..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

My favourite part of that sneering word salad is the bit that describes knowing that sex is binary, immutable and sometimes matters as 'alternative beliefs'. It's fucking reality, you ivory tower dwelling over privileged woke idiots.

I am only just catching up with all this. The horror of Wadhwa’s appointment seems to be spreading to Brindley’s wider behaviour too.

Even if Brindley didn’t rally a survivor’s group to contact media, it seems as if that group is overly heavily invested in Brindley’s personal defence and are or have become activists. A rape survivor support group ? Becoming activist? Or feeling they should? There must be now so many questions about Brindley’s professional conduct.

Even the very basic point here that users of RCS and other services feel so unsafe with the prospect of removal of Brindley shows there is something amiss. A service such as this, should be so robust that one or two people leaving should make little negative impact. There should be absolute confidence that high quality support service should be expected. I am speaking of RCS by the way. Wadhwa as CEO would certainly have impact and quickly on the service delivery because Wadhwa was directly responsible for how ERCC provided service etc.

If that quality service, for this type of specific service, has been tied to personalities, ie not the service group this has to be investigated.

There really seems to be a great deal to investigate. That survivor meeting where Brindley included her partner was a very concerning read.

Looking at the contributions of The Righteous as detailed in the articles, Twitter threads and certain posters on this very thread... It's almost like The Righteous have no actual decency, morals or sense of shame, because everything and anything can be justified in the Battle For The Greater Good.

Based on that drivel, Sharon Cowan clearly hasn't understood what the Forstater judgement said, what the Grainger test is, or what 'diverse' means.

This is the whole thing boiled down.

Nothing - NOTHING matters more than men in dresses. Not rape survivors, not the dignity of our children, nothing matters more than affirming this dangerous lunacy

I find the "legal scholars" are some of the worst, too. Peter Dunne complaining that women don't want to undress around "women with different bodies" (men) when they "tolerate" undressing with women who have had mastectomies. Alex Sharpe campaigning to remove the sex by deception law for trans people because it's an invasion of their privacy to have to be honest about their sex.

Sam Fowles lamenting why women can't face consequences for their wrongthink due to the "loophole" that their gender critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act.

I’m not sure that’s the case for everyone.

For me, for example, it’s quite from “nothing matters more.”

A lot of things matter more to me than this ongoing trans debate, most things matter more.

I very much subscribe to the idea that people are allowed to live their lives in a way that suits them, and whatever they identify as is their thing - nothing to do with me.

Yes there are places and situations that should be safeguarded, but outside of that - looking at this thread, I’m nowhere near as angry as others, generally.

So yes, it’s not that “affirming a dangerous lunacy” matters more to me than anything else. It’s that it very much doesn’t.

A lot of things matter more to me than this ongoing trans debate, most things matter more.

You've completely misunderstood the point to be smug about how little you care about the rights of other women and girls. @TorghunKhan was saying how nothing else matters to people mired in this ideology, not to you 🙄

Smug 😂, and so it begins.

Did you see "the Righteous" and think they meant you it's an wryly ironic description of genderists that applies to the sort of people that think rape victims should be "educated" if they ask for a specifically female rape counsellor.

I think you misunderstood me, what I wrote only makes sense in context of the previous poster who I was quoting.

As in, the "Greater Good" they were talking about, is affirming that men in dresses are more important than any other cause.

As someone ignorant of how the law has been applied, I think the right of vulnerable women to be supported by biological females seems a more worthy bridgehead to defend than the right to refuse people the common courtesy of using the pronouns they prefer.

Fair enough - my understanding of the “Greater Good” was the idea that some believe that men can identify as women (rather than just being termed men in dresses) and that was the “dangerous lunacy” you referred to?

It’s that idea I was replying to, because like I said - generally, that is what I believe.

Rape, DV, kids changing rooms - that’s about the limit of my resistance, I definitely couldn’t find the passion to be on Twitter all day long arguing about other people’s choices.

It's all linked though. Once you undermine the primacy of sex as key differentiator between men and women you make it harder and harder for women to assert their rights to what is theirs.

That includes our rights to our own language terms as well as spaces.

I have always used pronouns to refer to sex. Until five minutes ago, so did everyone else (evidenced by things like using pronouns for babies and animals who can't be said to have a 'gender identity').

I don't recall the consultation where it was discussed changing this, or what's so discourteous about correcting sexing people. The whole thing strikes me as total nonsense that ultimately served to undermine women's position.

As someone ignorant of how the law has been applied, I think the right of vulnerable women to be supported by biological females seems a more worthy bridgehead to defend than the right to refuse people the common courtesy of using the pronouns they prefer.

Does that apply in all cases? Like when a rape survivor gives testimony in court? Don't you think it's sometimes more than just "common courtesy"? I recoil from hearing the male this thread is about called "she". It's a matter of freedom of belief and of speech. These males are not women. She/her are the pronouns for women and girls.

Fair enough - my understanding of the “Greater Good” was the idea that some believe that men can identify as women (rather than just being termed men in dresses) and that was the “dangerous lunacy” you referred to?

You clearly haven't read the thread or grasped what it's about. I suggest you start there.

It’s fairly unlikely I’m going to sit and read all 23 pages of it, to be honest.

I don't recall the consultation where it was discussed changing this, or what's so discourteous about correcting sexing people. The whole thing strikes me as total nonsense that ultimately served to undermine women's position.

Yes, I must have the memo somewhere where I was asked to agree to calling men women if they wanted it, I'm sure I must have signed something while my mind was on something else. Now where might it be?

testifying against a male-bodied (AMAB or whatever you want to call it) rapist in court and having to use female pronouns, when the law is clear that only men can rape, is an absurdity.

How can the law say, on one hand, only men can rape, and then compel the victim in a rape trial to call the defendant "she"? it is a tautology, because if "she" is in the dock, "she" can't have raped anybody.

and so on and so forth

How can the law say, on one hand, only men can rape, and then compel the victim in a rape trial to call the defendant "she"? it is a tautology, because if "she" is in the dock, "she" can't have raped anybody.

To be clear, the law simply says that a penis is necessary for a rape. Women (actual women) can only be convicted as joint enterprise with a man, however that man identifies.

The rest of your points I fully agree with, and I would say making other witnesses deny their own knowledge under oath that people are male (or female, in fewer cases) isn't good for the quality of their testimony either.

A witness is not talking to the defendant and can always use his name or "the defendant" to avoid a diversion into an an argument about pronouns. But, no, I agree courtesy doesn't come into the equation when talking about someone who has assaulted you. That's not what the tribunal cases were about, though.

www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/gender-recognition-reform-heal-survivors-group-letter.pdf

This is a shocker, the group letter from HEAL

Maybe some posters are motivated to comment because they don’t see the need to have these in-depth discussions.

Maybe it is just the same old, same old ensuring that male people get to be treated as those male people want though. I notice that some people are quick to jump to those male people’s defense when some people think those male people might be harmed even though it is actually female people and female people’s boundaries, consent and objective needs being harmed.