New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

archive.ph/6KCGN

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4188850-TRAs-apparently-cancelled-GoFundMe-for-Vancouver-Rape-Relief

Yep I clocked that thanks jacopo. Yes people in Scotland should write to them.

Not saying otherwise.

Just... With the GG nothing worked. Even though they broke loads of stuff. No one seems to care. Even regulators etc. Really upsetting.

I get really frustrated with "attack" to mean "disagree with in writing".

I thought it was a bit weird for women who have spent years writing emails, submissions to consultations, speaking to MPs to suddenly start being physically aggressive, it's not really our way of doing things.

NiceGerbil, great posts thank you. As you say, it would be expensive to take them to court, but complaining to OSCR, who regulate charities in Scotland, costs nothing. Leafstamp gave the link to their complaints form a few posts back.

Sorry for multiple posts had a lot to say!

This attacking rape crisis centres that was mentioned, I took it to mean vandalising / rallying outside like they do outside abortion centres and shouting abuse

I was a bit surprised! Can I just check if anyone knows what is meant by GCs attacking rape crisis centres. I just realised- do they mean saying stuff on Twitter etc?

So in short.

Yes ERC have broken the law. They have discriminated against applicants on the basis of sex, they have not applied the exemption they stated in the as.

Additionally, they knew this would be a very contraversial hire that would attract attention in the media etc. Rape victims need to trust. Having this in the papers etc would put victims off contacting them I am sure. So why did they do it? Why a massive political statement, cost to their reputation amongst a fair amount of women (their core client group), the fact they are visible and contraversial putting victims off as who wants to take about a sensitive personal experience to an org who are getting lots of attention over something that has nothing to do with their remit?

And then of course the racism. The deleting to get rid of criticism and then reposting ignoring the criticism. I wouldn't see that as the behaviour of an org I could trust with something deeply personal and deeply upsetting.

In short. What the fuck are they thinking?

Their charter as a charity is all about girls and opportunities and of course the exemption to be single sex.

So they have broken the EA, breached their charter, swerved the idea that there might be safeguarding implications. They have lied about always being single gender not sex. And very importantly they have not made it explicit to parents etc that they are single gender not sex, and of course the vast majority of people in the UK assume they are single sex.

They have sacked at least one leader for challenging this and others have left.

This is the behaviour of a long established, respected org that thousands of girls have got an awful lot from in their 100 year+ history.

ERCC: we’re going to employ a transwoman, a specific one we have in mind, but to make the recruitment process inclusive we’ll invoke a single-sex exception so no other transwoman can apply. That seems a proportionate means of —recruiting Mridul Wadhwa— achieving a legitimate aim*

*recruiting Mridul Wadhwa, twice stated to press the point

For clarity: this is irony and not a statement of fact.

Problems.

Laws exist but people don't just go along with them, they have to be enforced. eg illegal to sack a woman because she's pregnant, but happens to thousands of women every year.

If the laws aren't upheld spontaneously, then the recourse is court. Very very expensive. And stressful etc.

We have individual women having to take orgs including the NHS to court to get the law enforced, and the civil service etc are fighting them. When what they have done is illegal in law.

So that's a bit of a problem.

The other point is that this is the same situation as girl guides, really.

GG it turned out had changed from a single sex org to a single gender org.
They claimed they had always been single gender not single sex (really? A B-P set it up as single gender not single sex in 1910? We are supposed to believe that????!!).

Charity rules - they have a single sex exemption due to girls needing something separate from boys in these circs due to female oppression etc etc.

By changing to single gender they are:

Discriminating against some male children, as some are acceptable but not others
Discriminating against some female children who have a gender id that is not 'girl'. (Not sure what they're doing in practice. Initially they were going to suggest to non binary girls that they look elsewhere. I suspect they have no clear policies).
Discriminating against girls who are not allowed to go to mixed sex activities (often due to religion, could be other reasons).
Safeguarding. Groups like scouts are mixed and their safeguarding takes this into account. Guides said there was no need to review their (single sex) policies as trans girls are girls...??!! Camping changing everything no need to review. That's just s statement I couldn't quite believe. GG rangers are 14 to 18... I mean wtf tbh

•A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

It's written out there in the law, so very clearly. The potential 'distress' is right there, acknowledged.

When you think about it, it's almost like someone looked at the Equality Act and set out to dismantle the examples specifically. As if that would then undermine the Act itself.

They are hiring someone who does not meet their own criteria, they exercise their right to advertise to/ hire only females.

In hiring someone who is not female. Whether with a GRC or otherwise. They are discriminating against other males who may have wanted to apply but did not due to the female only nature of the role.

I also wonder where they would have internally drawn the line. Would a person who self IDs as a woman, but does not present as a woman have been acceptable? That sort of thing. The line which was sex is now blurred by this leaving it open across the sector if it stands.

Should bring them here fandangos.

This is where it’s at

The brilliant women learning us all what being a women is all about

On the illegality aspect. This is a real problem.

The EA has clear situations where a role can be advertised and offered to only male people or female people.

Examples.
This centre had used the female only exemption.
There are I'm sure charities and orgs that use this for male candidates only. Maybe something supporting young gay men? Not sure not my area but it is there if needed.

This job ad used the female only exemption. Inviting female applicants only.

These exemptions are GRC irrelevant. Even if you have a GRC eg FTM then the org can exclude you from the candidates as they have specified male.

That's the law.

So this happens and it's illegal.

Truth thank you for that.

For me though this is about language, law, class stuff.

I'm a person who streams in (sense of self preservation a bit wonky!) and I don't think about who what etc.

It's not about thinking well if it was a gay man or a black man I would but for this person I wouldn't. That's got nothing to do with it.

None of this is about turning your back on an individual who is being attacked etc.

I'm interested how that was how you saw it iyswim and why for you it's I would (female socialisation) but now I would think twice (politics) when it comes to an individual being attacked?

Littlebrowndog - sorry by that I mean they are openly very pro- women, almost anti-men, always willing to publicly call out unfairness and poor male behaviours, especially due to male egos in the workplace, put up posts such as ‘smash the patriarchy’ etc

For anyone unsure about what I'm referencing, it's the constant and unrelenting attacks on Vancouver Rape Relief.

Fandagoes

What’s a staunch feminist then ?

I’m not being goady, I’m genuinely interested in the other side of the viewpoint so I can try and u sweat and other peoples points of view

I really do t understand how anyone can find this acceptable. I have friends who are intelligent women and vocally staunch feminists and yet they support snp and believe TWAW and I just cannot get my head around how they reconcile all of that. I don’t want to ask because I value their friendships and can accept that we have different views. But can anyone that also feels like that explain how they can be a strong vocal supporter of women’s rights and yet think this is ok, also why you dont think the snp are bad for women

twitter.com/DavidPaisley/status/1389560737081790470

"Do GCs not take a minute to think how un-feminist and harmful it is to attack a crisis cent—ok never mind. Of course they don’t. So much for “protecting women and girls”."

"This is the hundredth time they've attacked a rape crisis center. They've actually been part of the reason a few have closed. They've yet to realize they are the baddies."

"You'd think that the gender criticult would realise that when they're attacking a rape crisis centre they miiight just be in the wrong."

transgender woman without a Gender Recognition cert got the job

I could be wrong, but I believe that in the case the exception used meant that they needed to employ a woman irrespective of GRC.