Men welcome to counsel women who've suffered violence and sexual assault

[namechanging2019]

What has the world come to?

Explicitly stating men are welcome to enter women's spaces and 'support' them after suffering horrendously at the hands of other men.

goodmoves.com/vacancy/a4s0N000000H3CPQA0/kairos-womens-space-project-worker?distance=16.09344&lat=55.86362987410874&lng=-4.236884037038807&location=Glasgow&page=3

goodmoves.com/vacancy/a4s0N000000H3CPQA0/kairos-womens-space-project-worker?distance=16.09344&lat=55.86362987410874&lng=-4.236884037038807&location=Glasgow&page=3

Trying a click link

There definitely are perps who would go to work on refuges etc handed the chance. This must be like Christmas for abusers.

Non-binary includes Gregor wasisface, the erstwhile SNP councillor with beard who has called women who disagree with his political views "cunts."

How is this not a safeguarding issue?

Vulnerable women? Yes, let's put them in a situation that completely re-victimises them and puts them at risk in a space they are supposed to be safe..

Now, let's not be bigoted. Gregor is far more oppressed than a woman who has been sexually abused or subjected to domestic abuse. He is the victim of literal violence.

The non binary thing pisses me off too, if they are non binary they are not identifying as women and if they don't identify as women what are they doing applying for a job that is all about women? Or more to the point why would the organisation want someone who doesn't even identify as a woman?

Because we can't say anything to the contrary without being labelled bigoted or transphobic.

According to Stonewall's new definition, an effeminate man is trans, so would be eligible for this post.

Hell, I reject gender norms whenever I possibly can, so according to them I'M trans too.

Yeah what happens if the woman to be counselled doesn't share the belief of the person wishing to counsel that they are a woman?

Are they provided with someone else or are they denied service?

And yes, as reported in the Scots discussion on the GRA consultation: it is a fact that men with a sexual interest in talking to/ involvement with/ performing of women and sexual assault for their own fetishistic purposes. How exactly will this be protected against so that abused women are not further abused in the name of making men happy?

Good point Name , are we also sure that a woman requesting an actual female won't just be denied service but will be reported for 'hate speech' ?

And are women warned about this before accessing the service so they can make an informed decision about this risk? And is there sign posting for women whose needs preclude them from being able to work with a male born counsellor to a service that actually is female only? (You know, as opposed to just excluding them from provision as a more 'inclusive' way of operating.)

it is a fact that men with a sexual interest in talking to/ involvement with/ performing of women and sexual assault for their own fetishistic purposes seek out involvement in such services

I'd much rather have a counsellor who is a man and knows he's a man than a counsellor who "identifies" as a woman.

Somehow "identifying as" and "empathising with" seem to be mutually exclusive.

Yeah what happens if the woman to be counselled doesn't share the belief of the person wishing to counsel that they are a woman?

This is the worrying part. Veering dangerously close to coerced speech/belief..

I cannot fathom how people STILL deny that trans rights are impacting on women's.

I don't deny anyone the right to exist. But this is farcical. Womanhood is being appropriated and defined by those with no lived experience of it.

I wouldn't dare preach to a man about what it means to be male or masculine, why is the reverse not only acceptable, but being forced upon us?

I'd much rather have a counsellor who is a man and knows he's a man than a counsellor who "identifies" as a woman.

Yep.

Yeah what happens if the woman to be counselled doesn't share the belief of the person wishing to counsel that they are a woman?

You think it would be obvious that gaslighting a traumatised woman isn't conducive to healing but it seems it's bigotted to think this way.

All I can think of is a woman who's suffered abuse/coercive control/sexual assault being told by a man that she must agree with the 'facts' he is telling her (i.e. that he is a woman and fully permitted access to her space) and she is a bigot for believing otherwise..

I am torn between rage, fear and sadness about this...

Really. As usual it comes to mind: someone with the experience and skills to understand traumatised, abused women and to do the job which involves putting their needs first....

…. would be concerned about putting women in this position in the first place.

I'm sure there are TW who are fantastic at their jobs in this role. However once it involves not allowing women a choice as to freedom of belief, or choice of sex of professional, or the ability to voice discomfort and state reality/set boundaries.... that directly prevents the job being done.

No, this is simply wrong; I’m not eloquent enough to convey the anger and despair it makes me feel.
A vulnerable, traumatised woman who needs to develop boundaries to keep herself safe and rebuild her life does not need to be ‘supported’ in a supposed safe place by a biological man, however they identify. Not unless they want to be triggered left right and centre.
What they need is the Freedom programme but what they risk is being used as part of someone’s role play.
This is a predictable consequence of an ideology that repeatedly tramples over women’s rights and as always the vulnerable will suffer the most.
I’m hoping I’ve actually got this wrong and the centre will not expect vulnerable women to be used in this way. I hope I am.

@Wurzelsnewhead

I think you've explained your feelings well. I understand and totally agree.

Sadly I cannot think of another way that the recruiting organsiation can mean this?

Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9

Part 1, para 1.3:

(3) The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a requirement to have a protected characteristic are to be read—

(a) in the case of gender reassignment, as references to a requirement not to be a transsexual person (and section 7(3) is accordingly to be ignored);

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

This para specifically permits exclusion of those who have protection via gender reassignment.

It seems likely, given that this is in Scotland, that Kairos is forced to include in order to receive its funding.

Please note that this post is open to women only under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1 (inclusive of non-binary people, trans and intersex women.)

What does this even mean?

They quote the equality act, presumably to indicate that it's legal to be single sex - and then let in the world and his dog!!!

@MangoesAreMyFavourite

You don't even need to call yourself transgender! Someone else can do it for you!

By their definition, we are all trans.

Stonewall is an absolute danger.

@namechanging2019

That extract is from a 2004 document:

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/transgender_booklet_2004.pdf

I knew it was old, but it's one of the first images that comes up when you search. Someone would take that and run with it!

It's a way of stopping women going to these services.

And winding them down.

It's all a money saving exercise.

Thanks namechanging, I’m a child of the 70s and naively thought our lot was improving but it seems like the disregard reserved for women was actually always there in the shadows, now it’s openly being feted.