To think that a Rape Crisis centre should not have a transwoman CEO?

[ArabellaScott]

Mridhul Wadhwa has just been appointed CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. The job was advertised as for women only. Mridhul is a transwoman (born male) without a Gender Recognition Certificate.

AIBU to think that women survivors of rape and sexual violence should be able to have a female only space?

theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/05/new-boss-for-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/

As my job would not be on the line then I absolutely would challenge MW's appointment face to face with anyone who supported it.
It's a sinister development, part of what seems to be a concerted campaign to position men at the front the spaces where women are at their most vulnerable. Now why would any reasonable man want to do this?

Thank you very much @ArabellaScott and @AfternoonToffee ❤️

BlitheringBlathers Im so sorry, there are no words x. There are people on here far more knowledgeable than me about refuges and pathways (Im not in the UK) and I hope that you and your child are able to find a way to be free.

Just because the exceptions can be used doesn’t mean they have to be.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

@Chev2021

I am always open to discussion and to changing my opinion, that's what healthly debate is about. And whilst I think some people have raised interesting points, the accusations made against me due to a difference in opinion are absolutley outrageous. You know nothing about me so to suggest that 'this doesn't affect me so I don't care' is offensive.

Also, to suggest in some way that this appointment will lead to events which compare to abuse is incredibly offensive.

I won't be reading any more of this and to be honest, I regret posting anything. It's clear that users simply want others to agree with their opinion and not go against that. Some of you (not all, of course) seriously need to consider what you would actually say to a person face to face and step away from being keyboard warriors.

I for one have said absolutely nothing on here that I wouldn’t say to MW face to face.

@Anovaneway

Just because the exceptions can be used doesn’t mean they have to be.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

But the exception was used at the application process, so what is the rationale for disregarding it at the hiring process? Is this lawful/in the spirit of the law?

@PoleToPole

BlitheringBlathers I`m so sorry, there are no words x. There are people on here far more knowledgeable than me about refuges and pathways (I`m not in the UK) and I hope that you and your child are able to find a way to be free.

Thank you so much. Tbh I'm feeling kind of resigned to this being it right now. And I'm feeling really angry and upset that women's services have been compromised in this way.

Chev2021: I sincerly hope that this opinion of the trans community fades out soon.

That is incredibly offensive. To take concerns raised over the character of one specific individual, deliberately misconstrue them and try to weaponise them and apply it to the entire trans community for your own ends, to prove your point? That is a revolting thing to do, take a look at your own transphobia before you throw stones at others.

@Anovaneway

Just because the exceptions can be used doesn’t mean they have to be.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

Some women would probably be fine, but do you not think if they have specifically asked for someone female then to present them with someone with a penis might make them uncomfortable and compound their distress?

I for one have said absolutely nothing on here that I wouldn’t say to MW face to face.

Me too. I’d absolutely tell them I think they’re a fraud.

Blithering Im so sorry, you deserve so very much more. You shouldnt have to be resigned to anything, its a doubly cruel situation x

@Anovaneway

Just because the exceptions can be used doesn’t mean they have to be.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

It isn't about assuming anything, some traumatised women won't have an issue with males being included in single sex female services but others will have an issue with it.

@Anovaneway

Just because the exceptions can be used doesn’t mean they have to be.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

Its an exemption in law, not an *exception".

"Exception" indicates something unusual, "exemption" indicates something standard and frequently applied.

The appointment decision here is exceptionally unusual and not in line with the legal exemption, and I cannot see how it can be justified in the circumstances.

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman. Or would be unhappy to work with her.

I think you'll find the concerns are that some would.

And they are being painted as unacceptably wrong and immoral to be unable to accept MW in this post as MW would like, based on MW wishing the inclusion of male born people into all women situations.

Two issues. Male born people's needs are not more important than female people's needs, do not take automatic priority, and female only services are needed by some female people, regardless of whether male people are happy about it. Services for female people cannot be in the gift of male people to permit or withhold based on how happy male people feel about it, for obvious reasons of sexism.

