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

gender reassignment being a protected characteristic is to allow someone with a certificate to say they were discriminated against because they had one, whether about housing, shopping or whatever.

But - no one characteristic trumps another. That's why the provision for single sex services is always advertised with the wording about genuine need (ie for it to be women only).

So they are in breach of the law.

I wonder what Rape Crisis Scotland has to say about this - assuming they have a federated system like WAFE where you are meant to adhere to certain standards etc..

Even if the new management committee is really new wouldn't they have had to have training prior to taking up the posts. (One of the biggest threats to voluntary sector groups and charities are their trustees. Young and ignorant is one thing, but make no mistake if a so call professional person is coopted onto a committee all too often they can turn out to be a bigoted tyrant who think MCscan behave like dictators. And too many join MC because it looks good on their CV. Just because someone can add up figures, and understands what audited accounts are, doesn't make them qualified in any other area of work, and yet they will be in a position to take decisions on those other areas.)

If anyone is on facebook there are quite a lot of comments on the ERC post about this appointment. Add your voice! www.facebook.com/edinburghrapecrisis/photos/a.156340431121264/3978227878932481/?type=3&theater

What strikes me about this announcement is they clearly feel that this person is a transwoman and BME gives them a particular insight and ability to support transwomen and BME women - otherwise why call those two attributes out? Have they thought that the corollary might also be true? That being a biological woman would give someone a particular insight and ability to support women.

@transsloth

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?

Yes, you’re right it’s two separate debates.

I think my point was that it doesn’t appear to be solely a rape crisis centre.

I do completely agree that this person should not have kept the sex a secret and that there is an issue with them and the organisation having ignored the organisation’s policy.

Looks like there’s been massive scope creep in terms of the services they offer and to whom.

Part of that, too, has come from the Scottish government as a funder - there has been pressure to support men as a condition of funding.
Probably because men haven't set anything up for themselves.

Enough said

For what it is worth, I don’t think it matters if the CEO is a man or a woman. It’s more important to me that the person actually be qualified for their job. I agree that after restricting the position to females per the equality act, they’ve done wrong by hiring a male.

I know this is controversial, but I am in favour of staff members and counsellors who are men as well as women, both for male victims of rape and the odd female victims of rape who prefer a male counsellor to a female one (like me..I know we are tiny minority, but we do exist). I absolutely think all rape victims have the right to request a female counsellor or male counsellor. And this is by sex, not gender. So Transwoman is not female and a transman is not male.

This stops any trans widows in Scotland from being able to access Rape Crisis. It has a chilling effect which I can't help thinking is deliberate.

Scottish Trans Alliance say a trans widow is abusive if she refuses to affirm her transitioning husband's gender identity.

Imagine being an abused Scottish trans widow and knowing you can't access help firstly because you're likely to be accused of abuse yourself and secondly because the person in charge of the organisation has more in common with your perpetrator than they do with you.

And just BTW, has Edinburgh gone completely, batshit mad? 'The New Canada', it's been called on a previous thread.

God help the women of Scotland.

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

It is an issue if the job description specified the applicant had to be women. It shows that this is an organisation not able to set and maintain its own boundaries.

Does that inability to maintain boundaries run throughout this organisation?

Question

Legally is this non discriminatory against men ?

Because they have legally employed a transwoman when a man would legally not be able to apply for the post .

Would be interesting for a man to launch a legal challenge .

That should read that is this discrimination against men ?

@PlanDeRaccordement

This is a legal question that is important , and I agree would not apply IF the job had not been advertised for women only . In theory there must be a good solid reason for that .

In fact they have just placed a transwomans rights above the rights of men and women ?

Have they thought that the corollary might also be true? That being a biological woman would give someone a particular insight and ability to support women.

This is why I find most appeals to "intersectionality" dishonest, as being born female is clearly something which needs to be considered as an axis of oppression but it's often presented as solely a matter of gender identity.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

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

It is an issue if the job description specified the applicant had to be women. It shows that this is an organisation not able to set and maintain its own boundaries.

Does that inability to maintain boundaries run throughout this organisation?

The sentence of mine you’ve quoted there has been taken out of context a teeny bit, admittedly not helped by me not appreciating the post was advertised for women only.

Similar to Plan I do not consider it essential that an organisation providing support as per its website has a female CEO. What is unacceptable is this person concealing their sex and therefore deliberately ignoring the criteria for candidates as set out by the organisation.

I do agree with your point about boundaries.

[quote Unsure33]@PlanDeRaccordement

This is a legal question that is important , and I agree would not apply IF the job had not been advertised for women only . In theory there must be a good solid reason for that .[/quote]
In theory I agree.

But (carrying on in my slightly Devils’s Advocate fashion, and) depending on how large the organisation is, if there is, for example a female “Head of Rape Crisis Services” and also a “ Head of Sexual Abuse” (male or female) sat underneath the CEO then I’m not sure it’s right to specify that the CEO must be female.

@Leafstamp

Possibly they have made two mistakes then .

The legal challenge could be interesting.

The NCT had a male CEO for a long time.

The main objection to that seemed to be that the CEO is a figurehead. So, if you've got a bloke leading women and speaking about women's issues, well, that's the same old same old, isn't it?

To be fair, he seemed to do a reasonable job despite his Y chromosome. But, I don't think women LIKED it. And those were women who were pregnant, not traumatised.

It just looks odd to have a trans woman in charge of what happens to the hoardes of raped women in a country where rape is effectively legal.

What is unacceptable is this person concealing their sex and therefore deliberately ignoring the criteria for candidates as set out by the organisation.

MW may have concealed their sex when applying for a previous position, but for this position it would have been well known, whatever was put on the application.

[quote Unsure33]@PlanDeRaccordement

This is a legal question that is important , and I agree would not apply IF the job had not been advertised for women only . In theory there must be a good solid reason for that .[/quote]
Exactly. It is discriminatory that the only men that can apply are men that self-identify as women. It is discriminatory for the CEO position to be only offered to women imho. It’s not a client facing role, so there is no reason to restrict the sex of the applicants. I hope someone launches legal challenges on both of these.

For counsellors, and other client facing roles there would be legal reason too. Because 95% of victims will want a female counsellor/staff member to interact with. So in a staff of say 20 counsellors, 19 should be restricted to females only, and 1 males only. Because you staff to meet demand. This isn’t a profession where you want 50/50 man/woman representation in staff.

I agree with you @PlanDeRaccordement and @Unsure33

I think they’ve messed up twicefold.

@Leafstamp

Yes, they’ve messed up twicefold. Another point is that if they always intended the woman only advert to include transwomen, then where does that leave transmen? If experience of womanhood and gender based violence against girls and women is why they restricted it to “women only” ....then in actual lived experience of girl and womanhood, transmen have more of that than transwomen do...so it’s deliberately excluding a whole category of just as qualified (I’d argue more qualified) applicants.