Debate contribution: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his supplementary question. That is a topical question, for understandable reasons. I commend those who have campaigned on the issue — who have been subjected to a significant amount of abuse for trying to stand up and protect female-only spaces for women. We must always be conscious that the debate should be carried out in a way that is not about offending anybody; of course it is not. It is not about not recognising people's existence or demeaning them. It is about recognising biological reality and the right that women have to be protected in women-only spaces. It is about recognising what is, in my strong view, the fundamental and unfair advantage that somebody who is born male has in a sports team or sports arena. Fundamentally, it is common sense. I think that the vast majority of people recognise that and do not want the debate to be carried out in a way that hurts or demeans people but instead want the rights of women to be stood up for and implemented in a way that protects women, particularly in spaces where they are vulnerable or where there could be significant unfairness.
198 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.58 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.78); Dog-whistle messaging (0.73).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.87).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.78 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.41 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.73 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.43 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.58 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.12 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.82 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.