Mridul Wadhwa and Rape Crisis Scotland.

[VictoriaLucas102]

twitter.com/hightreebud/status/1323965389144002562?s=20

This one’s popped onto my radar a few times over the past couple of weeks .. thought it was worth sharing as there is a lot to unpack. Apologies if it’s already been shared .. I checked back but couldn’t see anything.

The thread will be deleted as you are not allowed to talk about trans individuals - even if they hold positions, including political positions, that harm women or have been appointed to illegally.

(illegally on an AWS)

It is a shocking situation.

I too fear this thread will be pulled, even though it is clearly in the public interest to discuss whether it is right that an individual, should have disclosed being trans identifying but not holding (and furthermore, as a foreign national, being unable to apply for) a GRC, was able to apply for a job which clearly states an equalities Act exemption limiting applications to those of a particular sex.

And whether, given that screen grabs of the application form are available which show applicants were explicitly asked whether they were trans, the failure to disclose was accidental or deliberate.

Wadhwa was invited to contribute to Maria Miller's 2016 enquiry.

See page 31 where they said the genuine occupational requirement that allows women only jobs is

"discriminatory to transsexual people especially trans women. I genuinely believe that there is no space for it in the gender-based violence sector and that it has no place in violence against women work. I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago. I have worked in the violence against women sector since 2005 and have never known for it to be used. I am disappointed to think that someone has the right to refuse work to me and others like me in my sector just because they think that I might not be a woman."

Link to document here.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

This isn't on the Twitter thread.

@Aesopfable

The thread will be deleted as you are not allowed to talk about trans individuals - even if they hold positions, including political positions, that harm women or have been appointed to illegally.

Thanks for the heads up. I’m still getting to grips with the mod rules.

Great find, Escapeplanning.

If you look through threads generally around refuges you will find accounts by MNetters who attended meetings with refuge staff where they tried to discuss their need for single sex facilities and the distress and harm being caused to them by staff determined to champion mixed sex facilities as more inclusively progressive.

One MNetter described that by the end of the meeting many of the women were in tears. Staff were interested only in the inclusion of people born male in the services and refuges and had no interest whatsoever in what the female born people were saying, expressing or sharing other than to dismiss it as wrong. Afterwards those staff (I believe this included area management) stated openly that no female born service users had ever raised any issues with them, so denying those women, their voices or that meeting ever existed.

When you have staff and managers who are male born and therefore have a personal stake in this perceived inclusiveness, the fairness to female born people and their voices becomes highly questionable. And that would be if those people and their voices were allowed to even be heard, never mind listened to and supported in the way that male born service users are.

There was lots of discussions here about the orgs and people who contributed to Maria Miller's enquiry. It may be worth a new thread for newer posters if anyone is interested. I'm a bit busy to start that but some of the women's organisations have done some analysis and shared it on their sites.

If this individual had a shred of compassion they would resign from their role and allow a qualified woman to take over. I don't understand how the person who gave them the job can't now rescind the job offer, seeing as they withheld information on the application form....its just doesn't make sense.

and now Womens' Officer in their local SNP branch

It's despicable.

Sometimes I just despair. Women who have been subjected to violence and sexual assault having their concerns blown off in favour of those who are not natal women.
I think of Detroit struggling to find somewhere she feels safe and the Vancover rape crisis centre being defunded because it is women only and women being called vulva havers or menstrators and I feel so angry and helpless and desperate.
I contribute to crowd funding and write letters but it feels too little. Maybe we should copy the Polish women, though at my age that could be a trifle difficult.

Rather than focusing on the individual the important issue is the disregard in policies for the exemptions and the act of asking the excluded cohort if they agree with the exclusion rather than the cohort for whom the exclusion was originally designed to help. Other wise it's dismissed as a personal attack .

The sex based power system in play that enables the enforcement of one set of voices, values and benefits over another is painfully obvious.

And demonstrates exactly why it is so essential that sex based provisions for females are protected in law, as they are always inevitably subordinated to the perspectives, preferences, benefit and dominant narratives of the male sex when in mixed sex situations.

That's exactly what has happened Michelle and why it's so important to keep up the pressure on the proper use of exemptions and not defer to the perspective that they are unfair and unnecessary.

I've saved the wording for escape and Michelle's posts as I expect this thread to be zapped.

(because they're such great posts!)

This is horrific. Deliberately denying vulnerable women and girls access to single sex rape crisis services. These people should hang their heads in shame. Are there any rape crisis centres which are single sex? I'd like to do some spadework

This whole thread requires being screenshot in case people who don't give a shit about children and women who have been raped decide to delete it/have it deleted.

Then the issue needs to be raised in the Commons and Lords.

That's such an upsetting post, Michelle.

no female born service users had ever raised any issues with them

This reminds me of when I campaigned at uni for a creche service, and the tutors all said it clearly wasn't needed, because 'there are no mothers attending'.

Also, before this is zapped, what is the best way that we can speak about male born people applying for jobs specifically described as for females, working in a role where their presence actively excludes the females its designed to support, and talking about 'destroying' women who question or complain? When these are elected officials?

In what other situations are the language and boundaries established for safeguarding a vulnerable group blatantly ignored?

I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago

Pretty sure it was a condition in their current (?) job application...

This individual us deliberately pushing boundaries:

Working in a female only (genuine occupational requirement) position - tick

Working with vulnerable women in rape crisis - tick

Standing on AWS - tick

Women's officer - tick

Have I missed any?

Female born service users escaping with their lives, probably abused and coercively controlled their whole lives are unlikely to be able to voice their concerns at the time of use.

It shows a severe lack of self awareness its.