..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

YY @Kucinghitam exactly.

I think what is quite clear is the only opinion that matters here is the one that agrees with the mass opinion.

Indeed, it is the mass opinion of people in this country, thanks for acknowledging this.

At least quote me properly. What I said was that they felt they belonged there, not that anyone had to agree.

How would you know whether they "felt they belonged there"? Just because they say so?

Here are 9, non exhaustive, reasons why shared toilets are a bad idea:

1.	<strong>Increased Assault Risk</strong>: Mixed-gender spaces may lead to more opportunities for harassment or assault.
2.	<strong>Privacy Issues</strong>: Sharing restrooms can make some feel exposed or uncomfortable.
3.	<strong>Voyeurism Potential</strong>: Greater risk of spying or recording without consent.
4.	<strong>Social Discomfort</strong>: People may feel awkward using toilets in front of other genders.
5.	<strong>Vulnerability</strong>: Children, the elderly, or disabled individuals may face increased danger.
6.	<strong>Abuse Risk</strong>: Domestic abusers could more easily target victims in unisex restrooms.
7.	<strong>Sanitation Concerns</strong>: Hygiene differences can lead to dirtier shared spaces.
8.	<strong>Cultural Conflicts</strong>: Religious or cultural beliefs may make mixed-gender restrooms unacceptable.
9.	<strong>Collapse Risk</strong>: In entirely closed cubicles, someone collapsing could go unnoticed for longer, delaying aid.

I don't believe many of these males genuinely "feel they belong there". They want to be there. Subtly different and harder to defend.

I'm going to resist people who want to make the thread about "courtesy" and pronouns and toilets and continue to focus on the utter callousness of Mridul Wadhwa, trans rights activist and the women and men who enable it.

But that’s neither here nor there. So what. I’m 42, I could walk about believing I’m 18 again. And? No one has to indulge that in any way shape or form, especially to the point it makes 18 year olds uncomfortable or people losing their jobs and the like for stating I am actually, 42.

In ERCS, the subject of the thread, everyone didn't have the opportunity to get their needs met, did they? Only women who were able or willing to go along with gender ideology could get a service. So it very much was an issue, if you think those women deserved to be helped.

And once it was clear that this was an issue (and frankly it should have been clear before MW was employed, that there would be an issue, but benefit of the doubt) who took precedence? It wasn't the raped women, it was the gender ideologue staff.

What happened at ERCS is what happens every time gender overrides sex.

But that’s neither here nor there. So what. I’m 42, I could walk about believing I’m 18 again. And? No one has to indulge that in any way shape or form, especially to the point it makes 18 year olds uncomfortable or people losing their jobs and the like for stating I am actually, 42.

The difference is that if people thought you truly believed it they would see it as mental illness, and if they knew you were lying deliberately they would be able to call it out as such.

In ERCS, the subject of the thread, everyone didn't have the opportunity to get their needs met, did they? Only women who were able or willing to go along with gender ideology could get a service. So it very much was an issue, if you think those women deserved to be helped.

And once it was clear that this was an issue (and frankly it should have been clear before MW was employed, that there would be an issue, but benefit of the doubt) who took precedence? It wasn't the raped women, it was the gender ideologue staff.

What happened at ERCS is what happens every time gender overrides sex.

Yes. No one with any sense of perspective or empathy would put MW's and the non binary support worker's lack of having their gender identities validated above the feelings of female rape survivors, or seek to compel their speech. I have zero respect for the opinions of anyone who does.

But that's the point! If person A believes they belong in a category or a space because of their feelings,and person B says person A doesn't belong there because this category or place is for bodies, not feelings, then there cannot be agreement. That's where your 'oh how people identify doesn't impact me' falls down because actually, it does impact.

Wadhwa, we are told, believes he is a woman. Everyone who needed to use ERCS had to agree. That's the point.

I just think there’s a difference between having an opinion, and speaking to people like shit.

just as well i don't speak to people like shit then, isn't it. But i do tell people who tell me to #BeKind to the kind of shit who defends the non-binary idiot at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to pull their heads out of their arses. In a clearly enunciated home-counties accent to boot.

Gosh i'm so mean for centering traumatised women over some woman's non-binary kid who isn't even there with me.

Also I noticed we've gone from 'transpeople want to be in single sex spaces because they feel they belong there' to 'sensible trans people accept they don't belong in single sex spaces and are fine with that'.

ah, the "tru trans" concept. Which is... transphobic.

Absolutely. It's just sex that's fair game.

Just want to pick you up on point 4 there, @TorghunKhan

you wrote:

4. Social Discomfort: People may feel awkward using toilets in front of other genders.

and used "genders" by mistake when you meant "sex"

Very good point. This garbage has polluted my brain

oh yes, silly me. Like the poster with the spurious raped son. It would be tiresome if it weren't dangerous.

sorry, i came over, i think, more snarky than i meant.

But i do think it is hugely important that we use the word sex a lot more. Instead of all the coy "gender" stuff (in the way people in the usa will say something mad like "go potty" when they mean "use the toilet" even for an adult)

Yes, they keep using gender rather sex than in the hope that we will also become confused. My way round that is that I've completely abandoned the 'g' word as I have no need for it and disapprove of what it stands for anyway.

Strange isn't it?

If a man wants to be affirmed as a 6 year old, or another race, or disabled, then presumably he would be told where to go?

But if it's sex then suddenly it 'discourteous' to do anything but go along with it?

Yes this is a good strategy

This isn't about being kind or unkind. This is about appropriate care and support.

This discussion is about inappropriate and incompetent conduct in jobs which care for vulnerable women after rape.

Police Scotland say that 94% of rapes are against women.

It's a crime which is sex based and sex matters.

It doesn't matter what males identity as or whether they see themselves as women in this context. Even if they don't think they are men it doesn't make them women.

Ethical practice enshrined in human rights law denotes health care (which includes mental health) should be available to all. That includes your enemy in an battlefield war.

We have rights to dignity based on sex too.

So to suggest we should expect traumatised (mental health condition) women and girls to accept males in this type of care is barbaric.

Putting them in a situation where they self exclusion is dereliction of responsibility.

Anyone of any sex who failed to understand this is not being kind.

We don't owe them respect.

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

You'd rather remain ignorant? Forgive me if that means I feel able to ignore your ignorant opinions.

This case has illustrated - horribly, leaving already abused and harmed women worse off and further illtreated by the very people they turned to for help - that when a mixed sex service is attempted, the men's needs inevitably become not only the main focus but the sole focus.

How the men identify their sense of identity is sadly not irrelevant to this. In fact, men who identify as something other than men gain even higher preferential treatment, indulgence, enabling, centering and protection from women to the extent that those women often feel the need to demonstrate how much more important those men are than anyone they actually do think of as a woman.

I have no patience with 'be kind' idiocy, it is pure sexism, self indulgent self congratulating, and enabling of the kind that made the abuse of these women possible. It is actively participating in furthering this abuse of women.