Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gener Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2

That women will know AB is a woman i presume

Why would he ask that? How does that help ERCCs case.

And KM certainly has said MW is a biological woman.

Yes @Boiledbeetle and ERCC have been clear that it wouldn't work the other way round e.g. they expect traumatised women not to mind that they are facing a man when expecting a woman.

If the ERCC barrister seemed to make points which actually undermined his client, would that be grounds for appeal because case not conducted properly? Surely not, because that would give incentive to be useless if case failing?

So I assume DH is complaining about this tweet as being an inaccurate statement of what KM said yesterday:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1749451497119572329

Well I reckon that was a shit show again for ERCC. It seems to get worse with each answer as they dig themselves deeper into that hole

Could he be proving that anyone would know AB was a woman so it wouldn't be an issue for SU's?

Worth repeating the point:
If you can't see sex, how do you see sexism?

How can you stop sexism in the workplace if you don't acknowledge sex? How can any workplace have a policy on sexism in the workplace? Cos GDPR would stop us discussing someone's sex and whether they might be being sexist too.

They can see transphobia absoluetely everywhere though. Quite remarkable that. How do you know someone is trans if you can't see sex? What have they transed from. They even have a dedicated email folder to transphobia.

In a work place that deals with sex based violence. (This in a klaxon voice).

How odd that one's so visible and the other just can't be seen at all because sex is such a private issue that no one else should know.

Its all about your pronouns and the contents of your passport.

Jesus fucking wept.

KM did. Definitely.

Also, everything else KM says implies KM holds the belief that TWA actually W and that saying you have a womanly essence suddenly magically makes you physically the same. Which makes one wonder why so few transwomen have given birth.....

But this was a SU asking for reassurance before turning up and meeting the SW, wasn't it?

That's not going to be the case for a service user who has never met them before though, and is enquiring in advance of a meeting.

I think so. He/she doesn't have a lot to work with to be fair. Will the rape survivors be breaching GDPR with their eyes and ears then and committing a hateful act if they can see sex?

BONKERS!

This tweet - 3 of us from TT heard this. They might say otherwise - we disagree.

Really hope any women in Edinburgh needing Rape Crisis services know how to find Beira's Place and don't end up being seen by this lot.

Thank you so much to everyone who's been transcribing and commenting as they watch.

This tweet - 3 of us from TT heard this. They might say otherwise - we disagree.

Perhaps they should let Naomi ask KM again if she thinks MW is a "biological woman" then. I imagine she'd say yes.

TT tweets from this afternoon

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1749787136583225797.html

So If KM thinks it's disrespectful to recognise someone's sex, then what's a woman to do when she goes to the Police to report a sexual assault carried out against her by a man? She shouldn't comment on his sex. In fact, she shouldn't say he was a man because that might not be his identity. These days there are plenty of masculine presenting males who claim to be women. So I guess that leaves the only respectful way of reporting would be to say it was a person, whose sex she cannot comment on, who is male-representing. But does that even work? What if he was presenting a masculine presenting transwoman?

This stuff is from a rape crisis centre.

There is no good outcome for ERCC if she is asked again. If she says yes then DH looks like a fool and if she says no then she has lied and committed the cardinal sin of admitting the biological reality of MW. Bring it on

Yes would be most interesting to know if the answers are consistent.

Am fascinated to know how they are measuring how many women have self excluded from their service. It seems that so long as they have enough women coming in they're not bothered about who may be finding them inaccessible. And since they refused service to the woman who later found Beira's Place by herself, it would seem likely that they would not be concerned about those women not having support either.

In which case surely they should be labelling and defining themselves as willing to take women only who share and conform to gender identity beliefs, and do not accept other women into their service? And public funding should reflect this and be shared with a service that does meet the needs of the heretics?

Thank you to everybody transcribing today

Just gone back up thread for something

Someone's been reporting posts and there are deletions

I think that was a pretty desperate last question by DH with potential to backfire. If service users can tell the difference between AB and DH then they can distinguish sex. So ERCC policy is (1) to assure a service user there are no men working for the organisation, (2) refuse to discuss the sex of her counsellor with her first and (3) put her in a room with a man knowing she can distinguish the difference. That sounds like deliberate abuse to me.

And it's abuse either way. Because it's also abuse if the service user is deceived by the feminine appearance of their counsellor to think she is being supported by a woman.

It also makes me think of the recent thread on here about some women being complacent about gender ideology and the drive through scolders who insisted that no-one says that human beings can magically change sex....

I think it's disrespectful for somebody not to recognise my sex.