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

As someone ignorant of how the law has been applied, I think the right of vulnerable women to be supported by biological females seems a more worthy bridgehead to defend than the right to refuse people the common courtesy of using the pronouns they prefer.

Does that apply in all cases? Like when a rape survivor gives testimony in court? Don't you think it's sometimes more than just "common courtesy"? I recoil from hearing the male this thread is about called "she". It's a matter of freedom of belief and of speech. These males are not women. She/her are the pronouns for women and girls.

It's all linked though. Once you undermine the primacy of sex as key differentiator between men and women you make it harder and harder for women to assert their rights to what is theirs.

That includes our rights to our own language terms as well as spaces.

I have always used pronouns to refer to sex. Until five minutes ago, so did everyone else (evidenced by things like using pronouns for babies and animals who can't be said to have a 'gender identity').

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.

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?

It’s that idea I was replying to, because like I said - generally, that is what I believe.

Rape, DV, kids changing rooms - that’s about the limit of my resistance, I definitely couldn’t find the passion to be on Twitter all day long arguing about other people’s choices.

As someone ignorant of how the law has been applied, I think the right of vulnerable women to be supported by biological females seems a more worthy bridgehead to defend than the right to refuse people the common courtesy of using the pronouns they prefer.

Did you see "the Righteous" and think they meant you it's an wryly ironic description of genderists that applies to the sort of people that think rape victims should be "educated" if they ask for a specifically female rape counsellor.

Smug 😂, and so it begins.

A lot of things matter more to me than this ongoing trans debate, most things matter more.

You've completely misunderstood the point to be smug about how little you care about the rights of other women and girls. @TorghunKhan was saying how nothing else matters to people mired in this ideology, not to you 🙄

I’m not sure that’s the case for everyone.

For me, for example, it’s quite from “nothing matters more.”

A lot of things matter more to me than this ongoing trans debate, most things matter more.

I very much subscribe to the idea that people are allowed to live their lives in a way that suits them, and whatever they identify as is their thing - nothing to do with me.

Yes there are places and situations that should be safeguarded, but outside of that - looking at this thread, I’m nowhere near as angry as others, generally.

So yes, it’s not that “affirming a dangerous lunacy” matters more to me than anything else. It’s that it very much doesn’t.

Sam Fowles lamenting why women can't face consequences for their wrongthink due to the "loophole" that their gender critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act.

I find the "legal scholars" are some of the worst, too. Peter Dunne complaining that women don't want to undress around "women with different bodies" (men) when they "tolerate" undressing with women who have had mastectomies. Alex Sharpe campaigning to remove the sex by deception law for trans people because it's an invasion of their privacy to have to be honest about their sex.

Based on that drivel, Sharon Cowan clearly hasn't understood what the Forstater judgement said, what the Grainger test is, or what 'diverse' means.

Looking at the contributions of The Righteous as detailed in the articles, Twitter threads and certain posters on this very thread... It's almost like The Righteous have no actual decency, morals or sense of shame, because everything and anything can be justified in the Battle For The Greater Good.

I am only just catching up with all this. The horror of Wadhwa’s appointment seems to be spreading to Brindley’s wider behaviour too.

Even if Brindley didn’t rally a survivor’s group to contact media, it seems as if that group is overly heavily invested in Brindley’s personal defence and are or have become activists. A rape survivor support group ? Becoming activist? Or feeling they should? There must be now so many questions about Brindley’s professional conduct.

Even the very basic point here that users of RCS and other services feel so unsafe with the prospect of removal of Brindley shows there is something amiss. A service such as this, should be so robust that one or two people leaving should make little negative impact. There should be absolute confidence that high quality support service should be expected. I am speaking of RCS by the way. Wadhwa as CEO would certainly have impact and quickly on the service delivery because Wadhwa was directly responsible for how ERCC provided service etc.

If that quality service, for this type of specific service, has been tied to personalities, ie not the service group this has to be investigated.

There really seems to be a great deal to investigate. That survivor meeting where Brindley included her partner was a very concerning read.

