..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

Indeed. That's why you should change job if your principles don't allow you to do your current one properly.

I think that because over decades and Acts of Parliament the question of people's rights to change gender have been much discussed and legislated about and your interest in the matter suggests you are aware of at least some of this.

We were also talking about tribunal cases, which included some health/welfare practitioner who refused to call his or her clients 'she' when they they so wished.

This thread is about what happened at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. It's quite clear in the title. What are you referring to?

Which tribunal case involved a HCP refusing to use pronouns? That was not what the ERCC case was about

What makes you think that? It's a genuine question. Do you have an answer?

100% agree with that!

I suspect you already know the answer to this better than I do.

Perhaps self obsessed narcissists working as rape counsellors who won't tell raped women what sex they are and crybully their female colleagues who
ask how to answer this simple question to a raped woman who has asked (what the thread is actually about) should "get a different job".

We were also talking about tribunal cases, which included some health/welfare practitioner who refused to call his or her clients 'she' when they they so wished.

Also if we're going to say it's 'courteous' in some circumstances and but not in others, where is the line drawn? And who decides who gets the courtesy and who doesn't?

But if you are employed to deal with people (clients or members of the public) and your principles preclude you being courteous to them then you should get a different job.

It's not about being "courteous" and it's not "courteous" to expect people to walk on eggshells and have to lie about your sex, but we were talking about witnesses in court, not "being employed to deal with the public". Glad you see the problems with the court issue.

I don't understand the process by which it was decided that it was 'courteous' to incorrectly sex someone via pronouns use. Who decided this? When? Why? What are the implications for everyone else?

Ok, I agree regarding witnesses, if they genuinely feel so strongly. But if you are employed to deal with people (clients or members of the public) and your principles preclude you being courteous to them then you should get a different job.

A witness is not talking to the defendant and can always use his name or "the defendant" to avoid a diversion into an an argument about pronouns.

It's quite difficult to avoid all pronouns unless you are really concentrating on not slipping up. And then you are on the back foot as a witness giving a testimony. It's not what a court should be about. Don't ask me to tell the truth and then compel me to lie. With respect, you don't seem to understand what the issue is for people who reject this ideology wholeheartedly.

That's not what the tribunal cases were about, though.

Pronouns have come into some of them. I don't think anyone should be advocating compelled speech.

Maybe some posters are motivated to comment because they don’t see the need to have these in-depth discussions.

Maybe it is just the same old, same old ensuring that male people get to be treated as those male people want though. I notice that some people are quick to jump to those male people’s defense when some people think those male people might be harmed even though it is actually female people and female people’s boundaries, consent and objective needs being harmed.

www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/gender-recognition-reform-heal-survivors-group-letter.pdf

This is a shocker, the group letter from HEAL

A witness is not talking to the defendant and can always use his name or "the defendant" to avoid a diversion into an an argument about pronouns. But, no, I agree courtesy doesn't come into the equation when talking about someone who has assaulted you. That's not what the tribunal cases were about, though.

The rest of your points I fully agree with, and I would say making other witnesses deny their own knowledge under oath that people are male (or female, in fewer cases) isn't good for the quality of their testimony either.

How can the law say, on one hand, only men can rape, and then compel the victim in a rape trial to call the defendant "she"? it is a tautology, because if "she" is in the dock, "she" can't have raped anybody.

To be clear, the law simply says that a penis is necessary for a rape. Women (actual women) can only be convicted as joint enterprise with a man, however that man identifies.

testifying against a male-bodied (AMAB or whatever you want to call it) rapist in court and having to use female pronouns, when the law is clear that only men can rape, is an absurdity.

How can the law say, on one hand, only men can rape, and then compel the victim in a rape trial to call the defendant "she"? it is a tautology, because if "she" is in the dock, "she" can't have raped anybody.

and so on and so forth

I don't recall the consultation where it was discussed changing this, or what's so discourteous about correcting sexing people. The whole thing strikes me as total nonsense that ultimately served to undermine women's position.

Yes, I must have the memo somewhere where I was asked to agree to calling men women if they wanted it, I'm sure I must have signed something while my mind was on something else. Now where might it be?

It’s fairly unlikely I’m going to sit and read all 23 pages of it, to be honest.

Fair enough - my understanding of the “Greater Good” was the idea that some believe that men can identify as women (rather than just being termed men in dresses) and that was the “dangerous lunacy” you referred to?

You clearly haven't read the thread or grasped what it's about. I suggest you start there.