New woman-centred policy at rape crisis centre?

[Hairyesterdaygonetoday]

I've just seen this advert by Cambridge rape crisis centre: We are recruiting a Countywide Duty ISVA to provide initial support, advice and information to adults, young people and their families who have been subjected to sexual violence at any time in their lives.

It says that the centre is committed to equality and inclusivity as an employer and opposes discrimination in everything we do. We especially welcome applications from Black, racially minoritised and LGBTQIA+ women.

Black, racial minority, lesbian and bisexual women, all good. But TQIA+? After being raped, the last thing I wanted was to talk about it with a man.

Then I saw this: Please note: It is an occupational requirement that the post holder is female, in line with the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1, Paragraph 1.

This states
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9
A person (A) does not contravene a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to have a particular protected characteristic, if A shows that, having regard to the nature or context of the work—
(a)it is an occupational requirement,
(b)the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c)the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).

BUT, back in 2020, the Cambridge centre was in the news, and in Mumsnet, insisting on its right to employ self-identifying transwomen.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3968346-Cambridge-rape-centre-response-help-needed?page=1

Does this mean they now want actual female staff, as I would hope in a role that involves contact with rape survivors? Or have I misunderstood?

Cambridge has been and still is very in to trans.

However recent tribunals, especially the one regarding Cambs Council and the Edinburgh Rape Crisis may have concentrated people's minds.

We can only hope.

I suppose there's an argument for employing a tw as a counsellor. There are probably trans people who have been the victims of assault who might prefer a trans counsellor. Or even men or women who wouldn't be bothered by it. The important thing is the victim gets to choose. They aren't gaslit into accepting a man as a woman (or vice versa) or shamed into accepting trans either as a counsellor or in a support group when they need the support of their own sex.

I don't know if Cambridge RC support both sexes, so this is a general point.

It's good to see them using the exemption. I hope it's sincere, they're not going to do an Edinburgh RC and employ a man anyway.

I saw an interesting one somewhere where it was a similar job advert, and not only did it have the same wording about it being an occupational requirement for the candidate to be female, they had added on wording "for the candidate to be female, ie. was assigned female at birth (AFAB)." The AFAB phrase is anathema to many GC people, but I have a feeling that it was included as a flag to indicate that they understand trans language games and are willing to use the transactivist-accepted term AFAB to be crystal clear about who they want to appoint.

As I've said, Mridul Wadhwa, although now suspended, was hired by Edinburgh Rape Crisis when the post advertised using the same exemption for 'female only'.

I'm sorry my syntax is all over the place. Hopefully the meaning is legible.

It is and hopefully we will have more single sex provision.

See https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5147779-do-the-ehrc-guidelines-on-dsicriminatory-adverts-help-make-sse-job-adverts-clearer-and-even-if-they-do-how-does-that-help-service-users