New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

I suspect people who argue so much have never actually faced real discrimination or threats in their life. Otherwise they would understand fear.

And this constant fucking with words.

Attacked used to mean and still does to most people, real life violence.

It certainly does to me, if you mean attacked verbally it needs to be obvious "her views were attacked",

I definitely would keep it for physical attacks though, because otherwise it just spreads confusion.

During the #SixWords campaign, I got into a few arguments online with young women who were against the amendment. They all kept parrotting that rape victims shouldn't "punch down" by asking for a female doctor to do the medical examination.

There seems to be a strenge lack of understanding of what patient-centred care means. Even at the best of times, you should be entitled to ask for a different HCP. As if a transgender medical examiner could ever be the most vulnerable person in the room when a woman reports that someone has raped her. I feel furious all over again, just remembering the discussions.

Fucking hell. Are all word meanings up for grabs now?

Yes. Unless it means sending graphic rape and death threats to women online, then all of a sudden it isn't so important, it's on "both sides" and we're petty to even mention it.

The worst part is, we should have expected this. It makes sense in a horrible way that having begun to achieve equality, we would see this kind of obscene pushback.

But also can you imagine 20 years ago writing in all seriousness: "men will use the Internet to reprogramme the real world; they will normalise extreme porn; they will redefine the word 'women' to a set of stereotypes or feelings; they will say that men can be lesbians without a hint of humour and take over organisations like Stonewall; they will publicly shut down women's resources including web forums and refuges; they will take over and remove women's single sex facilities ... AND a sizable group of women will loudly cheerlead them on the whole goddamn time."

It's bonkers.

I don’t think it’s a fuck you to ‘t*rfs’ I think it’s a fuck you to women’s services. I think there is some deeply disturbed individuals at the top of this that don’t want women to be made a priority in specialist services. Rape crisis centres and women’s refuges have been under attack for years. In the past when you walked in to a women’s rape crisis centre it would have been full of women - now there will be men walking around who don’t even need to try to look like women. Our safe spaces no longer exist. It will ultimately stop women from accessing these services. Job done. We will end up with services for men who have been attacked by men.

I still cannot believe they lumped BAME WOMEN in with trans women as if they are not actually female and a separate entity - divide and conquer.

A year or so ago I would of assumed there was a man at the top of this making the decisions. Now I’m not so sure.

GC attacks?

It wasn't GC women who vandalised the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre, spray painted abuse and threats to "T*s" all over it and nailed a dead rat to the door

So who are women and girls to them?

If s female person has no gender id or has never heard of the concept, their services are not for them?

What about all the rape threats though :/

i don't think they see "t**fs" as potential future or current service users. We're not really women to them. Just a homogenous mass of oppressive, powerful bigots, and they're standing up for the underdog in the form of their new CEO.

They really don't believe any woman subjected to sexual violence could have a genuine problem with a transwoman as a rape counsellor.

Maybe?

But their focus should always be first and foremost on the people the they exist to help.

How can they have overlooked their whole reason for being in existence?

Honestly, I think what they are doing is a deliberate gesture at the "t**fs".

In their heads, they're being strong and unyielding in the face of intimidation from bigots. Not saying that's what I think, but that's how I think they see it.

I have worked for plenty of companies large small. Private sector, 3rd sector. Public sector was before the internet

The social media/ anything to press etc etc is managed so incredibly tightly.

I don't get it. It's just bafflingly incompetent.

Before you even get to the other stuff.

Silly sods.

Post gets criticism. Delete. Repost ignoring points about racism. Or the phrase 'exciting time''being really fucking weird wording for what a rape crisis centre is doing at the moment.

Critical comments just gather on the post underneath instead.

I genuinely don't get it.

Why not respond to criticism? Say. Can see some people don't like this but they are best person for job because xyz. Really good plans for outreach or whatever. Etc etc.

Why delete the post when it's all going to archived, as if that makes it never have happened?

Why repost with exact same wording- racist and exciting time?

Why not put something out to reassure those who need the service that despite the recent press hooha they are confidential, caring and of course both male and female victims will only receive support from someone they are comfy with, whether it's sex or any other reason

And so on and so on.

I don't get it at all. Who the fuck is running their messaging? It's just s fail whichever way you look. Not advocating for their new hire. Not reassuring current or potential service users.

What are they even doing???