My favourite part of that sneering word salad is the bit that describes knowing that sex is binary, immutable and sometimes matters as 'alternative beliefs'. It's fucking reality, you ivory tower dwelling over privileged woke idiots.

@TheKeatingFive I posted this on the FWR thread about ERCC

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/1/1/6536993

...In contrast, the EAT’s decision in the Forstater appeal, in our view, risks making it more difficult in practice for employers to create diverse and inclusive workplaces. We conclude that, while the approach of the courts should be flexible and fact-sensitive, it should be founded upon coherent principles that are applied consistently, balancing and reconciling conflicting rights in line with the values of the EqA. This is especially important in the current context in which there is an ongoing debate, particularly in the discrimination and human rights context, about the extent to which trans people’s rights are adequately protected and whether and to what degree protecting such rights harms or infringes the rights and freedoms of others.6...

This aged well

....Therefore, even if, as the EAT decided in Forstater, some gender critical views are protected, it may be that Ms Forstater’s unlawful discrimination claims will not succeed once the facts are considered by a Tribunal...

Oh dear, how inconvenient that you can't discriminate and harass women who know what a woman is with impunity:

....But the EAT’s new approach will likely be most problematic for those tasked with practical application of the EqA in the workplace. Taking as an example homophobic or sexist views, businesses requiring staff to work within the parameters of its equality policy, whether to respect colleagues in the workplace or to help ensure non-discriminatory practices towards customers, are more likely to encounter resistance on the basis that individuals do not personally endorse such views, and that their alternative beliefs are protected now. Inevitably, businesses are likely to find themselves defending claims of unlawful discrimination brought by such individuals. Given the widened definition of a protected belief, it may not be difficult for any disgruntled worker to identify a belief for which she or he can allege less favourable treatment.

As a consequence of this new approach, several concerns arise. First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims. Secondly, where those who have manifested gender critical views claim unfavourable treatment, businesses may have to defend those claims by asking already vulnerable individuals, who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by Claimants, to give evidence at a Tribunal....

But we hope to be able to again one day

...Our hope is that when the occasion arises, a higher court will overrule the Forstater EAT decision and approach to applying the fifth Grainger criteria: not all beliefs are equal, and not all ought to be privileged by receiving the additional protections available under the EqA, an objective of which is to increase equality of opportunity and more generally to eliminate discrimination.155...

for all on this thread who have been raped or suffered sexual assault so sorry and especially if so called support service let you down.

It's shameful that in the 21st century UK there is no committment to a properly funded, properly run service for women survivors.

There's so much misinformation and obfuscation being spouted by ERCC, RCS etc I think it's important we don't do the same.

The full 'keep it fun' quote - while misjudged and very poorly phrased - was not MW saying the counselling was 'too keep it fun'. It was about MW's overall role, which included running various staff activities as light relief from the main business of the centre and also doing some counselling sessions. Which I agree MW absolutely should not have been doing - not having the qualifications, and not being upfront about his sex.

@dewfirst
That is awful and I am sorry you didn’t get the support you needed. I hope you have found some better help since then.

It is indeed shameful, and also utterly irrelevant on this thread. It is the victims of reported cases of rape being denied counselling that is under discussion, not a load of putative gubbins about people who have not been raped.

Exactly. And the rape of women by men is staggeringly underreported. Along with epidemic levels of male to female domestic violence.

This is why many cases are not reported when its female on female or female on male. Who knows how many cases go unreported in these situations and whether there would be suitable support offered.

Oh now this is shameful of you. That rape is defined under UK law as being a male only crime has NOTHING to do with cases not being reported.

sexual assault by penetration is the charge for non penile sexual assault.

That's revolting - we have regressed by decades. You should have had access to trained and compassionate biological (shouldn't have to qualify that!) women throughout.

Technically it is not recognised as rape because of the Sexual offences act of 2003 which only recognises rape as penile penetration. This is why many cases are not reported when its female on female or female on male. Who knows how many cases go unreported in these situations and whether there would be suitable support offered.