..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

[TorghunKhan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o

No women only spaces for 16 months. Basically women, RAPED women - were told they could not definitely see a woman to help them with such an awful crime, they might have to see a man in a dress, and if they objected they were to be 're eductaed' by the man in charge - a man who himself applied for, and got!! a job which was supposed to be only filled by a woman.

It's shameful, disgusting, but whats worse is how many people put up with it!! Who thought this was ok?! why did nobody do anything, or say anything FOR YEARS

Have I understood you right: the one organisation that is supposed to exist solely to support women in the aftermath of sexual abuse lobbied MPs to NOT vote for sexually abused women to have the power to choose who does their forensic examination?

It gets more and more staggering.

Although, the one time I called them (during their opening hours) to report being assaulted by two strangers and to ask for advice and support, they were on answer-machine. It had taken so much courage to call and then they were out. I never rang back. You don't necessarily think logically in the aftermath of an assault, and I just thought: no one cares. Even when I ring Rape Crisis during office hours, they're out.

Has it always been such a rubbish service?

@Autumnweddingguest yes exactly that. They lobbied MSPs to not give women the choice. Absolutely disgraceful.

Is there a copy of that email?

I hope everyone who was able to vote on this, will tell their friends, family, colleagues, everyone about this travesty. The more of us that speak out, the more we normalise calling out men in dresses taking advantage f advantage of their position over vulnerable women, the better our world will be.

speak up.

the more people who listen to and share, Julie In Genderland - https://open.spotify.com/show/5XK1wTA4PTgvwLvDZcKwP9

an expose into the terrible things that have been done to thousands of of our children, in this country, in the name of “be kind”.

In response to recent points, had forgotten the "non binary" status aspect, but the core of why Roz Adams challenged the centre policies was, as I think we have all said, the most important one.

That service users should not be lied to, not be told to accept someone else's belief system is more important than theirs, and that its "reasonable" for a woman (biological female) to state she only wanted to work with another biological female.

I have been saddened that none of the other federations, eg Rape Crisis and Women's Aid, have put out statements saying that groups that are part of their federations totally respect and put in to practice women only (in the real sense) service.

Many women's groups were quick to comment on the riots following the murder of 3 girls and the impact it had had on their service users. And in response to police being found at fault.

So women service providers they aren't shy about making public statements.

Why wouldn't they want to re-assure existing and potential users. I suspect many women reading about this in the newspapers will be totally confused, unclear what it is all about, but be left with a feeling that maybe rape crisis centres aren't safe places to ask for help.

And that would be a real shame.

The silence of other so called advocacy groups is damning.

I went to a women’s refuge where I was told to expect ‘help’ from a trans woman. Didn’t go back.
Ended up in a mental health facility where the only Psych was trans woman insisting on details I was very unhappy to divulge to him. It was not a safe place. I insisted on leaving before I was further traumatised and have no faith in these as you say ‘captured’ organisations.
I’m left to myself to heal. This is post multiple rapes and abuse.
This is shameful.

Some service users have come out in support for Brindley. Of course there will have been survivors that the service has helped - many I hope.
But there's a bit of "I'm alright Jack" about it?

It's a mess - just a bloody mess. Because regardless of MW, SB or anyone else - the logistics were messed up. You can't lump everyone in, in the name of inclusion. You have to have specialised services for people. Why couldn't they have acknowledged the needs of different groups? They could have appointed MW head of a specialised tailored group for trans specific SA with specialists who have experience in support.
They could have had mixed and single sex groups depending on how the individual felt best served.

How did it get so extreme? The report of the judgement was so bizarre and the staff were so unprofessional and deliberately militant. It's all beyond belief.

I'm so sorry this happened to you.

Hmm. The service users that have come out in support seem to have also worked at RCS and seem to be in the same mould as Katie Horsburgh...

Aaaand they seem to be the same person with multiple Twitter accounts.

x.com/captainvirgilx/status/1835385224936784125?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Here's an interesting thread with more appalling context.

x.com/sd5419203477703/status/1834693365796859953?s=46&t=OKyRO4eweTteo5FEt_J1MQ

I did not know that Sandy Brindley's partner is a prominent trans activist. It's not surprising of course.

These people have no fucking shame. All they care about is protecting themselves and their luxury beliefs, and they'll stop at nothing, including excluding rape victims from support or retraumatising them. No fucking shame and no morals.

I'm not going to post more X links, because I'm guessing MN isn't wild about too much of that, but more awful details coming out.

Including that Wadhwa appears to be entirely unqualified as a councillor, but did some counselling anyway to 'keep it fun' (that's a direct quote, the prick actually said that). The service was offered to 12 years old and upwards, so it's possible he 'counselled' minors.

