This wouldn't published now (TW Rape Crisis inclusion)

[TheRozzers]

This article is less than 3 years old.

web.archive.org/web/20211122204903/https:/gal-dem.com/trans-inclusive-sexual-violence-services/

Since then we've had JK Rowling opening Beira's place, Roz Adams successfully challenging ERCC for constructive dismissal, the report from Rape Crisis Scotland into the failings, and the exit of Wadhwa.

The tide has surely turned?

The past tense of Operation Let Them Speak: Operation Don't Let Them Squirm Away from How They Have Spoken in the Recent Past.

Not very snappy, but you get my drift - it's so important to keep a record of the extremes of trans activism that were completely ruling the roost until recently, now that there's reverse ferreting going on -
'We never actually claimed that...' 'You must have misunderstood us...' etc.

Thanks for posting this TheRozzers , it's all there, isn't it? MW and all..

Operation Don't Let Them Squirm Away from How They Have Spoken in the Recent Past.

Quite!

The quotes in there from Wadhwa and women working in the sector are very telling. This was a very deliberate, anti-woman strategy that had no consideration for the needs of women survivors.

Wow. Thanks for sharing.

Quoting “Jay Breslow” - would that be Jacob Breslow who resigned from Mermaids under somewhat of a cloud?

No Jay Breslaw is the CEO of survivors network in Brighton - the place being taken to court by Sarah summers

she’s a woman (a real one)

I expect Sarah Summers will be offered a settlement now. I can't see how she can lose or how the Rape Crisis centre can continue defending the indefensible.

She might not accept a settlement. She’s said it’s not about the money.

… although I wouldn’t blame her if she did. To go through the court case on top of everything else, I can’t imagine. So brave, everything she has done.

perhaps a settlement on the condition that SN publicly hold their hands up to their mistake. Although I can’t see that going down well in Brighton.

I do think it's interesting that they are surprised not to have come across Transwomen of colour who require rape support services. They don't seem to have considered that there just aren't any.

They are so fixated on this idea that Transwomen of colour are the most sexually assaulted without interrogating where they have this idea from. Extrapolating stats from sex workers in Brazil (?) to the UK population which is predominantly white is not valid.

web.archive.org/web/20211125214954/survivorsnetwork.org.uk/new-report-tnbi-survivors/

Also I find it astonishing (not) that they recommended trans only spaces but will not allow female only spaces. They hypocrisy is unbelievable

After only consulting with transgender groups and with people who weren't even survivors.

Didn't seem to cross their mind that women rape victims may have an opinion too.

It's breathtaking.

Yes, very much this.

I suspect most of us would feel it is right for trans people (which I'm defining as people with gender dysphoria who present in a way stereotypically associated with the opposite sex) to have services provided for them that take proper account of their needs, and it is right for organisations to seek to provide services that trans people feel safe accessing. BUT WOMEN ARE ENTITLED TO THAT TOO!!!! And the failure to acknowledge that point but instead to insist that 'trans inclusive' means more than 'providing appropriate services to trans people' and actually means 'pretending the word 'WOMEN' is a mixed sex category and there is no longer any word to describe the sex class formerly known as women so their needs can no longer be properly met' is what is so maddening. And that is before we get into thinking about anaglypta wallpaper or whatever the safe way of referring to banned acronyms

Thanks for posting the article OP.

Thanks @TheRozzers. Sad how many people didn't even think that this might be a (really) bad idea until after women were damaged. I'm concerned that we're still close to this insanity. That the people in power who pushed this madness are still there. Hooray that MW isn't but we have a long way to go still.

Thats so wierd, are they related or is it a switcheroo?
I remember Jacob Breslaw very well
www.thepinknews.com/2022/10/06/mermaids-jacob-breslow-investigation/

The surnames are different: Jay Breslaw and Jacob Breslow

it is weird though

I sincerely hope she doesn't feel she has to. That case has the potential to enforce that accessible facilities and services must be provided to women too, regardless of men stamping their feet and pouting.

Me too. It’s such an important case.

Edinburgh has a 95% white population.

