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

It is utterly horrific, and even though I have known about the dangers of gender ideology for some years (I have a DD who, being ND, is very much the target audience for this sexist and hate-filled movement) I am still shocked to the core every time something like this happens. How, just how, was this ever allowed?

Ereshkigalangcleg
Not interested.

What we re dealing with is a clear case of "It's not Mah Johnny that's out of step: it's the whole durn US Army". If an entire cohort of informed people disagrees with someone's lone and self-declaredly uninformed opinion, then obviously they are all of them wrong and the uninformed lone voice is right.

This fits right in with the idea that slightly strange people are right and all women are wrong, really.

Oh I have seen that one ... yet

This was on another forum, where after we Naughty People had patiently batted away all the usual tropes, the Righteous poster declared that "Perhaps you might turn out to be right, but you'll have been right for the Wrong Reasons!"

I can imagine

I broadly agree, but I suggest that 'tone' is the penultimate bastion of The Righteous, because I have experienced a further (and possibly the final) step.

This was on another forum, where after we Naughty People had patiently batted away all the usual tropes, the Righteous poster declared that "Perhaps you might turn out to be right, but you'll have been right for the Wrong Reasons!"

Good article by Shonagh Dillon, who runs a rape crisis service herself.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-crisis-at-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/

"...RCS seem to think that because they commissioned the review and accept the recommendations they are now absolved of all culpability and can just merrily point the finger at the one bad apple. Unfortunately for them, there is a plethora of examples on why the background to the anti-women policies at ERCC were driven and supported by RCS — the fact remains they share the same ideology, and just a few of examples of these include:

	RCS telling <a class="break-all" href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/?SearchTerm=Rape+Crisis+Scotland&amp;DateFrom=&amp;DateTo=&amp;SessionId=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the Westminster Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2021</a>1_ that &ldquo;proposed simplification of the process of applying for gender recognition certificates would have no impact on the delivery of Rape Crisis services across Scotland&rdquo;.
	In turn RCS supported the controversial Gender Recognition Reforms in Scotland, on one occasion informing the UN special rapporteur they were <a class="break-all" href="https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/rape-crisis-scotland-statement-on-the-open-letter-to-special-rapporteur-on-violence-agains/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">&ldquo;disappointed&rdquo;</a>&rdquo;_ in her after she raised legitimate concerns about the impact the reforms would have on female victims of men&rsquo;s violence. 
	In 2021 RCS <a class="break-all" href="https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">objected to legislation</a>n_ that would mean women who had been raped could request a female medical examiner. 
	Finally when Wadhwa <a class="break-all" href="https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">referred to women</a>n<span class="underline"> who wanted single sex spaces as &lsquo;&ldquo;bigoted&rdquo; and suggested  they should &ldquo;reframe their trauma&rdquo;, the CEO of RCS Sandy Brindley <a class="break-all" href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1834365833939693653" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">came out in support of him</a>m</span>.

The reviews findings and subsequent recommendations come down to one very simple action — RCS need to define what a woman is. But we already know that RCS think the definition of woman includes men, not just because of the examples above, but because prior to working at ERCC Wadhwa worked for RCS as their Helpline and Volunteer Coordinator from 2014 to 201818_. Both the roles he took in RCS and subsequently ERCC were apparently reserved for “women” only. ^

The review notes the “damage done” by ERCC to victims and survivors, but that damage needs to be owned by all who supported and pushed these policies. The arrogance of a man who is emboldened enough to come into a charity like ERCC a charity founded in 1978 by second wave feminists and create a scenario where female rape victims are having to beg for a space of their own from a man who thinks they are a bigot for doing so is reminiscent of something out of a Dickens novel — it’s the literal on your knees with a begging bowl pleading “please sir can I have my single sex space”…
But he didn’t arrive in that job by default, he arrived by design..."

Exactly. I tend to find that even the ones who aren't actively bad are self absorbed to an unhealthy degree and have issues with empathy with others, especially women who are just unfeeling props in their lives to them (both sexes, "trans men" often do it to women due to hatred of what being female is). This gels with my belief that many have cluster B personality disorders or other mental health comorbidities. There are exceptions, of course.

I am also very hesitant to be so blanket generalising in my ‘but there are so many who are not ‘bad ones’ ‘ too. The reality is, many of those who are not ‘bad ones’ make use of the benefits that those extreme activists have now got put into place.

Yes, absolutely. The legal changes seem in most countries to have gone under the radar, presumably to avoid attracting much scrutiny. Then the media/policy/propaganda push.

Well when you consider Gillard made the changes to Oz discrimination act in 2013 after Yogyakarta, you have to start thinking that this was seeded so long before that.

The creation of the "trans child" also. Most people weren't interested in middle aged men in knickers but they were moved by slick propaganda like Jazz Jennings, I am Leo, Butterfly.

Yeah absolutely. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how comprehensively the aims were achieved. But as you point out, this has been many, many years in the seeding.

Also in America and other English speaking parts of the world laws were being passed and the media was fawning over the transgender zeitgeist.

The bulk of the problems date from the Trans Equality Inquiry in 2015 led by Maria Miller MP. This also coincided with Stonewall needing a new market and after a change of leadership deciding to campaign for "trans rights" when it had previously ignored them.

When I read people who write hypocritically about being kind while actively denigrating others, I think of that teacher that does the ‘gentle parenting’ style videos.

All about the kind and welcoming tone while delivering zingers.

I agree, in 2015 to 2017 it basically felt like women here were shouting into the void. Then mainstream (mostly print) media started to take an interest and both We Need to Talk (Venice Allan and others) and WPUK were set up.

But maybe because I have been in marketing and comms for decades, I reject this type of filtering instinctively.

Same.

It feels like 'tone' is the last bastion of people expecting GC's to be in the wrong, but ultimately unable to conclude that based on the arguments presented. When people can't find fault with what we're saying, they criticise the way it is said.

Yep.

You may find it interesting to link this excellent point with posts of Lang Clegg (late of this parish, banned for inconvenient speaking of uncomfortable truths), and their description of the sacred caste concept. Along with the history of safeguarding disasters when sacred castes become involved.

Yeah but he ticked all the DEI boxes, right?

The question I have is - how did it become so embedded that the side proclaiming TWAW were the 'good' or 'right' side? With zero scrutiny of their position.

I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity.

I've seen this many times before.

It feels like 'tone' is the last bastion of people expecting GC's to be in the wrong, but ultimately unable to conclude that based on the arguments presented. When people can't find fault with what we're saying, they criticise the way it is said.

Your reminder that campaigner of the year was so incompetent that the data protection policy was 7 years out of date and didn't include GDPR and that there was no employee handbook to help staff.

Never mind all the abusive stuff and illegal stuff.

He wasn't up to the job on a basic level.

Yes the worst thing about the ERCS debacle is the correct sexing misgendering of the man who caused raped women to be denied support. And accused those who objected of being racist and 'less marginalised' (than men with special feelings).

Nasty women, not speaking respectfully when our rights and even the very words used to describe us are taken from us and those in authority not only do nothing, but cheer on the thieves. Why must we be so shrill, and unkind?