Latest news with #TrinaBudge
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Let trans women into women's shelters, say SNP ministers
But the suggestion drew strong criticism from campaigners, who said the Scottish Government was misrepresenting the law. 'Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women',' Trina Budge of For Women Scotland told The Herald. READ MORE Three months ago, the UK's highest court ruled that 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex rather than gender identity. The court case was brought by FWS after they challenged the Scottish Government's guidance on the definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including how single-sex services can be lawfully provided, when trans people can be excluded, and when organisations might request a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. The draft said any service offered to 'women and trans women' is not a single-sex service under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful discrimination against those of the opposite sex. The EHRC later opened a consultation on the draft to help formulate an updated Code of Practice. The commission said it received more than 50,000 responses. Final guidance had been expected before Parliament broke for summer earlier this week, but the EHRC said last week it would be published later in the year. For Women Scotland won the Supreme Court in April (Image: PA) The Scottish Government quietly published its response to the consultation on Friday afternoon. Ministers raised concerns that the commission's draft code placed too much emphasis on when trans people can be excluded from services, and not enough on how services can remain inclusive within the law. 'We consider that it would be helpful to provide illustrative examples within the Code of Practice to provide guidance on how a service provider may lawfully implement an inclusive approach,' the Government said. 'This would be particularly helpful in situations where a service provider has identified a need that exists for both biological women and trans women, for example in relation to those who have experienced domestic abuse, homelessness or trafficking. 'Without this clarity, providers may simply stop offering any services to trans people due to concerns about legal risk.' They also warned that, following the judgment, some trans people had chosen to 'remove themselves from public life' out of fear of being turned away from services. In its submission, the Scottish Government also said it was also concerned about what it described as 'social policing' of someone's sex. 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The response also called for advice on how to apply the updated definition of legal sex to workplace facilities, and for consideration of the impact of the code on intersex people. Ms Budge said: 'The Scottish Government still woefully misunderstands the Supreme Court judgment on how the Equality Act works. "Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women'. 'We note that in pushing for this option, the Government has dropped its previous legal argument that a man needs a GRC to access a women's service and reverted to, once again, looking for ways to include men in women's services on a self-ID basis. 'Women who have suffered domestic abuse or trafficking do not wish to be put in sleeping accommodation with males for very good reasons of privacy and safety, and it is beyond our understanding why the Government keeps trying to insist otherwise." Lucy Hunter Blackburn from the MBM policy collective said: 'The response suggests that the Scottish Government has learnt little from the past few years. "It remains fundamentally unsympathetic to the rights and needs of women as a sex, and strongly wedded to defining 'women' as a group that must include some men. 'As a result, it appears to misunderstand both the judgment and the role of the EHRC. It still seems to believe, wrongly, that managing single-sex services and spaces must involve 'balancing' the rights of women against those of a sub-set of men. 'It is resisting clarity in favour of complication, and in doing so providing poor leadership to all Scottish public bodies who now just need to make the law work on the ground.'
Daily Mail
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Top cop says transgender Supreme Court ruling has had 'no direct impact' on policing
The bombshell transgender ruling by the UK's highest court has had 'no direct impact' on policing in Scotland, a senior officer said yesterday. Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs said the judgment had had 'no bearing' on Police Scotland, which is reviewing its guidelines. Chief Constable Jo Farrell said she 'sensed the desire' for rapid progress but it would be a mistake to rush any changes. The court ruling in April stated that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. In March, police chiefs asked an equalities watchdog – the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - for advice about whether they should allow rapists to self-identify as women, and provide single-sex changing rooms for staff. Trina Budge of For Women Scotland said: 'The chair of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner, said on Wednesday that organisations should update their guidance immediately to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'There is no reason for Police Scotland to be prevaricating and it should be abundantly clear to them that the longer they allow male officers to intimately search female suspects or allow staff to access the changing rooms provided for the opposite sex, the higher their risk of facing costly legal liability. 