Men welcome to counsel women who've suffered violence and sexual assault

There definitely are perps who would go to work on refuges etc handed the chance. This must be like Christmas for abusers

Yes, I'm sure there will be no background checks at all.

Ahhh thank you SheWhoMustBeSilent - Scotland are on the über-woke path then.

AM I wrong, or is the job ad in direct conflict with the requirements of the Equality Act?

The Equality Act 2010 provides for Exceptions, wherein in this instance, a transsexual can be excluded. [See Schedule 9, part 1, subsection 1.]

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

Kairos is not invoking that Exception.

This is likely to be because Kairos is in Scotland, it is forced to comply with avoiding that Exception in order to receive any funding from government sources.

AM I wrong, or is the job ad in direct conflict with the requirements of the Equality Act?

Actually I can see that non-binary females may need some support, perhaps more likely to be traumatised and rejecting their sex, but not males.

Kairos Women's Space Twitter bio:

Renfrewshire's second home for women & non-binary people 💕 #womensupportingwomen ---- @ACommunities project"

Looks like this is a "women's space" that excludes actual women who know what a woman is:

twitter.com/Kairos_women

Lots of Pronouns and Colour-me-Queer in the Followers List:
twitter.com/kairos_women/followers

It is an "Active Communities Project"

www.activecommunities.co.uk/

"Welcome to Active Communities! We’re based in Paisley and deliver and support physical activity, community sport and health and wellbeing across Renfrewshire."

Active Communities - "Our People"

www.activecommunities.co.uk/content/our-team/

No comment . . .

cc. @forwomenscot

SheWhoMustBeSilent.

Kairos do not have to include non binary or male born people who identify as trans unless they have a GRC. A vanishingly small number of people who identify as trans have one. This is nothing to do with the Equality Act and everything to do with acting like self ID is already law.

But I agree with you about funding though. The Scottish government provides the lion's share of funding to transgender lobby groups in Scotland, whose primary remit is err ... to lobby the Scottish government.

Thanks namechanging, I’m a child of the 70s and naively thought our lot was improving but it seems like the disregard reserved for women was actually always there in the shadows, now it’s openly being feted.

It's a way of stopping women going to these services.

And winding them down.

It's all a money saving exercise.

@namechanging2019

That extract is from a 2004 document:

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/transgender_booklet_2004.pdf

Please note that this post is open to women only under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1 (inclusive of non-binary people, trans and intersex women.)

What does this even mean?

They quote the equality act, presumably to indicate that it's legal to be single sex - and then let in the world and his dog!!!

Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9

Part 1, para 1.3:

(3) The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a requirement to have a protected characteristic are to be read—

(a) in the case of gender reassignment, as references to a requirement not to be a transsexual person (and section 7(3) is accordingly to be ignored);

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

This para specifically permits exclusion of those who have protection via gender reassignment.

It seems likely, given that this is in Scotland, that Kairos is forced to include in order to receive its funding.

No, this is simply wrong; I’m not eloquent enough to convey the anger and despair it makes me feel.
A vulnerable, traumatised woman who needs to develop boundaries to keep herself safe and rebuild her life does not need to be ‘supported’ in a supposed safe place by a biological man, however they identify. Not unless they want to be triggered left right and centre.
What they need is the Freedom programme but what they risk is being used as part of someone’s role play.
This is a predictable consequence of an ideology that repeatedly tramples over women’s rights and as always the vulnerable will suffer the most.
I’m hoping I’ve actually got this wrong and the centre will not expect vulnerable women to be used in this way. I hope I am.

Really. As usual it comes to mind: someone with the experience and skills to understand traumatised, abused women and to do the job which involves putting their needs first....

…. would be concerned about putting women in this position in the first place.

I'm sure there are TW who are fantastic at their jobs in this role. However once it involves not allowing women a choice as to freedom of belief, or choice of sex of professional, or the ability to voice discomfort and state reality/set boundaries.... that directly prevents the job being done.

Yeah what happens if the woman to be counselled doesn't share the belief of the person wishing to counsel that they are a woman?

You think it would be obvious that gaslighting a traumatised woman isn't conducive to healing but it seems it's bigotted to think this way.

I'd much rather have a counsellor who is a man and knows he's a man than a counsellor who "identifies" as a woman.

Yep.

I'd much rather have a counsellor who is a man and knows he's a man than a counsellor who "identifies" as a woman.

Somehow "identifying as" and "empathising with" seem to be mutually exclusive.

it is a fact that men with a sexual interest in talking to/ involvement with/ performing of women and sexual assault for their own fetishistic purposes seek out involvement in such services

Good point Name , are we also sure that a woman requesting an actual female won't just be denied service but will be reported for 'hate speech' ?

And are women warned about this before accessing the service so they can make an informed decision about this risk? And is there sign posting for women whose needs preclude them from being able to work with a male born counsellor to a service that actually is female only? (You know, as opposed to just excluding them from provision as a more 'inclusive' way of operating.)