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

More lies. You really are ignorant about this case aren't you? The case wasn't 'thrown out' because the policy was lawful. The Judge in the first instance decided that the Claimant didn't have standing to bring the case at all. The higher level Court has decided the Claimant does indeed have standing after all so the case will proceed. The FTT made a mistake which has now been ciorrected.

But then when would mumsnet care about reality

Says the bloke in a dress who claims he is a woman.

The poster seems ignorant of quite a lot.

Suppose we'll have to just wait and see. The law is on our side though.

It's worth it to keep violent, entitled men who feel emboldened to make violent sexual threats against women out of female single sex services in any case.

To be fair, I assume the 'Bumper Book of TRA Arguments' hasn't been updated for March yet.

Maybe we need to qualify this repeated ‘the law is murky’ claim.

Everyone that respects facts, truth and women having human rights can see that the law is crystal clear.

Those who don’t will claim it’s murky or not clear or wrong etc. None of these things are true but that aligns with the disrespect for facts and truth.

considering this article about a male prisoner in the female estate was published today, I am sure that there will be plenty of attention on the Scottish prison system. I read over the weekend how at least one female prisoner had been requesting morning after pills.

"Smith said: “We were told by different sources of a case of a woman inside a jail becoming pregnant, which was of very obvious interest to us.
**
“As it stands, according to prisoners, some males are apparently allowed to have heterosexual sex whilst incarcerated.

“The only way to stop such a thing happening would be to ensure no males are in the female estate.” "

Link to article image

https://x.com/AgentP22/status/2041420829586563524?s=20

direct link

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/trans-prisoner-got-woman-pregnant-36975676

archive

https://archive.is/TWy4q

We will win eventually.

We have incontrovertible truth and the law on our side so it’s just a matter of obtaining the judgement that fits that. That is the aim of the courts.

The ponds case is already won on the main point of law as the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. If a female only pond remains it has to exclude men who claim to be women. If they decide to make the female pond officially mixed sex then they will be sued for unlawful discrimination unless they also make the men’s pond mixed sex. If they do that men will also fight back and all will eventually be reinstated.

The only thing the anti women side have left is scrabbling around for indirect means of preventing a win like their failed attempt to prove a lack of standing on our side. They will fail.

I hear you.

Whereas your "reality" is that if you stick Geoff in a frock he magically becomes a woman, with all the concomitant rights that affords.

What? "... a pretty darn bar to cross..." and "... a mountain to venture ..."?

Could you put that in English please?

Oh the irony.

Not just any bloke…. But a bloke who uses threats of sexualised violence against women.

The ruling and the law is clear, not "murky"...even if there are some who refuse to accept and implement it. The " murkiness" resides in the refusal to accept the law. This is why subsequent appeals have to be made...and also why they tend to be successful. There is only so long you can continue to sow confusion before you get found out.

Think AI had a bit of a glitch there.

Err….. ummm…. <remembers my mother’s words>……. You wouldn’t recognise reality if it bonked you on the head with a frying pan shouting “it’s me, reality”.

I see another thread has been hijacked to talk about something other that the info in the article. There are any number of threads about Hampstead Ponds, the Supreme Court.

It maybe that nobody cares but this is about a Council funding a women only service as allowed under the EA pre and post the Supreme Court ruling, and then breaching that use of SSE at the expense of (actual).

Instead of endlessly repeating statements that have been made on the many threads about Hampstead Ponds the Supreme Court etc., does any know of any mechanism that allows the provider group and the users to challenge the Council. eg as IamSarah did in Brighton.

It isn't a coincidence that threads about how to challenge those in positions of power failing to support women only rights, are derailed to not talk about what can be done.

Is it possible to have a "Feed the Trolls" thread so all their whataboutery can be answered by those who want to.

My thoughts are with the women not getting the service they should be getting.

A few things.

Might not be the best idea to suggest that 'no-one cares'. Some of us are from Edinburgh and care very much. And as has been said before, you cannot dictate how a thread develops nor other people's contributions to it.

IamSarah did indeed challenge the Council/service provider successfully - however the Council/service provider have since reneaged on that agreement. You don't seem to have actually suggested any type of action on this thread, simply chastised other posters for not coming up with a solution.

It's impossible to talk about challenging the refusal to (re)implement single sex services without referencing the SC judgement and relevant legal challenges.

Well of course I wanted to talk about what could be done.

That's what I said.

And why are your presuming to say I can express what I think when the importance of the situation, that actually women, are being ignored by whimsy.

Did you post about your concerns?

Sorry to say I dont remember seeing them.

So might not be the best idea to get up on your high horse.

Sooo...no suggestions of possible action from you yet then?

Let's talk! It's your thread. What do you suggest?

And I have extensively posted about issues in Scotland around the erosion of single sex services and spaces to the point I have worried that I was boring the arse off people on here because of my Scottish focus.

It's impossible to talk about challenging the refusal to (re)implement single sex services without referencing the SC judgment and relevant legal challenges.

Exactly.

FWS can't force service providers to provide single-sex services. All it did was confirm that a service for, say, (women plus transwomen) must be non-discriminatory on its own merits (because, not being single-sex, it doesn't enjoy the blanket exemption from liability conferred by Schedule 3 Part 7).

Swift J in GLP v EHRC suggested that the following need taking into account but that the outcome will be fact dependent:

One. Are men suffering an unjustifiably less favourable outcome than women overall, because of the different criteria applied to the sexes for access to the service?

(Akua Reindorf thinks the answer to this is always yes, but I doubt we'll get a judge to say this - they'll only rule on the situation in front of them at the time.)

Two. Are women suffering an unjustifiably less favourable outcome than men overall, because (the) mixed-sex service affects women more adversely than men, for which the only remedy is to provide a women-only service?

(The answer in the Darlington case was yes based on fact evidence.)

All of this applies just as much to the Ponds as to the OP. And it means facing more litigation.

This is really unsatisfactory, because the Act has its exemptions (not all of which relate to sex, even) in order to serve specific societal goods, and it's being undermined.

What's the solution?

More regulations like the WR1992?

An amendment or reinterpretation of the Act to make services for (women plus transwomen) 'always illegal'?

A regulation saying that, if a service is provided for (women plus transwomen), then the provider must also provide a women-only alternative that is sufficient for demand?

Discussing it seriously is made almost impossible by the spectre of transphobia, the invisibility of women's needs, and, well, just the sheer stupidity. I am not very optimistic right now.