As a victim of rape myself, I would not have endured anything at a rape crisis center if I felt it was not in my best interests. As to statistics & %'s of victims of rape, that would mean nothing to each individual case and how it was being dealt with.
I personally dont think that I could only talk to a female about my situation but do agree that any victim of rape has to feel comfortable with who ever is offering support/counselling, legal representation if it reaches court.

For those not on x, thread reader:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1834651333288411231.html

As referenced on the thread, Sandy Brindley previously invited Sharon Cowan to a meeting she had with rape survivors who had concerns re single sex rape care, and didn't introduce who Cowan was (a 'queer studies' academic, TRA, and Brindley's partner). The survivors believed she was another survivor invited like them to share views on single sex rape services. She berated the survivors in the meeting she wasn't invited to or introduced at, for wanting single sex rape care.

These people have no shame and no morals, all they see is their rightness and progressiveness and inclusiveness, and they don't even really see the rest of us, let alone respect us or our views or our needs. Raped women are just cannon fodder.

Technically it is not recognised as rape because of the Sexual offences act of 2003 which only recognises rape as penile penetration. This is why many cases are not reported when its female on female or female on male. Who knows how many cases go unreported in these situations and whether there would be suitable support offered.

That's revolting - we have regressed by decades. You should have had access to trained and compassionate biological (shouldn't have to qualify that!) women throughout.

This is why many cases are not reported when its female on female or female on male. Who knows how many cases go unreported in these situations and whether there would be suitable support offered.

Oh now this is shameful of you. That rape is defined under UK law as being a male only crime has NOTHING to do with cases not being reported.

sexual assault by penetration is the charge for non penile sexual assault.

Exactly. And the rape of women by men is staggeringly underreported. Along with epidemic levels of male to female domestic violence.

It is indeed shameful, and also utterly irrelevant on this thread. It is the victims of reported cases of rape being denied counselling that is under discussion, not a load of putative gubbins about people who have not been raped.

@dewfirst
That is awful and I am sorry you didn’t get the support you needed. I hope you have found some better help since then.

There's so much misinformation and obfuscation being spouted by ERCC, RCS etc I think it's important we don't do the same.

The full 'keep it fun' quote - while misjudged and very poorly phrased - was not MW saying the counselling was 'too keep it fun'. It was about MW's overall role, which included running various staff activities as light relief from the main business of the centre and also doing some counselling sessions. Which I agree MW absolutely should not have been doing - not having the qualifications, and not being upfront about his sex.

for all on this thread who have been raped or suffered sexual assault so sorry and especially if so called support service let you down.

It's shameful that in the 21st century UK there is no committment to a properly funded, properly run service for women survivors.

@TheKeatingFive I posted this on the FWR thread about ERCC

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/1/1/6536993

...In contrast, the EAT’s decision in the Forstater appeal, in our view, risks making it more difficult in practice for employers to create diverse and inclusive workplaces. We conclude that, while the approach of the courts should be flexible and fact-sensitive, it should be founded upon coherent principles that are applied consistently, balancing and reconciling conflicting rights in line with the values of the EqA. This is especially important in the current context in which there is an ongoing debate, particularly in the discrimination and human rights context, about the extent to which trans people’s rights are adequately protected and whether and to what degree protecting such rights harms or infringes the rights and freedoms of others.6...

This aged well

....Therefore, even if, as the EAT decided in Forstater, some gender critical views are protected, it may be that Ms Forstater’s unlawful discrimination claims will not succeed once the facts are considered by a Tribunal...

Oh dear, how inconvenient that you can't discriminate and harass women who know what a woman is with impunity:

....But the EAT’s new approach will likely be most problematic for those tasked with practical application of the EqA in the workplace. Taking as an example homophobic or sexist views, businesses requiring staff to work within the parameters of its equality policy, whether to respect colleagues in the workplace or to help ensure non-discriminatory practices towards customers, are more likely to encounter resistance on the basis that individuals do not personally endorse such views, and that their alternative beliefs are protected now. Inevitably, businesses are likely to find themselves defending claims of unlawful discrimination brought by such individuals. Given the widened definition of a protected belief, it may not be difficult for any disgruntled worker to identify a belief for which she or he can allege less favourable treatment.

As a consequence of this new approach, several concerns arise. First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims. Secondly, where those who have manifested gender critical views claim unfavourable treatment, businesses may have to defend those claims by asking already vulnerable individuals, who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by Claimants, to give evidence at a Tribunal....

But we hope to be able to again one day

...Our hope is that when the occasion arises, a higher court will overrule the Forstater EAT decision and approach to applying the fifth Grainger criteria: not all beliefs are equal, and not all ought to be privileged by receiving the additional protections available under the EqA, an objective of which is to increase equality of opportunity and more generally to eliminate discrimination.155...