Second issue: if there was mutual respect and tolerance, ie that mixed sex and trans inclusive services were provided alongside female only single sex services, with intersectional understanding that some female people need single sex to mean single sex and this is not an act of aggression or immorality, there would be no problem. Women would never have had to have stand up for their boundaries if this had been the case. Single sex services are being intentionally targeted and removed, regardless of the cost to vulnerable female people who need them, because male born people do not want female people to be allowed them. This is not ok. Scolding women for noticing and minding about this is rather like getting reproachful and stating your rights to stand as and where you like when someone asks you if you'd kindly get off their foot because you're standing on it.

There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’ or that accepting a trans woman as a woman in a position of employment means that you have to accept all males. Where does it actually say that?

It is implicit in the reality that MTF trans people without a GRC are legally "men". So if you use the sex based exemption for genuine occupational requirement for a female it should apply to all legal men, you can't pick and choose.

Thank you @PoleToPole I have in the past thought a lot about persuading OH to agree to me doing a college course and getting a job as that would improve my situation. So I think I need to get myself into a better frame of mind and work towards that.

Sorry to derail the thread though

Great post, redapplewreath

Some of you also seem to assume that most vulnerable women would not see or accept MW as a woman.
Or would be unhappy to work with her.

Christ alive.
Some women might be, some might not. It is not about whether some women are ok with it, its about the right to choose a natal female if they need to. Again, its about what is best for the traumatised, suffering patient/service user and what helps them the most.

Would you say to a combat veteran with PTSD that they should be fine with a fireworks display just because some other veterans are? Trauma creates a multitude of different triggers, that`s why it should always be for the patient/service user to choose what they are comfortable with.

@MNHQ why was my post deleted? There was nothing about trans people in it, it was about TRA’s and the abuse they inflict on women. Or do you now not believe women experience violence aimed at them from TRA’s because I can send you over a thousand screen shots of their violence and abuse towards women and how strongly they believe women deserve that violence and abuse if you need

Some women would probably be fine, but do you not think if they have specifically asked for someone female then to present them with someone with a penis might make them uncomfortable and compound their distress?

This ^

One woman. Just one abused woman who asks for support from a female only, who is put in the care of a trans woman and feels uncomfortable - who then has the choice of making fuss or swallowing their feelings - is one too many. We shouldn't be putting women in that position. It shouldn't be down to a service user to take that on.

It was clearly deemed an important enough issue for them to stipulate 'female only' on the job description, so they need to show their reasoning for that exception and also the reason why they decided that initial decision didn't matter after all.

MW may be the CEO and have a less public facing role, but they set the tone and policies for the whole organisation, so it does matter. That and the thorough disappointment I feel that out of all of the talented and compassionate women in this field, not one was deemed a better fit than someone born male. These places are supposed to be founded on feminist principles and putting a man at the top sends a really crappy message.

A transwoman without a GRC is legally male rather than female for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. This was confirmed in R (Green) v SSFJ:
"The claimant is a man seeking to become a woman – but he is still of the male gender and a male prisoner. He is in a male prison and until there is a Gender Recognition Certificate, he remains male."

Sorry I should have made clear that was in response to "There’s nothing to say trans women have to be excluded from ‘woman’"

If the job could go to someone who isn't a woman biologically or legally, why did they specify otherwise? Is there an even deeper agenda, trying to keep off competition from men?

I think exception is correct, an exception is where the rule (of GRC holder being the opposite sex) does not apply, but that it would in other circumstances.
Exemption is where it does normally apply, but has been suspended in certain circumstances.
So, a GRC confers opposite-sex status to its holder in circumstances except single-sex service provision. Single-sex provision is not an exemption that needs to be applied for. Legal feminist Naomi Cunningham made these points to Women’s and Equalities Select Committee during her evidence on GRA reform.