Ad for 'Women's worker' sexual health in prostitution allows self-ID'd women

[Verysadpants]

I added this to the thread on the Equality Act and self-ID, but as it's sinking down the listings thought I would post it on its own. SACRO/Another way, are looking for someone - a woman - to do sexual health outreach with women in prostitution: www.sacro.org.uk/organisation/recruitment/another-way-womens-worker
And they say this about the position "*For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 it is an occupational requirement that this post is filled by a woman. Applications are invited from women only, which includes trans women (self-declaration)."
I know trans people might also be involved in prostitution, and a service should be offered to them as much as anyone else. But this is specifically for working with women. Do you think if you were a woman involved in prostitution knowing that the person you are speaking to is not biologically female might put you off seeking the sexual health services offered? I was thinking about phoning them about this. What do you think?

Of course it would put women off. I have no words.

ffs if the position is women only, then it needs to be biological women only. This is insane.

this is surely a prime case of where the exemptions are intended to be used, it makes me wonder about the organisation and what practical experience they have

It's name used to be an abbreviation of Scottish Care and Resettlement of Offenders, I don't know if it's still just that or if they've branched out and just use the acronym as a name now. But they're not new, they've got decades of experience of working with ex-offenders at least.

hmm have just tried to follow the link and my browser says it's unsafe
what is the name of the organisation?

The link's fine. Just remove the 's' from https.

I guess this is the start of it in Scotland. Just 'getting ahead' of the new laws.

hmm have just tried to follow the link and my browser says it's unsafe

It's just because it's not Https

OP - it looks like the page has been removed or link is wrong ?

The link's fine. Just remove the 's' from https

Thanks Betsy

FFS though, this should so be women only.

That's appalling - there's a thread in charity about a group looking for funds for what sounds like a great project working with trafficked and refugee women in childbirth. They have accepted money from Lush and I don't think their reply to me is really answering what I ask - 'identify as a woman' is the phrase that rings alarm bells. The thought of not speaking English, probably having endured sexual violence, pregnant in foreign country, alone - then not even guaranteed a woman to help you through it? Heartbreaking, as is this.

no, I googled the org and found the job advert- I think they just haven't thought this through, in the person spec it says you have to have a gender analysis of prostitution, I wonder if they cut and pasted from some other doc?

Just checked current vacancies for Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland and both still say "Only women need apply under Schedule 9, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010".

But both organisations publicly support the Scottish Government's self-id proposals.

Betsy And that's an issue when any Tom, Dick or Harry is a woman because they say they are women, so are eligible to apply...

So women drugged trafficked and raped and abused and forced to work the streets and are frightened and vulnerable still have to validate men's feelings before they can access help.

Why would anyone who genuinely cared about these women even go for a job working with them? Of all the jobs to do why this? If that doesn't show the people hiring that they only care about themselves what will.

Ffs

I find this kind of thing particularly perplexing:

If they've specified that they want women only, it should be obvious that they recognise why in this particular situation the women they are working with may not feel comfortable with a man.

But to then go on to say anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman in this specific context..... Do they think that the women who would feel uncomfortable with a male worker are uncomfortable with the internal gender feels of a man?
Is there no recognition that it just might be the way males look externally that would make a vulnerable woman feel uncomfortable?

It's like they've got halfway there with their thinking, then stopped.
There is a charity thread on here that seemed to reach the same conclusions; a specific group of vulnerable women has specific needs which make it necessary to request "female volunteers only". But female is anyone who identifies as female, so what is the point of having that requirement there in the first place?

What problem do they worry could be caused by men, that couldn't also be caused by males who identify as women?

Applications are invited from women only, which includes trans women (self-declaration).

Huh?

So not "women only" then?

Of course, there is no one who would be better placed to meet the sexual health needs of a vulnerable woman than a man who hates women...

With a bit of luck, there will be no men with the relevant experience. Worryingly, I think we might see a bit of 'positive discrimination' in an attempt to show that the inclusion of self id TIMs is genuine and not just paying lip service.

Yes, and this positive discrimination will no doubt take the form of Lily McMadigan, Take II. FFS!

HR departments now have gender studies grads in diversity and inclusion teams and as a result now include the standard diversity and inclusion words provided by the trans lobbyists.

Its all done either unthinkingly or in a risk averse way.