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/

@CirclesWithinCircles

I also wonder whether theres a safegarding issue here, where people who change gender also change their name, and don't disclose their previous name when applying for jobs.

I remember there being discussions around this a while back (there was campaigns for transpeople to not have to declare their previous name) At the same time a certain child murderer was rumoured to be wanting to change gender / name. The irony that the system was completely overhauled as a consequence of this event and that this individual could potentially abuse a new loophole was somewhat lost on those calling for the change.

Sorry didn't see R0's post before posting myself.

It will only end when enough women take a stand on behalf of those women who need single sex services and spaces whether rape counselling, hospital wards, intimate care, prisons, bail hostels, refuges, breast screening clinics, menopause services, changing rooms or toilets.

It is easy for women in refuges, prisons and mental health wards to be overlooked and ignored because we do not see them and as a society we do not care. These are the people we should care most about because their settings are being targeted precisely because they're the last women people listen to. You won't hear much about them on the news because editorial judgements will be made that the average viewer doesn't care enough. This is the reason these spaces are at the centre of this debate because it is easier to go unnoticed in ignored and unprioritised spaces. It is easier to push boundaries and gain ground if it happens by stealth - so that by the time ALL spaces are unisex and ALL roles are appropriate for allcomers the argument will be "but it's been like that in xyz settings for years", and no one will have bothered to pay attention to what women in those settings think or feel about it.

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

It will only end when enough women take a stand on behalf of those women who need single sex services and spaces whether rape counselling, hospital wards, intimate care, prisons, bail hostels, refuges, breast screening clinics, menopause services, changing rooms or toilets.

It is easy for women in refuges, prisons and mental health wards to be overlooked and ignored because we do not see them and as a society we do not care. These are the people we should care most about because their settings are being targeted precisely because they're the last women people listen to. You won't hear much about them on the news because editorial judgements will be made that the average viewer doesn't care enough. This is the reason these spaces are at the centre of this debate because it is easier to go unnoticed in ignored and unprioritised spaces. It is easier to push boundaries and gain ground if it happens by stealth - so that by the time ALL spaces are unisex and ALL roles are appropriate for allcomers the argument will be "but it's been like that in xyz settings for years", and no one will have bothered to pay attention to what women in those settings think or feel about it.

Agree, this chipping away at women's rights starting with the most vulnerable is abhorrent.

Particularly at a time when, due to covid, women have not been able to take a stand.

Time to start acting about this is now.

What can we do?

@656times

What can we do?

Fill out that form upthread.

Talk about it in real life... focus on the law aspect rather than the TWAren'tW aspect.

Email your MP.

Keep on saying no!

@RobinMoiraWhite shame on you for that question. You are a lawyer. One who is shortly due to be published on this subject. You know precisely where those words are clearly, explicitly stated.

But thank you! Now anyone lurking who has not yet found their voice can see just how disingenuous some people can be on the subject and the precise wording and explanation of the EA2010 that you - the ‘Go to’ lawyer for trans matters - claim to be unaware of!

You have done yourself, and other transwomen, some reputational damage with that!

Indeed, Curious*.

The phrase 'hoist by your own petard' springs to mind.

You have to ask why prisons were 'strategised' by Scottish Trans Alliance, to ensure that transwomen were allowed in the female prisons (James Morton in record saying so) and now rape crisis centres are being selected for leadership by transwomen.

All places with vulnerable women.

Why?

Why not aim for being the CEO of Morrisons? Head of the Royal Bank of Scotland?

Why prisons and rape crisis centres?

RobinMoiraWhite shame on you for that question. You are a lawyer. One who is shortly due to be published on this subject. You know precisely where those words are clearly, explicitly stated.

But thank you! Now anyone lurking who has not yet found their voice can see just how disingenuous some people can be on the subject and the precise wording and explanation of the EA2010 that you - the ‘Go to’ lawyer for trans matters - claim to be unaware of!

see current thread discussing errors in White's recent Independent article about Maya Forstater's appeal:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

Excellent point, MiladyBerserko.

It is easy for women in refuges, prisons and mental health wards to be overlooked and ignored because we do not see them and as a society we do not care. These are the people we should care most about because their settings are being targeted precisely because they're the last women people listen to. You won't hear much about them on the news because editorial judgements will be made that the average viewer doesn't care enough. This is the reason these spaces are at the centre of this debate because it is easier to go unnoticed in ignored and unprioritised spaces. It is easier to push boundaries and gain ground if it happens by stealth - so that by the time ALL spaces are unisex and ALL roles are appropriate for allcomers the argument will be "but it's been like that in xyz settings for years", and no one will have bothered to pay attention to what women in those settings think or feel about it.

18th January 2018
'Lancaster mum with 'fear of men' locked on hospital ward with transgender patient
A Lancaster mum whose bi-polar disorder left her believing men were conspiring to kill her said she was left terrified when she was locked on a women's psychiatric ward with an 'extremely male-bodied' transgender patient.'
(extract)
"Philippa Molloy, 42, said she was “genuinely, absolutely terrified” because she had suffered a relapse in her condition that made her irrationally terrified of men – including her own husband.

When she raised her concerns with hospital staff, however, she said she was not taken seriously and her medical notes implied that she was a “transphobic bigot”. (continues)
www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancaster-mum-fear-men-locked-hospital-ward-transgender-patient-653048

@ArabellaScott

I will happily help to fund that, dingo.

