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 4937514
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question and assure him that I have engaged with the trans community on a number of occasions to date. I will say this very clearly: in everything that I say, I make it clear that no person should be subject to harassment or discrimination, and, indeed, that people should be attributed dignity — of course they should. I feel very strongly about this issue, which has been very toxic. Women who have taken a different view from the trans lobby, for example, have been subjected to vile abuse and threats, including death threats and threats of violence. That is wrong. There are different views on the issue. Fundamentally, it is a common-sense approach that "male" and "female" relate to biological sex and that, in implementing that, we protect women in women-only spaces and should ensure that there is fairness in things such as sport.
150 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: 0.52 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.81); Dog-whistle messaging (0.63).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.81).
- 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 | 0.81 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.30 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.15 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.63 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.36 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.52 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.81 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| 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.