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

For those not on x, thread reader:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1834651333288411231.html

As referenced on the thread, Sandy Brindley previously invited Sharon Cowan to a meeting she had with rape survivors who had concerns re single sex rape care, and didn't introduce who Cowan was (a 'queer studies' academic, TRA, and Brindley's partner). The survivors believed she was another survivor invited like them to share views on single sex rape services. She berated the survivors in the meeting she wasn't invited to or introduced at, for wanting single sex rape care.

These people have no shame and no morals, all they see is their rightness and progressiveness and inclusiveness, and they don't even really see the rest of us, let alone respect us or our views or our needs. Raped women are just cannon fodder.

As a victim of rape myself, I would not have endured anything at a rape crisis center if I felt it was not in my best interests. As to statistics & %'s of victims of rape, that would mean nothing to each individual case and how it was being dealt with.
I personally dont think that I could only talk to a female about my situation but do agree that any victim of rape has to feel comfortable with who ever is offering support/counselling, legal representation if it reaches court.

I'm not going to post more X links, because I'm guessing MN isn't wild about too much of that, but more awful details coming out.

Including that Wadhwa appears to be entirely unqualified as a councillor, but did some counselling anyway to 'keep it fun' (that's a direct quote, the prick actually said that). The service was offered to 12 years old and upwards, so it's possible he 'counselled' minors.

These people have no fucking shame. All they care about is protecting themselves and their luxury beliefs, and they'll stop at nothing, including excluding rape victims from support or retraumatising them. No fucking shame and no morals.

Here's an interesting thread with more appalling context.

x.com/sd5419203477703/status/1834693365796859953?s=46&t=OKyRO4eweTteo5FEt_J1MQ

I did not know that Sandy Brindley's partner is a prominent trans activist. It's not surprising of course.

Aaaand they seem to be the same person with multiple Twitter accounts.

x.com/captainvirgilx/status/1835385224936784125?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Hmm. The service users that have come out in support seem to have also worked at RCS and seem to be in the same mould as Katie Horsburgh...

I'm so sorry this happened to you.

Some service users have come out in support for Brindley. Of course there will have been survivors that the service has helped - many I hope.
But there's a bit of "I'm alright Jack" about it?

It's a mess - just a bloody mess. Because regardless of MW, SB or anyone else - the logistics were messed up. You can't lump everyone in, in the name of inclusion. You have to have specialised services for people. Why couldn't they have acknowledged the needs of different groups? They could have appointed MW head of a specialised tailored group for trans specific SA with specialists who have experience in support.
They could have had mixed and single sex groups depending on how the individual felt best served.

How did it get so extreme? The report of the judgement was so bizarre and the staff were so unprofessional and deliberately militant. It's all beyond belief.

I went to a women’s refuge where I was told to expect ‘help’ from a trans woman. Didn’t go back.
Ended up in a mental health facility where the only Psych was trans woman insisting on details I was very unhappy to divulge to him. It was not a safe place. I insisted on leaving before I was further traumatised and have no faith in these as you say ‘captured’ organisations.
I’m left to myself to heal. This is post multiple rapes and abuse.
This is shameful.

In response to recent points, had forgotten the "non binary" status aspect, but the core of why Roz Adams challenged the centre policies was, as I think we have all said, the most important one.

That service users should not be lied to, not be told to accept someone else's belief system is more important than theirs, and that its "reasonable" for a woman (biological female) to state she only wanted to work with another biological female.

I have been saddened that none of the other federations, eg Rape Crisis and Women's Aid, have put out statements saying that groups that are part of their federations totally respect and put in to practice women only (in the real sense) service.

Many women's groups were quick to comment on the riots following the murder of 3 girls and the impact it had had on their service users. And in response to police being found at fault.

So women service providers they aren't shy about making public statements.

Why wouldn't they want to re-assure existing and potential users. I suspect many women reading about this in the newspapers will be totally confused, unclear what it is all about, but be left with a feeling that maybe rape crisis centres aren't safe places to ask for help.

And that would be a real shame.

Is there a copy of that email?

@Autumnweddingguest yes exactly that. They lobbied MSPs to not give women the choice. Absolutely disgraceful.

Have I understood you right: the one organisation that is supposed to exist solely to support women in the aftermath of sexual abuse lobbied MPs to NOT vote for sexually abused women to have the power to choose who does their forensic examination?

It gets more and more staggering.

Although, the one time I called them (during their opening hours) to report being assaulted by two strangers and to ask for advice and support, they were on answer-machine. It had taken so much courage to call and then they were out. I never rang back. You don't necessarily think logically in the aftermath of an assault, and I just thought: no one cares. Even when I ring Rape Crisis during office hours, they're out.

Has it always been such a rubbish service?

This is not the first time this movement of aggressive, intimidating women-haters have muscled in on rape victims, an extremely vulnerable group among the already more physically vulnerable sex class. In fact, they've a long track record of making a beeline for rape victim support. First time it came to my notice was Vancouver. They attacked and vandalised the place, and succeeded in having their funding significantly clawed back on the basis that some of its support was for women only.

Then there was Sarah Summers and the horrible debacle surrounding Sussex Rape Crisis. Sarah is an incredible woman for having the courage even to take on this fight, knowing what she was letting herself in for. She got it, with threats and doxing.

Now there's Wadhwa comandeering a post at Edinburgh Rape Crisis which was only open to women, then asking female victims intrusive questions about orgasms during rape and uttering that offensive phrase about women 'reframing their trauma'. Wadhwa has had plenty to say about female 'bigots' being raped too, which stopped only just short of that age-old misogynistic trope that they somehow deserved it.

It's not enough to see his motives as anything but altruistic. It's more than that. There is a concerted pattern emerging of a deliberate targeting of rape crisis centres by male rights activists larping as women and/or trans activists for the express purpose of persecuting vulnerable women. Worse, no one is so much as questioning those motives, and worse still, the brave women who have questioned it and taken up the fight have been further targeted.

What this man was doing anywhere near vulnerable victims of a repellent crime is a question for which his employers should be answerable. Women warned that this would happen.

Well, surprise surprise. It did.

Under good advisement, no doubt. That's the cleverer strategy.

These people are completely cynical.

Brindley has clearly gone for Rebekah Brooks strategy. A choice between being seen as complicit, or stupid. Like Brooks, she has chosen stupid.

@TorghunKhan makes me feel nauseous considering the implications and motivation behind it.

Just to add that RCS emailed all the MSPs the night before the vote on the amendment. Absolute assholes, imagine that, not wanting women to have a choice on who does their forensic examination after being raped.

RCS also tried to influence the amendment to the policy which enabled women to have female only medical procedures as part of the rape investigation.

RCS wanted women to not have that right.

Absolutely disgraceful.

I believe RCS is a charity not a public body ie a local authority, government dept or NHS therefore not subject to the freedom of information act