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

Can I ask (possibly a daft question), if MW did have a GRC (comments up thread suggest that's not the case) would that then mean MW could not be excluded from the role under the Genuine Occupational Requirement? Is this what the recent vote in the Scottish Parliament was about? Sorry, I really feel I should know this but find it quite confusing!

No, even with a GRC the position is open to women only. Scotland still has to abide by The Equality Act.

I am absolutely raging at this, how dare the Edinburgh rape crisis employ this person who has no right to this job. This person has no integrity

@Thelnebriati

No, even with a GRC the position is open to women only. Scotland still has to abide by The Equality Act.

Thanks!

I think so, but this is one of the weaknesses of The Equality Act. People can break the law, then we have to do the fundraising to pay for justice; and a woman who has been affected by the decision has to be the one to raise her head above the parapet.

Sorry, that was to Tommy.

This is happening because no one is brave enough to say "no" to Mridul.

That is the sole reason behind me losing my rights - because people in positions of power and influence have not listened to women and then, if they have, they are not brave enough to take on the ire of the TRA.

Well, fine. They can deal with the ire of women instead.

Even if it were legally acceptable for a transwoman with a GRC to apply for this position, it doesn't mean it would be a morally correct thing to do.

If you know that traumatised women specifically state that a single sex environment is preferable, and you know that your presence may distress a sizeable proportion of the women a rape crisis centre is there to ostensibly support, why would you put yourself there?

Even if most women were okay with it (they aren't) why would you risk re-traumatising the ones who need a space free of male bodies?

It's fairly obvious why, of all people, rape victims may wish a space free of male bodies, even if this is only for a specific time and reason.

Why would you not respect that?

kareningalasmith.com/category/single-sex-services/
kareningalasmith.com/2020/07/08/trauma-informed-services-for-women-subjected-to-mens-violence-must-be-single-sex-services/comment-page-1/

Looking forward to hearing Women's Aid's latest comment on single sex spaces.

www.womensaid.org.uk/consultation-on-single-sex-service-provision/

Scotland still has to abide by The Equality Act.

The equality act is anti-discrimination. It's not about the right to single-sex spaces/roles.

Single-sex references exist within it only as an exception to say that sex discrimination is still permitted to allow single-sex spaces for good reasons, such as rape counselling, or sports.

But there's nothing in it saying organisations have to use the leeway it gives them permitting single-sex spaces. It doesn't guarantee female-only rape centres or female-only sports.

It's the product of a saner time when it was obvious some things would be single sex, so you didn't need to legislate for that.

Oh look, the unthinkable has happened. Again. Just another day in Gender Ideology News Land.

This. This is what is is. This is the endgame of trans activism. Women are not allowed to be uncomfortable or have a female space. Even if abused by males, even when traumatised.

Males like their women abused and traumatised, as the annals of history show us. Makes us easier to control. This new trojan horse strategy is an absolute corker.

What is the purpose of a GRC? Why are they needed? I don't see why it's necessary to have legal rights based on something that isn't true.

The GRA (2004, I think) brought in the "legal fiction" of a change of sex, so that people could stay married. It was a piece of legislation before equal marriage.

I think it's fair enough that if someone is so ill/distressed by their sex that one solution is to seek to mitigate the effects by living as/presenting as the other sex. And then to be able to have legal rights against discrimination on the basis of being transgender.

The Equalities Act still allows for birth sex to be a factor in some cases - proportionate means to a legitimate end. Single sex safe spaces for women, such as refuges and rape crisis centres completely fit this category.

But the whole thing has become so muddied by the push for self-identification (I'm a woman because I say I am) and many organisational & institutional policies which assume self-id. Unlawfully in some cases eg this one.

Please forgive me if this already been discussed, but I’ve just read the following on their website:

We offer free and confidential emotional and practical support, information and advocacy to women, all members of the trans community, non-binary people and young people aged 12-18 in Edinburgh, East and Midlothian, who have experienced sexual violence at any time in their lives. This includes, rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.

To me, this looks like men and boys (who are victims of sexual abuse) can get support there.

Link: www.ercc.scot/

I expect I’ll be disagreed with but I don’t therefore think it’s too much of an issue re this new appointment.

I do however think they should change the name of the organisation to clarify it’s not just about rape victims.

If the job was advertised as 'women only' then Mridhul shouldn't be in that position, whatever the demographic of the service users - otherwise, why advertise it as 'women only'?

And what does it tell us about the charity's ability as a whole to respect boundaries?

A charity in which safeguarding should be of the utmost priority, whereby they are aware of boundaries and the importance of maintaining them for these vulnerable women and children.

This is nothing to do with the ability of those people to offer a good service, it's about their ability to see a wider perspective in safeguarding and boundary maintaining.

Which Wight Dash absolutely have considered.

This sends a clear message to the women and children they help.

I think it's a very deliberate action on the part of Edinburgh rape crisis. When MW applied for MW's previous role in a tape crisis centre MW applied knowing they were ineligible due to the single sex exemption. MW may 'pass' convincingly but MW was given that job against the equality act. Everyone knows that - so giving MW the CEO role is a deliberate piece of TWAW signaling

Rape crisis not tape!

I expect I’ll be disagreed with but I don’t therefore think it’s too much of an issue re this new appointment.

I do however think they should change the name of the organisation to clarify it’s not just about rape victims.

If you don't think it matters whether the head of a rape crisis centre is a man or a woman that's a debate that can be had.

But, for Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, according to their own advert for this job it was only available for a woman. Why didn't they stick to their own rule?

What a message to send.

Sheesh.

What is the point of a GRC when it can’t be used as any kind of differentiator, and we have effective self ID anyway?