New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

And then we have Nicola Sturgeon announcing single sex services are not at risk...

Abuser tactics 101.

Of all the jobs in the world this is the one they have chosen to apply for.

How is no one questioning the motivation of someone born male deliberately targeting working at a senior level in a charity whose sole purpose is to help women at the most vulnerable time in their life? Women who above all want to be protected from men. How is no one questioning the motivation of someone who just in the act of applying for the job has shown that they consider themselves to be more important than their service users?

Male bodied people in women’s prisons.

Lesbians being told they must sleep with male bodied people.

Children having surgery.

Women being told not to talk about it or a) accuse them of hate crime, b) rape threat, c) death threat.

Remove women’s services at rape suppprt centers.

The thing that bothers me here I think that has been alluded to is about the nature of the service and the people they want to help.

There's a lot of trust in there. Rape crisis is a well known and trusted org. When you're looking for help and may have taken time to get yourself to take the step, you want an org that you trust to look after you.

Most rape victims are women. Even where services are open to men and children as well, I would put money on most of them wanting to talk to a woman. Firstly because they are overwhelmingly likely to have been the victim of a man, and also because women are seen as kinder more understanding etc. Also there's the aspect for women and girls that many feel a strong preference to see a female for anything personal.

This centre knew that this would contraversial. They knew that a lot of people wouldn't like it and would make that known. That as a TW this appointment would attract press coverage etc.

This surely would make victims think twice about going there? Just because of all this noise? Which is nothing to do with their core purpose. Which they should be avoiding distraction from.

I think it's reasonable for orgs to avoid a contraversial person even if they are qualified because that takes over from what they want to do which presumably is give the message they are all about victims of sexual violence.

So even before you get onto the other points raised on this thread, it seems like a strange decision.

My conclusion is this is a political/ pointed move and nothing to do with anything else. They wanted this to be a move that caused friction, arguments etc. But why? Why would a rape crisis centre be in the business of courting controversy like this?

I don't get how it's okay that they very specifically refuse service to non-trans men and only non-trans men. They're a small minority of victims of rape, but how can you justify excluding them if you'll happily provide support to other people who you define as men (though they may not be biologically male) and other people who are biologically male (though they may not want to be considered men)?

@stumbledin
Part of their role will be to comment on issues eg the appointment of a self identifying trans woman to a rape crisis centre offering women only services.

Is what I was responding to. I thought that was a reference to MWs appointment at ERCC? Or did Rape Crisis in England also just appoint a self-identifying transwoman as CEO? Wow. Mind blown.

PlanDeRaccordement - if you are replying about my most recent post please re-read. I have spelt it out a number of times. I am talking about the appointment of the new CEO of Rape Crisis in ENGLAND, ie the coordinating group for the network of Rape crisis centres and helplines in ENGLAND.

Although for both appointments the relevance about it being women is because the majority of services are for women. they are women's organisation who have taken up the work load that dozy lazy men didn't get of their backsides to arrange for men who have been raped. Ditto trans women.

It is outrageous that yet again women are expected to put their needs aside and instead of having a service based on mutual experience and having to expend their energy to adapt and take on men.

This is part of eroding the right of women to organise autonomously and of course tying women down to always be the support for others, never for themselves.

Bad enough that the trans community, men and funders disregard women's expressed preferences, but deeply saddened when other women join in with the WATM mantra.

Yes indeed. What about the men who never ever do anything positive or proactive but moan on and on about how women aren't supporting them.

This is absolutely unbelievable to me. So, so depressing.

@stumbledin
But the ERCC doesn’t offer women only services...

“We offer free and confidential emotional and practical support, information and advocacy to women, all members of the trans community, non-binary people and young people aged 12-18 in Edinburgh, East and Midlothian, who have experienced sexual violence at any time in their lives. This includes, rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.”

The point I was making about the new appointment to Rape Crisis England - which is the federation of rape crisis centres it is exceedingly odd not to mention women. This is because the federation was formed out of the need for women's services, that currenlty women's services are under attack. It is not "just management". It is absolutely vital that this organisation (as with Women's Aid England) has a clear and principled stand on women only services. And should not be frightened to say so.

It is shameful. Part of their role will be to comment on issues eg the appointment of a self identifying trans woman to a rape crisis centre offering women only services.

Seriously disturbing not to understand that.

Why would anyone think it is just "management".

50% income from government bodies and 50% from other very big charities.

That explains the lobbying and selfie with Sturgeon.

*the poll, not "three"

Thread in AIBU has 87% of 1124 in three poll agreeing that no male at all should be CEO of a rape crisis centre. I imagine it would be higher in the specific case of MW.

The thought processes that go along with this ideology are a malignancy attacking the sex-based rights of women. That this was considered an appropriate decision is absurd beyond words.

MW's qualifications as a counsellor are one thing, but the expectation that a natal male should be the CEO of a rape crisis centre is unacceptable.

The other ceo.
fair enough, my apologies

Kellie-Jay has commented on this appointment and she is bloody angry.

Rape crisis for fucks sake.

Apply this to an all girls school, women’s prison, a social services children’s home. A person that lied to get in has risen to the top and now has influence over all decisions, culture and policy.

If this person can, why not any person with any level of surgery or any style of dress. How can they say no to anyone else.

She knows female biology though. I knew her through sensible bf groups and mutual friends.

The other ceo. However, I've lost touch with her so don't know her actual thoughts on this area. We have mutual friends. Never seen her comment on anything SM wise but I'm sure she's a trained lawyer so she will be careful either way.

From 2017 to 2020 ERCC's income doubled. Interesting - change in the business model? Or maybe a jump in funding due to Covid? Anyway, almost all the income in 2020 (just over £800K) is from grants/SLAs from local or national government or other charities, NOT donations (donations were only £40K. Doesn't seem a great hit rate for donations but don't know what's typical).

The single biggest funder in 2020 is the Scottish Government, naturally - about 40% of their grant income is directly from SG. The single biggest grants by value are from the lottery (£170K) and Comic Relief (£86K). Overall the income splits out as (very roughly) about 50% income from government bodies and 50% from other very big charities.

Interestingly there was a small grant from JKR's charity, the Volant Trust!

Basically, ERCC would not have a hope of continuing to function as the organisation they have become without the government money. The lack of financial independence from government is a huge problem for these kinds of charities I think. From a financial and delivery perspective, it would almost be more accurate to say they are arms' length bodies of government. Which is not necessarily a comfortable place to be for a social charity.