..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

I agree, in 2015 to 2017 it basically felt like women here were shouting into the void. Then mainstream (mostly print) media started to take an interest and both We Need to Talk (Venice Allan and others) and WPUK were set up.

When I read people who write hypocritically about being kind while actively denigrating others, I think of that teacher that does the ‘gentle parenting’ style videos.

All about the kind and welcoming tone while delivering zingers.

The bulk of the problems date from the Trans Equality Inquiry in 2015 led by Maria Miller MP. This also coincided with Stonewall needing a new market and after a change of leadership deciding to campaign for "trans rights" when it had previously ignored them.

Also in America and other English speaking parts of the world laws were being passed and the media was fawning over the transgender zeitgeist.

Yeah absolutely. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how comprehensively the aims were achieved. But as you point out, this has been many, many years in the seeding.

The creation of the "trans child" also. Most people weren't interested in middle aged men in knickers but they were moved by slick propaganda like Jazz Jennings, I am Leo, Butterfly.

Well when you consider Gillard made the changes to Oz discrimination act in 2013 after Yogyakarta, you have to start thinking that this was seeded so long before that.

Yes, absolutely. The legal changes seem in most countries to have gone under the radar, presumably to avoid attracting much scrutiny. Then the media/policy/propaganda push.

I am also very hesitant to be so blanket generalising in my ‘but there are so many who are not ‘bad ones’ ‘ too. The reality is, many of those who are not ‘bad ones’ make use of the benefits that those extreme activists have now got put into place.

Exactly. I tend to find that even the ones who aren't actively bad are self absorbed to an unhealthy degree and have issues with empathy with others, especially women who are just unfeeling props in their lives to them (both sexes, "trans men" often do it to women due to hatred of what being female is). This gels with my belief that many have cluster B personality disorders or other mental health comorbidities. There are exceptions, of course.

Good article by Shonagh Dillon, who runs a rape crisis service herself.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-crisis-at-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/

"...RCS seem to think that because they commissioned the review and accept the recommendations they are now absolved of all culpability and can just merrily point the finger at the one bad apple. Unfortunately for them, there is a plethora of examples on why the background to the anti-women policies at ERCC were driven and supported by RCS — the fact remains they share the same ideology, and just a few of examples of these include:

	RCS telling <a class="break-all" href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/?SearchTerm=Rape+Crisis+Scotland&amp;DateFrom=&amp;DateTo=&amp;SessionId=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the Westminster Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2021</a>1_ that &ldquo;proposed simplification of the process of applying for gender recognition certificates would have no impact on the delivery of Rape Crisis services across Scotland&rdquo;.
	In turn RCS supported the controversial Gender Recognition Reforms in Scotland, on one occasion informing the UN special rapporteur they were <a class="break-all" href="https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/rape-crisis-scotland-statement-on-the-open-letter-to-special-rapporteur-on-violence-agains/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">&ldquo;disappointed&rdquo;</a>&rdquo;_ in her after she raised legitimate concerns about the impact the reforms would have on female victims of men&rsquo;s violence. 
	In 2021 RCS <a class="break-all" href="https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">objected to legislation</a>n_ that would mean women who had been raped could request a female medical examiner. 
	Finally when Wadhwa <a class="break-all" href="https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">referred to women</a>n<span class="underline"> who wanted single sex spaces as &lsquo;&ldquo;bigoted&rdquo; and suggested  they should &ldquo;reframe their trauma&rdquo;, the CEO of RCS Sandy Brindley <a class="break-all" href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1834365833939693653" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">came out in support of him</a>m</span>.

The reviews findings and subsequent recommendations come down to one very simple action — RCS need to define what a woman is. But we already know that RCS think the definition of woman includes men, not just because of the examples above, but because prior to working at ERCC Wadhwa worked for RCS as their Helpline and Volunteer Coordinator from 2014 to 201818_. Both the roles he took in RCS and subsequently ERCC were apparently reserved for “women” only. ^

The review notes the “damage done” by ERCC to victims and survivors, but that damage needs to be owned by all who supported and pushed these policies. The arrogance of a man who is emboldened enough to come into a charity like ERCC a charity founded in 1978 by second wave feminists and create a scenario where female rape victims are having to beg for a space of their own from a man who thinks they are a bigot for doing so is reminiscent of something out of a Dickens novel — it’s the literal on your knees with a begging bowl pleading “please sir can I have my single sex space”…
But he didn’t arrive in that job by default, he arrived by design..."

