..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

That's not what the tribunal cases were about, though.

Pronouns have come into some of them. I don't think anyone should be advocating compelled speech.

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.

It's quite difficult to avoid all pronouns unless you are really concentrating on not slipping up. And then you are on the back foot as a witness giving a testimony. It's not what a court should be about. Don't ask me to tell the truth and then compel me to lie. With respect, you don't seem to understand what the issue is for people who reject this ideology wholeheartedly.

Ok, I agree regarding witnesses, if they genuinely feel so strongly. But if you are employed to deal with people (clients or members of the public) and your principles preclude you being courteous to them then you should get a different job.

I don't understand the process by which it was decided that it was 'courteous' to incorrectly sex someone via pronouns use. Who decided this? When? Why? What are the implications for everyone else?

But if you are employed to deal with people (clients or members of the public) and your principles preclude you being courteous to them then you should get a different job.

It's not about being "courteous" and it's not "courteous" to expect people to walk on eggshells and have to lie about your sex, but we were talking about witnesses in court, not "being employed to deal with the public". Glad you see the problems with the court issue.

Also if we're going to say it's 'courteous' in some circumstances and but not in others, where is the line drawn? And who decides who gets the courtesy and who doesn't?

We were also talking about tribunal cases, which included some health/welfare practitioner who refused to call his or her clients 'she' when they they so wished.

Perhaps self obsessed narcissists working as rape counsellors who won't tell raped women what sex they are and crybully their female colleagues who
ask how to answer this simple question to a raped woman who has asked (what the thread is actually about) should "get a different job".

I suspect you already know the answer to this better than I do.

100% agree with that!

What makes you think that? It's a genuine question. Do you have an answer?

Which tribunal case involved a HCP refusing to use pronouns? That was not what the ERCC case was about

We were also talking about tribunal cases, which included some health/welfare practitioner who refused to call his or her clients 'she' when they they so wished.

This thread is about what happened at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. It's quite clear in the title. What are you referring to?

Principles are always more important than being polite, surely?

I think that because over decades and Acts of Parliament the question of people's rights to change gender have been much discussed and legislated about and your interest in the matter suggests you are aware of at least some of this.

Indeed. That's why you should change job if your principles don't allow you to do your current one properly.

But as I explained, I've never used pronouns in relation to gender and as I've explained, I suspect that's true of the vast majority of people, given that they use them for entities that cannot be said to have a 'gender identity'. So when did that change?

Pronouns have always simply been a factual reference to sex.

What sleight of hand happened that it became a 'courtesy' to override that?

And in French they say for instance: "La table". So what?

Depends on the job. In no job, anywhere on the planet, should I be forced, compelled speech, to call a man "miss".

Quite, so what? We're not talking about French speakers here.

Well that source blows the 'didnt know about concerns' line firmly off the planet doesn't it?

Receipts.

Who at ERCC do you think was not doing their job properly?

What sleight of hand happened that it became a 'courtesy' to override that?

Quite. Why are we required to pay obeisance to gender identity ideology? Why am I supposed to pretend I think a man is a woman, when I don't? What about my feelings and freedom of speech and belief?

In my opinion, in no job anywhere should I be forced to call a man "Sir". But in a lot of jobs I am. It's an unfair world.