This leap that posters keep making on threads that somehow the employment court outcome (ie about an employee being bullied) will somehow change the now ingrained notion of trans inclusive "women's" service, is just not logical.

There are no national enforceable levels of service throughout the UK that says women have the right to services by other biological women.

Some of the federation which do NOT include all service providers do advocate that truely women only services are essential. And as the ERCC case shows which was / is part of the RC federation in Scotland wasn't made to adhere to this.

There is no obligation on funders, local councils, politicians to ensure this happens through adequate. eg Labour have just got a woman who thinks TWAW to chair the Women and Equalities Committee, so highly unlikely that anything like this is going to happen in the near future.

So expecting court case to suddenly start take decisions based on what gender critical feminists and those who support sex based rights, rather than for instance the financial contract between Brighton Council and Survivors Network to provide services for victims of rape, is extremely unlikely.

And despite some high profile court cases, the tide isn't turning, and if anything with Labour in power is surging even more strongly against women's sex based rights.

Look forward to the W&E Committee re-running the consultantion on ammending the GRA in favour of self identity (which the Tories stopped despite the consultation showing the majority of thos who replied supported this).

And as Labour has also made clear that they will not, despite the steps of concluding the petitions re changing the word sex in the EA to mean biological, make any effort to do this. So despite petitions, MPs turning up to debate the issue and the then Government taking on to follow through (I wonder what work if any Kemi Badenoch did on this) Labour has said we dont give a eff. We will, as with out other decisions, just do what will appeal to our core and future supporters. ie Young people who are totally part of the rainbow coalition and think this is absolutely the right direction to take. It is only boring old dinasours who object, just as they are getting hysterical about cuts to the fuel allowance for old people, who are going to die off anyway.

sorry typo:

There is no obligation on funders, local councils, politicians to ensure this happens through adequate.

There is no obligation on funders, local councils, politicians to ensure this happens through adequate finances.

Thanks @IwantToRetire that's helpful.

Her case is based on the Equalities Act, and her lawyers statement can be read here: https://didlaw.com/sarah-summers-press-release-3-may-2022

And 51.6% female.
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/council-area-data-sheets/city-of-edinburgh-council-profile.html#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%20more,with%20a%20population%20of%20160%2C678.

Thanks, yes I know.

Unfortunately that presumes funders and funded groups will "do the right thing".

ie the SSE exist, but only work / become active when groups chose to make use of the option.

Logically the EA should have said the default was women only (biological) and that the exemptions would be the minority of times that a TW being present was acceptable.

But thanks to as usual women's rights being put of the bottome of the pile of being protected, the law now makes it on occassions ie exceptional.

The GRA impact on the EA is that women's natural rights are legally put second to TW.

But ... and I think this has come up on many threads as nothing has really changed ... if enough Judges and Magistrates categorically say legally women's needs should be put first, would that mean that in the future this would then become the norm?

I suspect not, as the loudest voices, and those the media chose to amplify are all about TW are the most vulnerable and should be put first.

I just tried to run the numbers for MW's shock that there weren't TWOC beating down the doors of ERCC. Obviously I did it completely cackhandedly, but after taking the Scottish population, and then calculating 3% (roughly the non-white population), and then dividing by 2, and then getting 1% that might be trans, and then thinking "hang on, do I divide by 2 again because half of them are transmen? Are they? Should I have done that before dividing by 2?".... I realised it was hopeless as we were looking at tiny numbers across a whole country, even if they all needed rape crisis support, and actually are POC proportionally represented in Scotland among the trans-identifying population, because I'm guessing not.

Sarah's case should hopefully raise that in tax payer funded, LA commissioned services, there must be equality and inclusion for all women. Not just all men. And that LAs and governments cannot put out bids wittering all about accessibility while commissioning services that intentionally exclude populations of women from women's services on the grounds that those women are inconvenient to some men.

And also get into the public eye the sheer selfishness, unkindness and malice involved in such a service having three accessible services for male people with TQ+ identities, and responding to a suggestion that they should tolerate one accessible to women as something intolerable and making the woman requesting it deserving of punishment.