I broadly agree, but I suggest that 'tone' is the penultimate bastion of The Righteous, because I have experienced a further (and possibly the final) step.

This was on another forum, where after we Naughty People had patiently batted away all the usual tropes, the Righteous poster declared that "Perhaps you might turn out to be right, but you'll have been right for the Wrong Reasons!"

This was on another forum, where after we Naughty People had patiently batted away all the usual tropes, the Righteous poster declared that "Perhaps you might turn out to be right, but you'll have been right for the Wrong Reasons!"

I can imagine

Oh I have seen that one ... yet

Ereshkigalangcleg
Not interested.

What we re dealing with is a clear case of "It's not Mah Johnny that's out of step: it's the whole durn US Army". If an entire cohort of informed people disagrees with someone's lone and self-declaredly uninformed opinion, then obviously they are all of them wrong and the uninformed lone voice is right.

This fits right in with the idea that slightly strange people are right and all women are wrong, really.

It is utterly horrific, and even though I have known about the dangers of gender ideology for some years (I have a DD who, being ND, is very much the target audience for this sexist and hate-filled movement) I am still shocked to the core every time something like this happens. How, just how, was this ever allowed?

We get posters like this more often than you would think likely.

They proudly declare they don’t know much, but at least they know how to be kind and how to take a prod at those they declare are not kind. But then insist that they should be welcomed and embraced for expressing their opinion because they are the kind ones after all.

What is quite humorous after a while is that they seem to think they might be unique. And that they have the solution!!! All while censuring on tone and sadly, their solution has been deemed as horrifically transphobic as it was proposed a decade ago. But they are kind and they are righteous and should have their uninformed opinion heard.

And yet, if they ever stepped off their righteous step and fucking even read anything, they might understand that they are fucking adding to the harm they say they can actually recognise.

That one still regularly pops into my head several years later. How anyone could type those actual words...

It was made quite clear that being right for the wrong reasons was very nearly as much of a sin as being wrong for the wrong reasons. Whereas being wrong for the right reasons would still leave that poster on the side of virtue.

They proudly declare they don’t know much, but at least they know how to be kind and how to take a prod at those they declare are not kind. But then insist that they should be welcomed and embraced for expressing their opinion because they are the kind ones after all.

And also despite being proud of not caring what we think or our concerns and thinking we are unkind, many seem to want to give us unsolicited advice to improve our communications and make our campaigning more effective. Which is odd, to say the least.

It was made quite clear that being right for the wrong reasons was very nearly as much of a sin as being wrong for the wrong reasons. Whereas being wrong for the right reasons would still leave that poster on the side of virtue.

I think there's something interesting about people wanting to feel that they have the moral high ground and even when faced with the problems created by 'their side' it's hard to give that feeling up.

It points to a broader problem. Being 'kind' isn't robust enough (by itself) as a moral framework for how we live. We need more thought to broader societal needs, implications for the longer term.

Being 'kind' prioritises short term fixes over longer term ones, it responses to the individuals drawing the most attention over society as a whole. And it seems to fall most heavily on women to facilitate - to their detriment.

I found some bits of this article v interesting

https://unherd.com/2024/09/the-cult-of-kindness/

Oh yes that's a good one.

The review notes the “damage done” by ERCC to victims and survivors, but that damage needs to be owned by all who supported and pushed these policies.

So very much this. Wadhwa will be/ has been hung out to dry, but he's just a stark example of the much bigger issue.

Woman= adult human female. All of the harm that's been done, from pretending otherwise.

Very interesting. And ties in to some extent with what I've been thinking about recently about the deification of 'kindness' being childish. Or at least infantilising.

'Be kind' is a handy shorthand if you need to quickly encourage a 6 year old to lend their classmate a pencil sharpener. But it's far too simplistic a basis for a whole social framework. There's no way for 'kind' to cover balancing of rights, individual versus collective good, short term versus long term effects etc. We do need all those other 'virtues' the article mentions - and more -in order to have a balanced, grown up conversation about what is 'right', or 'best', or 'reasonable and practicable'.

Which will no doubt result sometimes in being 'right for the wrong reasons' if you have defined 'wrong' solely as 'kind' (which so often means 'complies with what a particular individual wants in that moment').

I'd rather people strove to be fair.