'Police Scotland is not above the law of the land.' At a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority in Glasgow, Mr Speirs said: 'The judgment has had no direct bearing on our day-to-day business and there has been no direct impact on arrangements in custody.' Ms Farrell said: 'I sense the desire by the board to get to the end point of this but there are a number of moving parts and different agencies providing different views. 'We have seen other public sector bodies in Scotland and beyond reacting quite quickly but if we do that, we will misstep and end up in a position where we are having to reset – we do this once and we do this right.' SPA chairman Fiona McQueen said the process must be done with 'empathy and compassion', according to 'individual circumstances'. Board member Katharina Kasper said: 'There are a large number of bodies which have been misinterpreting the law and for Police Scotland this is an obvious issue. 'For Police Scotland, it presents another problem – people look to the police to enforce the law. 'Has there been operational guidance that you [police bosses] have issued to officers and staff considering the level of tension and passion that has followed on from the Supreme Court judgment? 'It's a double whammy for Police Scotland, affecting internal policies and how it serves the wider community.' Mr Speirs said the judgment had had 'no bearing' on the force but it would be producing fully updated guidelines next month. Next Thursday, police chiefs will hold a 'stakeholders' meeting' for 'further engagement' with 20 organisations including 'community groups and internal staff diversity associations'. Last year Ms Farrell said the public and MSPs should be 'assured' that a man who commits rape or serious sexual assault will always be recorded as male. In March, the Mail revealed that this stance, which campaigners said was a major policy U-turn, was not communicated to officers, sparking claims that police may have misled parliament. Earlier this week, the EHRC said hospitals, sports clubs and leisure centres will be allowed to request birth certificates to ensure single-sex services are protected. The EHRC said 'justified' inquiries could be made over a person's birth sex or legal changes made to their gender. However, it also said this could be classed as discrimination if it was not done in a sensitive way. The EHRC has launched a consultation on its updated statutory guidance on applying the Equality Act. The guidance is intended to set out how public buildings such as shops, hospitals and sports clubs should interpret the Equality Act. Scottish Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: 'The Supreme Court ruling was very clear, and the public will expect the police to be among the very first to uphold it. 'This isn't something that can be kicked down the road. 'The onus is on John Swinney to issue a directive ensuring that all public bodies are providing single-sex spaces for women and girls.'
Scottish Sun
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Trans footballers BANNED from playing in Scottish women's games from next season
Guidance is being changed in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling MAJOR CALL Trans footballers BANNED from playing in Scottish women's games from next season TRANS players are to be banned from competing in Scottish women's footy from next season. Only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches following a rule change by the SFA. Advertisement 2 The ban will apply to all matches that are covered under the rules of the SFA. 2 Scottish Tory MSP Tess White praised the 'common sense' approach being taken. Credit: Alamy It will apply to matches that are covered under the governing body's rules - from the top flight and national teams, to grassroots level. The change comes in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court ruling earlier this month and brings football into line with other sports such as rugby which brought in a similar ban in 2023. Trina Budge, from feminist campaign group For Women Scotland who brought the court case, said: 'We're delighted by this decision by the Scottish FA. 'Men should never have been allowed to play in women's teams and we know of numerous women and girls who have dropped out because of the unfairness of it and the increased risk of suffering an injury. Advertisement 'Women are worthy of competing in their own sports, free from males, and we are really pleased to see a return to common sense.' Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters added: "Anyone who plays football knows it's madness to think men can be allowed to play in women's teams without causing massive unfairness and increased injury risk. "Every man in a women's team creates problems for all the women around him. It makes a mockery of the women's game. "The Scottish FA has done the right thing, fixing its rules before anyone gets hurt." Advertisement Earlier this month, a panel of five judges on the UK's most senior court ruled that 'woman' under the Equality Act refers to biological sex. It followed a three-year battle from feminist campaigners who argued a woman should be defined as only those born female and not trans women. A wide range of public bodies are now expected to put in place new guidance on single-sex spaces to ensure that they are complying with the law. Scottish Tory equalities spokeswoman Tess White said: 'While this common sense decision is welcome news, women and girls have been calling for safe and fair sport for years. Advertisement 'They should never have been put in the position of competing against biological males and jeopardising their safety. 'Other sporting bodies must now follow the Scottish FA's lead and urgently act to protect the women's category.'
