New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

I struggled to even come up with a title for this thread as I am so enraged I know I will get deleted and even banned if I say what I really think.

twitter.com/EdinRapeCrisis/status/1389112490215288832?s=20

Littlebrowndog - sorry by that I mean they are openly very pro- women, almost anti-men, always willing to publicly call out unfairness and poor male behaviours, especially due to male egos in the workplace, put up posts such as ‘smash the patriarchy’ etc

Truth thank you for that.

For me though this is about language, law, class stuff.

I'm a person who streams in (sense of self preservation a bit wonky!) and I don't think about who what etc.

It's not about thinking well if it was a gay man or a black man I would but for this person I wouldn't. That's got nothing to do with it.

None of this is about turning your back on an individual who is being attacked etc.

I'm interested how that was how you saw it iyswim and why for you it's I would (female socialisation) but now I would think twice (politics) when it comes to an individual being attacked?

On the illegality aspect. This is a real problem.

The EA has clear situations where a role can be advertised and offered to only male people or female people.

Examples.
This centre had used the female only exemption.
There are I'm sure charities and orgs that use this for male candidates only. Maybe something supporting young gay men? Not sure not my area but it is there if needed.

This job ad used the female only exemption. Inviting female applicants only.

These exemptions are GRC irrelevant. Even if you have a GRC eg FTM then the org can exclude you from the candidates as they have specified male.

That's the law.

So this happens and it's illegal.

Should bring them here fandangos.

This is where it’s at

The brilliant women learning us all what being a women is all about

They are hiring someone who does not meet their own criteria, they exercise their right to advertise to/ hire only females.

In hiring someone who is not female. Whether with a GRC or otherwise. They are discriminating against other males who may have wanted to apply but did not due to the female only nature of the role.

I also wonder where they would have internally drawn the line. Would a person who self IDs as a woman, but does not present as a woman have been acceptable? That sort of thing. The line which was sex is now blurred by this leaving it open across the sector if it stands.

•A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

It's written out there in the law, so very clearly. The potential 'distress' is right there, acknowledged.

When you think about it, it's almost like someone looked at the Equality Act and set out to dismantle the examples specifically. As if that would then undermine the Act itself.

Problems.

Laws exist but people don't just go along with them, they have to be enforced. eg illegal to sack a woman because she's pregnant, but happens to thousands of women every year.

If the laws aren't upheld spontaneously, then the recourse is court. Very very expensive. And stressful etc.

We have individual women having to take orgs including the NHS to court to get the law enforced, and the civil service etc are fighting them. When what they have done is illegal in law.

So that's a bit of a problem.

The other point is that this is the same situation as girl guides, really.

GG it turned out had changed from a single sex org to a single gender org.
They claimed they had always been single gender not single sex (really? A B-P set it up as single gender not single sex in 1910? We are supposed to believe that????!!).

Charity rules - they have a single sex exemption due to girls needing something separate from boys in these circs due to female oppression etc etc.

By changing to single gender they are:

Discriminating against some male children, as some are acceptable but not others
Discriminating against some female children who have a gender id that is not 'girl'. (Not sure what they're doing in practice. Initially they were going to suggest to non binary girls that they look elsewhere. I suspect they have no clear policies).
Discriminating against girls who are not allowed to go to mixed sex activities (often due to religion, could be other reasons).
Safeguarding. Groups like scouts are mixed and their safeguarding takes this into account. Guides said there was no need to review their (single sex) policies as trans girls are girls...??!! Camping changing everything no need to review. That's just s statement I couldn't quite believe. GG rangers are 14 to 18... I mean wtf tbh

ERCC: we’re going to employ a transwoman, a specific one we have in mind, but to make the recruitment process inclusive we’ll invoke a single-sex exception so no other transwoman can apply. That seems a proportionate means of —recruiting Mridul Wadhwa— achieving a legitimate aim*

*recruiting Mridul Wadhwa, twice stated to press the point

For clarity: this is irony and not a statement of fact.

Their charter as a charity is all about girls and opportunities and of course the exemption to be single sex.