Well put NiceGerbil. They either don’t know about the Vancouver incident , one of many unfortunately or don’t give a shit! I recently read a bit about Paisley’s mother and frankly I think she would not be impressed at all by her son’s stance.

So another thing sorry.

When I read earlier that 'GC women were attacking rape crisis centres' it conjured up in my head, well. A physical attack on the centres. Bricks through windows etc.

I thought it sounded a bit unlikely.

So we have male people on the internet using the word 'attack' to mean... Words on a screen?

Fucking hell. Are all word meanings up for grabs now?

And in the real world who carries out the most attacks? In the way most people understand it. Blokes, that's who. Whether it's police attacked at a football match (the other day), a random sexual assault, a young person carrying out a stabbing, or an act of arson. It's pretty much always always chaps.

Is this the new incarnation of. Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them. Kind of thing.

And this constant fucking with words.

Attacked used to mean and still does to most people, real life violence.

Terrorist attack
Shoppers were attacked by a man with a knife
The crowd attacked the police
Etc etc

For men to use this word, in relation to women reacting to things that they think are bad with criticism on the internet. Is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

And they say women are hysterical/ prone to exaggeration etc....

Hmmmmmmmm.

The issue does include other males for from a logical/ legal perspective.

They used the EA single sex exemption in the advert.
That allows for orgs to advertise roles as women/ men applicants only (with that defined as female/ male) if there is a good reason. People who have a GRC, for the purposes of these roles, are not included in the group they have transitioned to. This is because the exemption is exercised only in the most sensitive of circumstances.
In the case of this rape crisis centre, they exercised this exemption (as many do) to invite only applications from people of the female sex.

In this case they advertised for female/women (in the EA act they are both meaning female sex) due to the nature of the role/ service.

They have hired a person who is a male and has no GRC. even if s GRC was held this person would still not be eligible as this is one of the few situations where the nature of the role is such that even a transwoman with a GRC is excluded from the role. And this is very rare. When it is invoked it is around women and girls who have experienced crime/ abuse such that the EA says well in this case the needs of the service users outweigh anything else.

To advertise a job using that EA exemption means it is clear that applications from males even ones who have transitioned and have a GRC are not invited, will not be considered.

Giving this job to a transwoman with no GRC breaches the exemption they invoked themselves.

And so yes it is discriminatory towards males (including non binary) and transwomen with or without a GRC who might have applied but read the job description and didn't because it was only open to females.

That is basic sex discrimination. A male got the job even though the and said males need not apply.

There is also the massive issue that they used the EA single sex exemption to invite only female applicants and then gave the job to a trans woman.

Who has no GRC (not that that would have made them eligible anyway) and a load of dodgy behaviour in their past which is public record.

Yes it is discriminatory against men. Because a male got the job even though the and said the job wasn't open to males.

Have found the ad for Board Members from earlier this year.

The attached Equality & Diversity monitoring form for Edinburgh Rape Crisis conflates gender/gender identity and fails to record sex.

'Sex Not Gender' website explains the issues with this:
www.sexnotgender.info/

I dunno why they would welcome applications from transwomen if they invoke the exception.
Do they not understand the exception?

Have found the ad for Board Members from earlier this year.

It says you dont have to be qualified - they will provide training!

Ad also clearly says Board Members should be women as allowed under the EA.

www.ercc.scot/get-involved/board/

The list of the current board members is at the bottom of this page.

www.ercc.scot/about-us/meet-the-team/

And 2) other male-bodied people have potentially been disadvantaged by being discouraged from applying because of the wording of the ad.

I dont think the issue is other males.

the issue is the advertised (legally) a women only post. Those women who applied and are qualified for the job are the ones being discriminated against.

And I posted earlier today (as didothers) complaints should go to the funders of this post, the Charity commission they are registered to and also Rape Crisis Scotland (assuming they are an affiliated member which I presume they are as they set the standard of service within RCCs).

Additionally if anyone is worried about what is said on twitter(*), no one is attaching RCCs. They are attacking unelected Trustees who are undermining the work of trained employees and volunteers, and of course the women who use the service.

No sane person would think criticising a MC is criticising the organisation. Nearly everybody knows that MCs are the weak point of most voluntary sector groups.

(*) twitter in now one of the least used social media platform having fallen from 12th to 15th.

Twitter only has an impact when and if main stream media takes notice. Otherwise you are doing little more than going down to some dingy pub where drunks regularly have punch ups. And 99.9% of people either aren't aware or just ignore.

What the actual fuck?