THREAD on our initial response to the govt's EQIA re the impact of its GRA proposals on women & girls: We are *very* disappointed that the govt has not listened to women who responded to the last consultation, or to women's groups who represent women who feel the govt's Self ID >
>proposals will adversely impact them. Women, including rape survivors, have been clear with the Scottish Govt in their consultation responses, & in our public survey of 2000 women (see the report on our home page) that they need female-only provision, & how their ability to >
>access female-only provision is impacted by the GRC. Our work specifically demonstrated how in Scotland, due to the GRC, the NHS cannot even guarantee female only healthcare will be carried out by a natal female, not even for rape survivors, & this is just one e.g. of how the >
>GRC nullifies our Equality Act protections (as also explained in our letter to Shirley-Anne Somerville). Our main EQIA concerns are as follows:
1) The Scottish Govt has *completely ignored* the prohibitive impact of the GRC on the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act >
1) The Scottish Govt has *completely ignored* the prohibitive impact of the GRC on the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act >
>2010 in its EQIA, despite accepting the GRC impacts use of the exceptions, even though it should not. This is a *failure to acknowledge the potential impact of its proposals on the protections & rights of women & girls* & we will challenge this as fully as we can. >
>2) The govt has also falsely stated there is a 'lack of evidence' that the inclusion of transwomen in women's spaces has a 'negative impact' on women, when its last consultation made this very clear, as have groups like ours, which, again, includes survivors. This is also why >
>our guidance & analysis will be very useful though. Responses to this consultation will form part of the finalised EQIA (the EQIA has not been finalised yet) i.e. these responses will directly form part of the evidence base that the govt has to consider & represent in its final>
>Bill. Women can answer the consultation anonymously & still ask for their response to be published. Our independent data analysis will then pull out evidence from the published responses, such as evidence of the negative impact of male people in female-only spaces, and we will >
>also help women be able to tie this into their human rights. The govt cannot ignore and/or misrepresent evidence of the negative impact without jeopardising its Bill or indeed without opening itself up to legal challenge. >
3) The govt has also ignored how legislation re single sex spaces actually works in the UK, by suggesting the preclusion of transwomen from women's provisions should not happen on a blanket policy basis, but rather by individual assessment. In the Equality Act 2010, the >
>exceptions that allow for single sex provision, are exceptions to the rule of *mixed sex provision*. The exceptions relate to where female-only or male-only provision can be offered, and offering single sex provision always has to be objectively justified on a case by case >
>basis. That is why the Equality Act says "in each case *such provision* has to be justified" (our emphasis). It is the *provision* that has to be justified, & it is the needs of women & girls that provide justification for female-only provision, so it is the needs of women & >
>girls that determine whether or not we require provision that is male-free, & so long as we do, female-only provision/blanket policies of trans preclusion are justified. There is *no evidence* that women & girls do not require female-only provision anymore, there is, however, >
>ample evidence we still do. It is extremely serious that the Scottish Govt is ignoring legislation & evidence re the needs of women & girls, but again, this can be addressed in consultation responses by women providing an evidence base that reveals all the types of provisions >
>which we require to be male-free in order for us to be able to access them at all/access them without distress, as well as the ways we have been impacted by losing single sex provision due to self-identification policies. Even though the onus should be on the govt to show women>
>& girls no longer need female-only provision, respondents making clear our need for male-free provision & the impact of losing it, is in itself evidence of the need for trans preclusion, & this is the case regardless of how many respondents say they personally do not require >
>this. Requiring provision to be male-free means that the personality or history of a trans person is irrelevant, because the basis of the need for male-free is the need for provision that does not allow male people to access that provision, & as such assessments >
>are irrelevant, sex is the only relevant factor. And again, our independent analysis will pull out responses & make the evidence base clear. The govt has already confirmed with us it will publish all responses that give permission to publish, including those made anonymously. >
>So look out for our guidance around the end of January, & in the meantime we will continue to challenge the govt directly on what we have raised here & much else. >
>We are, quite honestly, very tired of the govt ignoring women, particularly survivors, & we will take all action open to us, including legal action where necessary/possible, if the govt continues to ignore us & continues to misrepresent the evidence, our needs & our rights.
