just aren't interested in pointing out how Councils etc., aren't following the SPC ruling.

This is what I meant by the ruling being murky. You can legally challenge places which seem to welcome trans people identifying as their chosen gender in a single sex space but that's it. When it has been challenged, it was thrown out of court.

You can still have trans inclusive policies.

Thanks OP. I assume the media focus now on this service will see the organisers bring it into line with the law.

If a specific and separate service is needed for those male prisoners because no service is offered for male people that can also be tailored to their needs, they will no doubt be able to set it up. after all, the service says it is reviewing their policy at the moment. I suspect we will see the excuse of waiting for the guidance or something , but the media coverage might force the change.

It's not in the slightest bit murky.

You can provide mixed sex services which include males and females.

Or you can provide separate single sex services as allowed in the EQA2010.

What you cannot do is advertise a single sex service as for women, but allow men (however they identify) to use it.

”When it has been challenged, it was thrown out of court.”

I don’t believe a challenge of a provision under EA2020 has been challenged in court and thrown out when the claimants have been considered to have the standing to bring a case to court. Or to clarify, where a claimant with standing to bring a case has had the case rejected based on the claim under the law rather than from an administrative point.

Please link up the case the court rejected there was a case to claim against based on EA2010.

Properly trans inclusive would be for the service to be available to women, female non binary people and transmen. A service for women, including those that are trans.

But when people have tried to legally challenge places where it isnt being followed, it has been thrown out, right?

Don't hold your breath, Helleofabore! Judging from other threads, links/evidence/sources/stats etc. supporting the 'the law is murky' line are thin on the ground🙄

But when people have tried to legally challenge places where it isnt being followed, it has been thrown out, right?

Links or it didn't happen. I hope that you aren't going to keep trotting out lies about non-existent evidence like you were on the other thread yesterday.,

The ponds thing was thrown out of court

Like the Hampstead Ponds judgement, for which a legal appeal has been allowed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7472pz39npo

I suppose we'll see what happens after the appeal.

The ponds thing was thrown out of court

The "ponds thing" is being appealed. Do keep up & stop promoting lies.

Guides and WI seem to have admitted that it won't fly legally and very grudgingly changed policy, setting up women (and some men) groups on the side. We've yet to see how that pans out with them being able to refuse access to all men, but whatever. The point is that women who want and need men-free spaces can have them.

And as usual: wtf happens to the women who cannot use mixed sex provisions when the only women's resource has men wandering around in it? Do they just go without? Why is it so tragic to exclude a man from whatever it is he wants (even if he has lots of other options) but fine to exclude a woman from anything at all if it benefits men?

The point is the inequality and the sexism which could be seen from space.

Yes. I didnt know there was an appeal, but that only happened as it was rejected.

Yes but by mumsnet rules thrown of judgement allowed appeal automatically means that the original case was wrong.

Do keep up 😂

You would need to look then at the reasons why, at the appeal, the rejection was found to be questionable.

An appeal is happening because the case was thrown out. Murky.

I did. If the law is clear, I can't why that would be the issue. I am also not sure it would de different if those standards were met. We will have to wait and see.

In time, it could prove clear in practice. At the moment it is not.

Yes of course it is.

The basic point is that the SCJ was about protecting women so that they have what they need for equality and access in society. It was not all about men with gender. Likewise this board focuses on women's rights and equality. Which is why you both love to hang out here poking and playing while loving the idea that men are harassing women who can't say no to them. You come here especially for that thrill. Daily. Frequently.

This is a misrepresentation. It wasn't 'thrown out' because the policy was held to be lawful, it was because the Judge in the first instance decided that the Claimant didn't have standing. The higher level Court has decided that this decision was incorrect and the case will proceed.

There was no decision in the first instance Court as to the lawfulness (or otherwise) of the policy.

Did you read the article? As you don't seem to be aware that an appeal had been allowed until now (despite attempting to use the case as some sort of 'gotcha'), I'm guessing that you are not cognisant with the details.

So, you might want to have a wee read up. But basically, type of court and timescale.

The court didn’t rule that that claimant had ‘no case’ based on the law being argued. The court ruled the claimant had no standing to bring the case.

i think you have really significantly misunderstood the grounds of dismissal. It had nothing to do with the law they were going to argue.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Yes. ^^ this @GlovedhandsCecilia

The Supreme Court judgement was the result of an appeal.

You know, the one we won.

Congratulations! That still does not mean just because appeal was allowed that you will win, allowing an appeal is a pretty darn bar to cross actually, yet you lot treat it like a mountain to venture.

But then when would mumsnet care about reality 😂