Rape Crisis Scotland "new" rules on how to define women.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

Sigh. Looks like they are doubling down.

x.com/sunday_post/status/1883259033450393933?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Hopefully a link to the full article will be available later in the day.

Sandy Brindley must go.

Definitely unlawful discrimination.

What I cannot understand is why it's so important for the female genderists to make it impossible for women and girls to get same-sex support. What are they getting out of denying the service to female survivors? Same-sex support doesn't stop RCCs offering support to MCW, or male people in general, just means they do it separately. She has totally lost her sense of focus and mission - a rape crisis centre is for victims of rape and sexual assault. It is not an opportunity to impose your political beliefs on vulnerable women.

It is a requirement of their religion; they must constantly prove loyalty or be excommunicated. The must always seek approval from the priesthood. In return they receive a measure of absolution for their oppression and be allowed to take part in holy days and high days (though only by supporting the priesthood).

I can't see where RCS published this?

Is it the top post on this page?

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/?cat=6

That's a 93 page report that deals with the subject, but it isn't dated.

I want to see what they have actually said too. Hopefully more details will be available soon.

Screenshot of the article here:

x.com/campervanwoman/status/1883474094085255425?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

I can't find the draft guidance document mentioned in the article online anywhere.

Drafts don’t always make it into public.

It's probably fake then isn't it.

Sigh.
It's a problem all over the country- women who need SS support following MVAWG are excluded so men with a gender belief (who rarely need it) can access the service instead. Providers could provide both mixed and SS services but they actively WANT to exclude vulnerable raped women. How can this be WORIADS?

This is SARSAS, who have the contract to provide all rape support for large swathes of the SW area of England:
'We provide women-only spaces as part of a trauma-informed approach to gender-based violence. This means that some SARSAS services are women-only. Our definition of women-only is inclusive of trans women.'
https://www.sarsas.org.uk/our-work/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/

What evidence do you have that a MSM decided to run a front page based on fake information?

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/rape-crisis-trans-guidance/

'Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS), the organisation which provides support to rape victims, has published new guidance on how it defines a woman – saying that this is anyone who self-identifies as one.
The new document, called Draft Guidance On Protected Spaces For RCS Member Centres, says a woman can also be “someone whose sex at birth was assigned as female and lives as a woman”.
The document, which has taken almost a year to prepare, aims to set out detailed guidance on the provision of women-only spaces within Scotland’s 16 rape crisis centres, along with options for inclusion of trans people.'

How do you have evidence that something doesn't exist?

The burden of proof is on the person saying it happened. The person who shared this story from TwiX has themselves said "I can't find it anywhere" when looking for the article themselves to share so that people could read it. Which means it's likely fake. Because if it was real she would be able to find it wouldn't she?

The article has been posted above by ArabellaScott or you could buy a paper copy from a shop?

Does the post-truth antiscientific world now deny the existence of physical objects because they are not on the internet?

When posting a screenshot of an article from social media, which must be on the internet for a screenshot to be taken, you would expect the person saying "look at this article" would actually be able to produce said article. Would you not?

After several posts saying "I can't find it" the OP also said "I can't find it anywhere" which would suggest if it can't be found, it's not real. Because fake things are shared on social media all the time.

I see Arabella found the article, so it is indeed real and that's fine. But you can't argue that someone sharing a social media screenshot, in the absence of the actual article they claim to be talking about, followed by many posters saying it cant be found and the OP themselves saying they haven't actually seen it and can't find it anywhere looks a hell of a lot like more fake social media. Though I'm sure you're going to claim that's an unreasonable stance to take because you seem to have beef with the need for proof.

The new document, called Draft Guidance On Protected Spaces For RCS Member Centres, says a woman can also be “someone whose sex at birth was assigned as female and lives as a woman”.

Eh?

Bloody hell, so we're not even first on the list of People Who Can Be Women now?

😂

This was just a process of tracking down the correct article. That's all.

It was on the physical newspaper stand in Sainsbury’s. Does that not count?

And where, before I posted saying it's probably fake then, does anybody state this?

All of the posts say variations of i can't find it, it hasn't been published on their website and maybe it was a draft not all drafts are published.

Like I said, fake things are shared on social media all the time. If proof is not produced why would anybody assume truth?

The article has now been found. Great. It should have been found before the thread was started and shared in the opening post but oh well.

Being printed physically in Sainsbury's is fine and perfectly acceptable proof, but like I said, please show me where anybody said they had seen it Sainsbury's before you jumped down my throat. As you can't, buzz off.

The article has now been found. Great. It should have been found before the thread was started and shared in the opening post but oh well.

I don’t think there are “rules” that cover what can and what can’t be posted.

The OP said clearly that they hoped a link to the article would be available later, and, eventually, it was found. No need to make a big fuss about it.

I hope rape victims can safely request a "cis woman" as a counsellor, then.

I guess the definition of feminist is also pretty vague to these people. How are people, especially women, still going along with this, or worse, initiating it?

If they request a woman they should get a woman, they shouldn’t have to use ideological language in order to be sure they don’t get a man.