Job ad for CSA counsellor - must Self ID as a Woman

[OhHolyJesus]

Ok I don't get it - is this discriminating against women who don't self-identify as women? They don't understand the exemptions do they?

https://survivorsnetwork.org.uk/about-us/join-our-staff-team/

Children’s Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (CISVA) Female at Survivors’ Network

Survivors Network are pleased to be recruiting a Children’s ISVA working with children 13 and under across Brighton & Hove and East Sussex. The Children and Young People’s service provides advocacy and support to children and young survivors of sexual violence and abuse. As a skilled case worker, you will have significant experience in working with children and vulnerable people, a commitment to working in a client-centred way and a good understanding of self care. Post holder to be largely based at our Eastbourne office, but will spend time in our central Brighton office, with travel across East Sussex.

This post is open to self-identifying women

For more information or an informal chat about this post please contact Aimee Pepper on [email protected] or 07736 294142 The closing date for applications is 9.00am on Friday 15th June 2020

This post is open to self-identifying female applicants only, as being female is deemed to be a genuine occupational requirement under Schedule 9 pt 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and is subject to an enhanced DBS check.
Survivors’ Network is an equal opportunities employer. We welcome applications from all sectors of our diverse community and applications from BME, LB and T women are particularly encouraged.

Sorry cant see anything on the ad about twomen being encouraged to apply.

If it does say that somewhere then obviously they shouldn't be advertising the post saying it is in line with EA.

And the funders should be notified of misadvertising.

As a member of a specific sexual orientation lesbian only services are legal. I wonder whether the same objection could be mounted if "lesbian" was taken to include heterosexual males?

I'd have thought so, but I'm not a lawyer. I mean, to my mind it's insane that a man could self-identify as a lesbian. Of course if a man has a GRC then legally that makes him female. But would that still make him female for the purpose of the Equality Act exemptions? I'm not quite sure how the law intersects.

Of course, as we all know, only 5,000 GRCs have been issued, so the other question is what if a man self-identifies as female (and lesbian) but doesn't have a GRC? I'd have thought that if the job role requires a lesbian, then that person would be excluded. But I don't know.

How does this self ID work? Presumably a man could just say “I’m a woman” with no input from any medical professionals to prove any gender dysphoria or desire to “transition” and they and we would have to accept this and treat him like a woman? Otherwise it’s discrimination?!

Surely this is massively open to abuse? I have nothing against genuine trans people at all, but I can’t see how just saying “I identity as a woman” means you should be treated as a woman. This is putting women and children at risk and I don’t see who it benefits other than men wishing to exploit the system and gain access to women’s spaces, as if someone genuinely is trans and is undergoing or has undergone hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery they wouldn’t need to “self ID” as they would have “proof” that they are trans.

@Elsiebear90 this is the point. I've often wondered if I was ever looking for a job, whether I would put 'non-binary' on the application and if that would somehow fast track me to interview/even the job in the name of 'equality'

This is on their website stumbled but I think the ad had now been updated?

Screen grab if the job ad from yesterday.

self identifying female

Under the Equality Act it can only be female (and even TW with a GRC can be excluded)

This post is open to self-identifying female applicants only, as being female is deemed to be a genuine occupational requirement under Schedule 9 pt 1 of the Equality Act 2010

This doesn't make any sense. How can being female be a genuine occupational requirement if the word 'female' has no objective meaning? Why are they excluding people who don't identify as female? What does it mean to identify as female?

This post is open to self-identifying female applicants only, as being female is deemed to be a genuine occupational requirement

Well, which is it?

Self identifying women only or female people.

I wouldn't apply for a job that was open to 'self identifying women only' because I would assume it didn't mean me.

I don't get it. Im confused - what exactly do they want?

I don't get it. Im confused - what exactly do they want?

A woke man

Thanks for the screen shots of updated ad. I did go onto their web site and saw the longer job description etc..

And clearly what they are advertising is wrong under the law.

Either they want a woman as acknowleded by the EA and confirmed recently by Liz Truss ie the right of women to receive services from other women under the protect characteristic of SEX.

If they want it to be open to "T women" then they themselves are guilty of excluding them by saying the job is protected under the EA.

I was going to say if they are funded by the local council to raise the issue with them, but then it is Brighton, so like Leeds they will probably think the EA is what they want it to be.

I posted this on the Good News thread but it is so relevant here hope no one minds is I post it again:

"Baroness Nicholson said that she wrote to Liz Truss about the Equality Act because her stance is that it’s being “deliberately mangled”.

“If you look up my correspondence with the health minister, my question is on the misuse of the 2010 Act,” she said. “I see this as a deliberate attempt to foil parliament’s careful wording by spreading false information far and wide.

“I very strongly disapprove of such illegal tactics whereby hospitals, which are exempt from the 2010 Act, are given apparently mandatory ‘guidelines’ instructing their administration to accept self-ID patients as of law.

“This is justified by filleting the act’s clear statement in schedule 23 of the act; taking out words and concluding a different meaning to that clearly stated in legal wording in the act.

“This wholesale destruction of law has been promoted through many government departments. As a legislator I am objecting and will continue to explain why what has been stated is not the case at all.”

“The Equality Act 2010 has been misquoted,” she added. “The act has been changed and represented in a different set of meanings.”

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/05/19/liz-truss-equality-act-gender-recognition-trans-rights-baroness-nicholson-marsha-de-cordova/

(The thing about Pink news is they are so lost in their own world view that they will often repeat verbatim what someone has said thinking it will condemn them which in fact it condemn's PN and its allies!!)

Why do they ‘need’ a - going by the description - male person who IDs as a woman (since a woman’s never self ids as one surely). How does this fit in with sexually abused children?i don’t get it at all.

Ok I'll write to Baroness N, at the very least it's just another example of how the EA is misinterpreted and how far this has gone.

Someone has posted a question about the ad on their facebook page.

This is their response:

Thank you for your comment. If you would like to ask any questions regarding this role please contact our CEO at [email protected]

www.facebook.com/survivorsnet/photos/a.290354344330539/3281990418500235/?type=3

Interesting. I can see there are comments, but cant see the actual comments even if I like and follow page.