Forbes
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Three 'Practical Difficulties' Of Policing Female Quotas On Boards
Illustrating how we over focus on minorities whilst ignoring the remaining male dominance. The UK's Supreme Court has ruled that the interpretation of sex, and therefore sex discrimination, in the Equality Act must be based on biological determination at birth. This is the conclusion of a long campaign by For Women Scotland (FWS), who contested the Scottish Government's position that transgender women could hold positions on public boards designated for women as part of a quota policy to increase representation. The Independent reported FWS Director Trina Budge's comment from the November hearing: 'Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation.' The ruling stated that those administering quotas, as well as hosts of single-sex spaces such as changing rooms, hostels and medical services would face 'practical difficulties' unless the nature of a woman is specified in this way. Let's consider the practical difficulties that they face following the ruling. Firstly, presumably under this ruling we now have a situation where public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 per cent cis men and 50 per cent trans men. I don't think this is the intended outcome of the campaigners, and one might argue it is unlikely. However, it is also unlikely that transwomen should suddenly flock to board level careers in sufficient numbers to stymie the entry of cis women. With transgender prevalence at fewer than one percent of the population, it is hardly a stampede in either direction. Should board appointments permit this flipping of the access to female quotas from trans women to trans men, or should all transgender people be banned from being counted in quotas on boards? This leaves room for transgender claims of discrimination, since being transgender is still a protected category within the Equality Act. Secondly, the placing of a burden of proof is complex and intrusive. Will we now expect all women with masculine features to prove they have been biologically women since birth? Collecting evidence for this is difficult and presumably contrary to privacy and confidentiality laws. We could ask for a birth certificate perhaps, except that around 8000 people in the UK have a Gender Recognition Certificate and these people will have female written on their birth certificates. So, what's next – genetic testing? Inspection of bodies? Forcing people by law to vocally or visually self-identify as transgender to officials in public spaces? Now there's a slippery slope we haven't seen for nearly a hundred years. Lastly, outside the context of public boards, this ruling has a cascade effect on hospitals, hostels, public changing rooms and more. Asking existing staff to begin policing entry is not practical and rife with potential difficulties for transgender people and indeed anyone who does is not gender conforming in their appearance. This is a level of everyday friction that no one needs – patients on wards arguing about whether the person in the bed next to them should be there or not. Our hospitals and public spaces do not need another complication to their administration. We already have safeguarding policies and risk assessments for edge cases where we need to protect against gender-based violence in hostels and prisons - we need the staff in post to action them more than we need to enforce exclusion of all transgender people. Again, are we going to place trans men in all female wards? Gender appearance is not clear cut, so unless we are forcing people to self-identify, it leaves room for interpretation. And the hostile environment we have created will lead to more people publicly challenging gender participation. Perhaps the experience of Imane Khelif, who was viciously trolled and attacked for her masculine features during the Olympics despite being a cisgendered woman, is a harbinger of the discourse we can expect at our local swimming baths in the future. Any limit to career progression is a block on talent. Our public boards could not be more in need of the diverse thought, challenge to the status quo and creative problem solving that comes when you run an inclusive team. In 2011 the FTSE started documenting the prevalence of women on boards. It was a shambolic 9.5 per cent of the FTSE 350 Boards, and has today risen to 43.54 per cent. Such swift progress is admirable, and hardly shows that the rise of female leaders was being hampered. I note that the men will not have to prove their manhood to be appointed to boards. Policing the boundaries of women, and not men, is a further embedding of barriers to success for all women. The practicalities of applying this ruling will no doubt be the topic of much discussion in the public domain for weeks to come, but fewer difficulties? With all due respect to the Justices, this is doubtful.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What Supreme Court's gender ruling means for workplaces, hospitals and sports
A landmark Supreme Court ruling confirming the legal definition of a 'woman' could affect workplaces, hospitals and sports events throughout the country. Five senior judges decided unanimously that the definition of a woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act relates to "a biological woman and biological sex". The judgement follows a legal challenge brought by gender critical campaigners For Women Scotland (FWS), who have criticised including trans women in the definition of "woman" in Scottish legislation. The latest decision in the long-running legal dispute could have wide-ranging implications for trans women, cis women and other members of the LGBT+ community throughout the country. UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge read out the summary of their decision stipulating that the Scottish government was incorrect in classifying trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) - a legal document that affirms an individual's affirmed gender - as women. FWS director Trina Budge said the ruling 'clarifies women's rights' and we now 'know that when we see women-only spaces it means exactly what it says – no men'. However, trans rights campaigners have declared the decision as 'incredibly worrying" for the trans community, and say they may now face exclusion from some single sex spaces and that it paves the way for discrimination and transphobia. The legal action was initially brought by FWS in 2022 after judges in Edinburgh ruled trans women with a GRC could sit on public boards in posts reserved solely for women. Scotland's First Minister John Swinney said the government accepts the judgement and will now engage on the 'implications of the ruling'. But it could also have far-wider implications for everyday single-sex services like refuges, prisons, toilets and hospital wards. The 88-page legal decision ruled that trans women, even those with a GRC, can be excluded from single-sex spaces - if "proportionate" to do so. However, trans activists