Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436563
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Does the Member agree that private and personal female spaces in Parliament Buildings should be used only by those who have been born female?
24 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 flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.81 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.85); Dog-whistle messaging (0.88).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.96).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged 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 | 0.85 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.52 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.88 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.54 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.81 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.03 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.89 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| 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 15:12 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.