So they have broken the EA, breached their charter, swerved the idea that there might be safeguarding implications. They have lied about always being single gender not sex. And very importantly they have not made it explicit to parents etc that they are single gender not sex, and of course the vast majority of people in the UK assume they are single sex.

They have sacked at least one leader for challenging this and others have left.

This is the behaviour of a long established, respected org that thousands of girls have got an awful lot from in their 100 year+ history.

So in short.

Yes ERC have broken the law. They have discriminated against applicants on the basis of sex, they have not applied the exemption they stated in the as.

Additionally, they knew this would be a very contraversial hire that would attract attention in the media etc. Rape victims need to trust. Having this in the papers etc would put victims off contacting them I am sure. So why did they do it? Why a massive political statement, cost to their reputation amongst a fair amount of women (their core client group), the fact they are visible and contraversial putting victims off as who wants to take about a sensitive personal experience to an org who are getting lots of attention over something that has nothing to do with their remit?

And then of course the racism. The deleting to get rid of criticism and then reposting ignoring the criticism. I wouldn't see that as the behaviour of an org I could trust with something deeply personal and deeply upsetting.

In short. What the fuck are they thinking?

Sorry for multiple posts had a lot to say!

This attacking rape crisis centres that was mentioned, I took it to mean vandalising / rallying outside like they do outside abortion centres and shouting abuse

I was a bit surprised! Can I just check if anyone knows what is meant by GCs attacking rape crisis centres. I just realised- do they mean saying stuff on Twitter etc?

NiceGerbil, great posts thank you. As you say, it would be expensive to take them to court, but complaining to OSCR, who regulate charities in Scotland, costs nothing. Leafstamp gave the link to their complaints form a few posts back.

I get really frustrated with "attack" to mean "disagree with in writing".

I thought it was a bit weird for women who have spent years writing emails, submissions to consultations, speaking to MPs to suddenly start being physically aggressive, it's not really our way of doing things.

Yep I clocked that thanks jacopo. Yes people in Scotland should write to them.

Not saying otherwise.

Just... With the GG nothing worked. Even though they broke loads of stuff. No one seems to care. Even regulators etc. Really upsetting.

@OldTurtleNewShell

For anyone unsure about what I'm referencing, it's the constant and unrelenting attacks on Vancouver Rape Relief.

The Superstraight reddit did a crowdfunder to support Vancouver Rape Relief and the crowdfunder got shut down. $7000+ dollars had been raised at that point, and it got sent back to the donors, instead of going to the shelter. That's $7000 taken away from rape victims.

archive.ph/6KCGN

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4188850-TRAs-apparently-cancelled-GoFundMe-for-Vancouver-Rape-Relief

What the actual fuck?

And 2) other male-bodied people have potentially been disadvantaged by being discouraged from applying because of the wording of the ad.

I dont think the issue is other males.

the issue is the advertised (legally) a women only post. Those women who applied and are qualified for the job are the ones being discriminated against.

And I posted earlier today (as didothers) complaints should go to the funders of this post, the Charity commission they are registered to and also Rape Crisis Scotland (assuming they are an affiliated member which I presume they are as they set the standard of service within RCCs).

Additionally if anyone is worried about what is said on twitter(*), no one is attaching RCCs. They are attacking unelected Trustees who are undermining the work of trained employees and volunteers, and of course the women who use the service.

No sane person would think criticising a MC is criticising the organisation. Nearly everybody knows that MCs are the weak point of most voluntary sector groups.

(*) twitter in now one of the least used social media platform having fallen from 12th to 15th.

Twitter only has an impact when and if main stream media takes notice. Otherwise you are doing little more than going down to some dingy pub where drunks regularly have punch ups. And 99.9% of people either aren't aware or just ignore.

Have found the ad for Board Members from earlier this year.

It says you dont have to be qualified - they will provide training!

Ad also clearly says Board Members should be women as allowed under the EA.

www.ercc.scot/get-involved/board/

The list of the current board members is at the bottom of this page.

www.ercc.scot/about-us/meet-the-team/

I dunno why they would welcome applications from transwomen if they invoke the exception.
Do they not understand the exception?

Have found the ad for Board Members from earlier this year.