As soon as I have a link to fundraising I will put it here. It will be some time, it's not easy setting these places up.

Just because people should know so they can make choices that help them;
I actually realised last year that very stealthily men were encroaching on womens shelters. I emailed a lot of places offering funding if they could state without semantics that they were and would remain single sex. Not one got back to me and I was offering a sum in the thousands plus a monthly donation in the hundreds.

Knowing how tight budgets are in these places I was stunned that men are more important than a stream of funding.
Take from this that no womens shelter will now turn a man away.
Think about the implications. Your husband/brother/son/uncle beats you to a pulp, you escape to a refuge, he follows and gets in too. Now where do you go?
The culmination of this is no need for womens shelters or rape crisis places because no woman will dare use it, not for themselves of course (they've already been beaten down, there is no more he can do to them) but the other women in the shelter, they dont need to suffer seeing yet more violence.

Its fucking atrocious what's happening. I will not stand idly by.

[quote R0wantrees]RobinMoiraWhite shame on you for that question. You are a lawyer. One who is shortly due to be published on this subject. You know precisely where those words are clearly, explicitly stated.

But thank you! Now anyone lurking who has not yet found their voice can see just how disingenuous some people can be on the subject and the precise wording and explanation of the EA2010 that you - the ‘Go to’ lawyer for trans matters - claim to be unaware of!

see current thread discussing errors in White's recent Independent article about Maya Forstater's appeal:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace[/quote]

Congressdingo it’s absolutely outrageous. Thank you for your work on this and I will donate when the time is right.

Knowing how tight budgets are in these places I was stunned that men are more important than a stream of funding.
Take from this that no womens shelter will now turn a man away.
Think about the implications. Your husband/brother/son/uncle beats you to a pulp, you escape to a refuge, he follows and gets in too. Now where do you go?
The culmination of this is no need for womens shelters or rape crisis places because no woman will dare use it, not for themselves of course (they've already been beaten down, there is no more he can do to them) but the other women in the shelter, they dont need to suffer seeing yet more violence.
Its fucking atrocious what's happening. I will not stand idly by.

This what we all, as women, have to do.

Isn't the EA 2010 like First Day of Law School learning? It pretty much underpins everything.

Nia (formerly Hackney Women's Aid) have maintained single sex services for women.

Karen Ingala-Smith (Nia CEO)
A Woman's Place is speaking the Truth (Leeds, 28th September 2018)

The active misrepresentation of the law from anyone in public service roles is shocking in what it shows about ideology over duty and sense of responsibility for impartiality. As for the 'well x get raped too' - how on earth does that equal 'so female people shouldn't have single sex services' ffs? It's perfectly possible and rational to set up as many services as are needed, and there are male services and trans services freely available. It is not necessary to ensure that no single sex female services exist unless that is the one and only end game.

This is about it being considered much better to harm, distress and exclude some women from any provision at all, even in extreme distress and need, than to ever face a male person with limits to their preferred choice from all available provision. Look at what that says about how such a view sees the equality and even the humanity of women. We're back into the historical realms of 'well they don't have real feelings like us'. Shocking.

Does anyone else find the steady 87% poll a bit difficult to believe....is it stuck?

@AfternoonToffee

Isn't the EA 2010 like First Day of Law School learning? It pretty much underpins everything.

Ann Sinnott's important case starts tomorrow: AEA v EHRC, Royal Court of Justice, 6 May.

"1-day oral Permissions Hearing.

This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on our request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward.

For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls. The first Defendant is EHRC. The second Defendant is the Minister for Women and Equalities, who has responsibility for GEO.

In the context of a concern that guidance issued by EHRC and GEO should reflect the law, AEA fully supports the protection of transsexual people's rights (to use the EA2010 term) under existing equality legislation. What is at issue is an appropriate balance with the existing rights of women, where and when there is a conflict between those two sets of rights."

twitter.com/AnnMSinnott/status/1389157379904843776

Thanks, R0, that is going to be an enormously important case.

I was heartened that EHRC intervened in Maya Forstater's JR recently to emphasise just what feminists have been saying about the Equalities Act.

Good on you, Dingo, I look forward to being able to support.

Other women's support services I can think of are Women's Aid in Monklands, which recently lost funding to a 'gender neutral' provider - despite the acknowledgement that DV is a 'gendered' issue (ie. it overwhelmingly affects women more than men).

So it is First Day, but taught wrong.

I had reason at work to need to refer to part of the EA I poured over things for ages to make sure I was right and they were wrong and I'm just a little minion. However it did show that people take the 'buzzwords' and just apply it indiscriminately.

👏👏👏 Dingo

@AfternoonToffee

Isn't the EA 2010 like First Day of Law School learning? It pretty much underpins everything.

Framing seemingly innocuous questions to entrap people into making potentially defamatory statements and then issuing legal threats to silence them can be a fairly standard tactic in Anglo-American legal systems by mediocre practitioners looking to create a niche clientele. It's just so expensive to be legally reoresented/defend that many back down or are effectively silenced.

@656times

What can we do?

In case you missed the form:

www.oscr.org.uk/contact-oscr/charity-concern-form/

And in case anyone reading would like further inspiration on various feminist actions:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4191733-Daily-acts-of-feminism-a-thread-for-ideas