Mridul Wadhwa and Rape Crisis Scotland.

The sex based power system in play that enables the enforcement of one set of voices, values and benefits over another is painfully obvious.

And demonstrates exactly why it is so essential that sex based provisions for females are protected in law, as they are always inevitably subordinated to the perspectives, preferences, benefit and dominant narratives of the male sex when in mixed sex situations.

Rather than focusing on the individual the important issue is the disregard in policies for the exemptions and the act of asking the excluded cohort if they agree with the exclusion rather than the cohort for whom the exclusion was originally designed to help. Other wise it's dismissed as a personal attack .

Sometimes I just despair. Women who have been subjected to violence and sexual assault having their concerns blown off in favour of those who are not natal women.
I think of Detroit struggling to find somewhere she feels safe and the Vancover rape crisis centre being defunded because it is women only and women being called vulva havers or menstrators and I feel so angry and helpless and desperate.
I contribute to crowd funding and write letters but it feels too little. Maybe we should copy the Polish women, though at my age that could be a trifle difficult.

It's despicable.

and now Womens' Officer in their local SNP branch

If this individual had a shred of compassion they would resign from their role and allow a qualified woman to take over. I don't understand how the person who gave them the job can't now rescind the job offer, seeing as they withheld information on the application form....its just doesn't make sense.

There was lots of discussions here about the orgs and people who contributed to Maria Miller's enquiry. It may be worth a new thread for newer posters if anyone is interested. I'm a bit busy to start that but some of the women's organisations have done some analysis and shared it on their sites.

If you look through threads generally around refuges you will find accounts by MNetters who attended meetings with refuge staff where they tried to discuss their need for single sex facilities and the distress and harm being caused to them by staff determined to champion mixed sex facilities as more inclusively progressive.

One MNetter described that by the end of the meeting many of the women were in tears. Staff were interested only in the inclusion of people born male in the services and refuges and had no interest whatsoever in what the female born people were saying, expressing or sharing other than to dismiss it as wrong. Afterwards those staff (I believe this included area management) stated openly that no female born service users had ever raised any issues with them, so denying those women, their voices or that meeting ever existed.

When you have staff and managers who are male born and therefore have a personal stake in this perceived inclusiveness, the fairness to female born people and their voices becomes highly questionable. And that would be if those people and their voices were allowed to even be heard, never mind listened to and supported in the way that male born service users are.

Great find, Escapeplanning.

Wadhwa was invited to contribute to Maria Miller's 2016 enquiry.

See page 31 where they said the genuine occupational requirement that allows women only jobs is

"discriminatory to transsexual people especially trans women. I genuinely believe that there is no space for it in the gender-based violence sector and that it has no place in violence against women work. I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago. I have worked in the violence against women sector since 2005 and have never known for it to be used. I am disappointed to think that someone has the right to refuse work to me and others like me in my sector just because they think that I might not be a woman."

Link to document here.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

This isn't on the Twitter thread.

It is a shocking situation.

I too fear this thread will be pulled, even though it is clearly in the public interest to discuss whether it is right that an individual, should have disclosed being trans identifying but not holding (and furthermore, as a foreign national, being unable to apply for) a GRC, was able to apply for a job which clearly states an equalities Act exemption limiting applications to those of a particular sex.

And whether, given that screen grabs of the application form are available which show applicants were explicitly asked whether they were trans, the failure to disclose was accidental or deliberate.

(illegally on an AWS)

The thread will be deleted as you are not allowed to talk about trans individuals - even if they hold positions, including political positions, that harm women or have been appointed to illegally.