The attached Equality & Diversity monitoring form for Edinburgh Rape Crisis conflates gender/gender identity and fails to record sex.

'Sex Not Gender' website explains the issues with this:
www.sexnotgender.info/

The issue does include other males for from a logical/ legal perspective.

They used the EA single sex exemption in the advert.
That allows for orgs to advertise roles as women/ men applicants only (with that defined as female/ male) if there is a good reason. People who have a GRC, for the purposes of these roles, are not included in the group they have transitioned to. This is because the exemption is exercised only in the most sensitive of circumstances.
In the case of this rape crisis centre, they exercised this exemption (as many do) to invite only applications from people of the female sex.

In this case they advertised for female/women (in the EA act they are both meaning female sex) due to the nature of the role/ service.

They have hired a person who is a male and has no GRC. even if s GRC was held this person would still not be eligible as this is one of the few situations where the nature of the role is such that even a transwoman with a GRC is excluded from the role. And this is very rare. When it is invoked it is around women and girls who have experienced crime/ abuse such that the EA says well in this case the needs of the service users outweigh anything else.

To advertise a job using that EA exemption means it is clear that applications from males even ones who have transitioned and have a GRC are not invited, will not be considered.

Giving this job to a transwoman with no GRC breaches the exemption they invoked themselves.

And so yes it is discriminatory towards males (including non binary) and transwomen with or without a GRC who might have applied but read the job description and didn't because it was only open to females.

That is basic sex discrimination. A male got the job even though the and said males need not apply.

There is also the massive issue that they used the EA single sex exemption to invite only female applicants and then gave the job to a trans woman.

Who has no GRC (not that that would have made them eligible anyway) and a load of dodgy behaviour in their past which is public record.

Yes it is discriminatory against men. Because a male got the job even though the and said the job wasn't open to males.

So another thing sorry.

When I read earlier that 'GC women were attacking rape crisis centres' it conjured up in my head, well. A physical attack on the centres. Bricks through windows etc.

I thought it sounded a bit unlikely.

So we have male people on the internet using the word 'attack' to mean... Words on a screen?

Fucking hell. Are all word meanings up for grabs now?

And in the real world who carries out the most attacks? In the way most people understand it. Blokes, that's who. Whether it's police attacked at a football match (the other day), a random sexual assault, a young person carrying out a stabbing, or an act of arson. It's pretty much always always chaps.

Is this the new incarnation of. Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them. Kind of thing.

And this constant fucking with words.

Attacked used to mean and still does to most people, real life violence.

Terrorist attack
Shoppers were attacked by a man with a knife
The crowd attacked the police
Etc etc

For men to use this word, in relation to women reacting to things that they think are bad with criticism on the internet. Is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

And they say women are hysterical/ prone to exaggeration etc....

Hmmmmmmmm.

Well put NiceGerbil. They either don’t know about the Vancouver incident , one of many unfortunately or don’t give a shit! I recently read a bit about Paisley’s mother and frankly I think she would not be impressed at all by her son’s stance.

Silly sods.

Post gets criticism. Delete. Repost ignoring points about racism. Or the phrase 'exciting time''being really fucking weird wording for what a rape crisis centre is doing at the moment.

Critical comments just gather on the post underneath instead.

I genuinely don't get it.

Why not respond to criticism? Say. Can see some people don't like this but they are best person for job because xyz. Really good plans for outreach or whatever. Etc etc.

Why delete the post when it's all going to archived, as if that makes it never have happened?

Why repost with exact same wording- racist and exciting time?

Why not put something out to reassure those who need the service that despite the recent press hooha they are confidential, caring and of course both male and female victims will only receive support from someone they are comfy with, whether it's sex or any other reason

And so on and so on.

I don't get it at all. Who the fuck is running their messaging? It's just s fail whichever way you look. Not advocating for their new hire. Not reassuring current or potential service users.

What are they even doing???

I have worked for plenty of companies large small. Private sector, 3rd sector. Public sector was before the internet

The social media/ anything to press etc etc is managed so incredibly tightly.

I don't get it. It's just bafflingly incompetent.

Before you even get to the other stuff.