Scottish Government threatened with legal action over single-sex spaces
The Scottish Government has been threatened with legal action if it fails to implement the recent Supreme Court judgement on biological sex in equalities law.
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against the government, has sent ministers a formal 'letter before action'.
In April, the Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex – a ruling which had implications for access to single-sex spaces.
Sex Matters argue the Scottish Government is failing to implement the ruling in the public sector, though ministers including John Swinney have said they accept the judgment and are waiting for further guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission before taking the next steps.
'It is clear that taking no action at the moment is not a lawful option that is available to the Scottish Government,' the letter said.
'As a bare minimum, the Scottish Government is required – now – to review and amend its practices and policies and guidance to ensure that it is made clear that 'single-sex spaces' means single biological sex spaces.
'A failure to take that step will mean that the Scottish Government is deliberately choosing to act unlawfully.'
The letter urges the Scottish Government to comply with the UK Supreme Court ruling from April, which determined that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological women and sex.
Scottish ministers previously said the judgement will 'inevitably' mean changes to the advice given to public bodies and health boards about single-sex spaces.
However, the Scottish Government has been waiting for fresh guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) before making any permanent changes.
This 'proposed delay' has caused concern for the Sex Matters group.
Speaking to BBC's Good Morning Scotland radio programme on Wednesday, the charity's CEO Maya Forstater said: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms as well as specialist services like women's refuges.
'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet, it hasn't changed its policies.'
Ms Forstater said the government had not implemented the ruling in schools or in its own facilities.
She said the government has 14 days to reply to the letter, adding: 'All we're asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone's included.'
In response to Sex Matters' concerns, a spokesman for the government told The Times: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment.
'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment.
'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice.
'We will respond to any letter received in due course.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'. More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility toward's a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community. Jacob Collier MP 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'.
Edinburgh Live
an hour ago
- Edinburgh Live
Edinburgh's hosting of Tour de France start could cost city £1.7m from visitor levy
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Up to £1.7 million should be drawn from the city's financial reserves and put towards the 2027 Tour de France, according to plans set to go before Edinburgh councillors for sign-off on Thursday. Both the men's and women's races are set to begin in the UK in 2027, with the men's race beginning in Edinburgh. A report on unaudited council accounts for the last financial year contains an ask for up to £1.7m to be spent on the race from council reserves, with plans to backfill the spend with money from the city's upcoming Visitor Levy. The report does not specify what the money will be used for, but it says the council has been in 'confidential discussions' with the Scottish Government and VisitScotland about hosting the event. The SNP group has tabled an amendment to the unaudited accounts, which if approved by councillors would see the spending request denied. The 2027 running of the Tour de France will be the first time both the men's and the women's race start in the same country, where that country is not France. Edinburgh has never hosted any part of the race before, but it has come to the UK four times: in 1974, 1994, 2007 and 2014.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What to know about the impacts of the Supreme Court's ruling on transgender care for youth
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee 's ban on gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth in a ruling that's likely to reverberate across the country. Most Republican-controlled states already have similar bans. In his majority opinion Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Tennessee's ban does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. Since President Donald Trump returned to office this year, the federal government has been trying to restrict access. Here are some things to know about gender-affirming care and the court's ruling: What is gender-affirming care? Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, or their sense of feeling male, female, neither or some combination of both. Sometimes that's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. The services are offered to treat gender dysphoria, the unease a person may have because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. Studies, including one from 2023 by researchers at institutions including London Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, have found the condition is linked to depression and suicidal thoughts. Gender-affirming care encompasses counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes. Hormone therapy for transgender men causes periods to stop, increases facial and body hair and deepens voices. The hormones used by transgender women can have effects such as slowing growth of body and facial hair and increasing breast growth. Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents receive gender-affirming medications, a study released this year found. Gender-affirming care can also include surgery, including operations to transform genitals and chests. These surgeries are rarely offered to minors. There are documented uses of genital surgery for adults dating back to the 1920s. But for youth, gender-affirming care has been more common since the 1990s. What is the controversy? As a medical consensus emerged in support of gender-affirming care for youth, the issue also became politically divisive in other ways. Some states approved measures to protect transgender people, who make up around 1% of the nation's population. Many critics dismiss the idea that gender is changeable and lies along a spectrum. About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. In the last five years, most GOP-controlled states have passed laws to block transgender girls from sports competitions for girls. About half the Republican-controlled states have now banned transgender people from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Opponents of gender-affirming care sometimes refer to it as 'mutilation" and say people who transition when they're young could later regret it. What could the ruling mean for bans in states besides Tennessee? In addition to Tennessee, 26 other states have passed bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for youth. Judges have struck down the bans in Arkansas and Montana, though the legal fights there aren't over. All of the laws have been adopted in the past five years and nearly all have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that federal challenges to those laws aren't likely to prevail. However, some of the lawsuits against them are based on arguments rooted in state constitutions, and it's still possible that judges could find more protections in those state constitutions than are in the U.S. Constitution. What will the ruling mean for states without bans on gender-affirming care? It probably won't make any difference immediately. Several of those states have laws or executive orders intended to protect access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors. But the question about whether the care will continue isn't only about what's legal. It's also about funding. That's where Trump comes in. Trump campaigned last year pledging to rein in rights of transgender people. He's followed through on many fronts, though court challenges have resulted in some of his efforts being blocked, at least for now. What has Trump done on transgender issues? He has ordered that no federal taxpayer money be used to pay for the care for those under 19. Enforcement of that order is on hold. Trump has also tried to block federal funding from institutions — including hospitals and the universities that run some of them — that provide gender-affirming care for youth. A judge has blocked that effort while challenges to it proceed. His administration published recommendations that therapy alone – and not medication – be used to treat transgender youth. The position contradicts guidance from major medical organizations. But it could impact practices. Other actions Trump has taken including initiating the removal of transgender troops from military service; ordering that transgender women and girls be kept out of sports competitions for females; erasing the word 'transgender' from some government websites; and saying the government would recognize people only by their sex at conception. That's resulted in efforts to move transgender women inmates to men's prisons and change how passports are issued to transgender and nonbinary people. A judge this week blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