say that there has always been an exemption that enables some people to be excluded from certain spaces, often in religious areas and women's refuges. The judgment itself gives examples of places where such exclusions may take place, such as within rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms. A UK government spokesperson emphasised this point, saying: "We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.' The issue of trans women in sports in particular has made headlines in recent years, with sports such as athletics and cycling barring trans women from women's events. The English FA just days ago allowed trans women to continue to compete in women's football in England provided they meet stricter eligibility criteria, following protests in November. The judgment confirms that a person may be excluded from participating as a competitor in a "gender-affected sport" if that was 'necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors'. A 'gender-affected sport', defined by the judges, is one where 'the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.' How this wording will be interpreted by various sporting bodies remains to be seen. Just hours after the verdict was announced the health board involved in an ongoing employment tribunal regarding a transgender doctor said they would consider its 'implications'. Nurse Sandie Peggie took the Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton to tribunal after being suspended from her work when she refused to share a changing room with Dr Upton, a trans woman. The tribunal is expected to resume in the summer after evidence was heard earlier this year - but the Supreme Court judgment could now impact the outcome of that case. A spokesperson for the health board said: "NHS Fife notes the clarity provided by today's Supreme Court ruling regarding the legal definition of a woman. 'We will now take time to carefully consider the judgment and its implications.' With the judge's decision still being assessed by invested observers, much of the immediate implications could be 'symbolic', according to some trans rights activists. Jane Fae, a director of TransActual, an organisation that works to defend the rights of trans people, told Yahoo News after the ruling: 'It has been a tough morning, a lot of people are in bits. It's a hard day for trans people. 'I have been in contact with lawyers who are still digesting the impact of this ruling. However, they say that this is a bizarre ruling, and the future is not at all clear. 'The immediate impact is that the ruling is symbolic, and many feel like they have been told they should not exist. But hypothetically legal action could follow. 'It is not clear what the consequences will be. We suspect there will be lots of misinformation and uninformed people may create exclusions in public spaces where there does not need to be any.' LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake said there was 'deep concern at the widespread implications' of the ruling. Mr Blake said: 'It's important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so.' Conversely, chief executive of the LGB Alliance charity Kate Barker said the ruling 'marks a watershed for women' and allows lesbians to create social groups without trans women. She said: 'The ruling confirms that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC." What could this mean for employers? As legal minds pick over the landmark decision, some have indicated it will give greater clarity for employers on issues surrounding single-sex spaces. The legislation does state that this can only occur, however, if the justification is "reasonable and proportionate". Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said the decision can 'offer long-term clarity for businesses' who were left interpreting ambiguous legislation. He said: 'Whilst that process is ongoing, employers should take extra care to ensure that transgender employees feel safe, represented and valued in the workplace. 'Employers may have to rethink their policy towards single-sex spaces in the workplace, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, and ensure that all individuals have a suitable space that they feel comfortable in when needing to use those facilities.' In September 2024 the Cabinet Office published data showing an increase in trans discrimination at work. The figures showed 21% of transgender and non-binary officials said they were discriminated against at work in 2023, compared to 18% in 2022. At large, recorded hate crimes against transgender people in England and Wales rose 11% to 4,732 offences in the last year, according to Home Office figures. Mr Pepper warned employers they may now need to consider extra training to ensure that no new claims are brought under the Equality Act. He said: 'Some workplaces have become divided on the issue, which means communication, training and zero tolerance on bullying will be vital to ensure that transgender employees do not feel uncomfortable at work.' The ruling has confirmed that in the Equality Act 2010 the words 'woman' and 'sex' refer to biological sex, but also that transgender people are still protected under the Act. During the reading of the verdict Lord Hodge stressed that the act gives transgender people protection from 'direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender'. Pepper argues that the act 'urgently needs to be updated to ensure that transgender individuals don't lose any of the protections they currently have from discrimination and prevent potential inequality'. There may yet be a further appeal to come from some who believe the Supreme Court ruling may contradict another law. The Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004 and allows adults in the UK who have gender dysphoria to change their legal sex, via a gender recognition certificate. Since it was passed, 8,464 people in the UK have done so. But trans activists believe the Supreme Court ruling could contradict the 2004 act, which was passed after the UK lost in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom at the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and thereby required the UK to comply with European law. 'Some lawyers who have contacted me believe that this could effectively overturn the Gender Recognition Act,' said fae. 'This could impact both trans women and trans men. 'If the judges say that the GRC does not matter, what is the point of it? This opens up a lot of further legal issues,' added fae. There is no higher court than the Supreme Court in the UK, so any additional appeals will have to be heard at the European Court of Human Rights. Jolyon Maugham, founder of The Good Law Project, a non-profit organisation that campaigns on a range human rights issues said this was already being looked at. 'I don't know if there is a case to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights - but we have already asked the question of a KC," he said. 'And, yes, if there is a decent case for a trans person to bring, we will help them bring it.'
