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.

I look forward to your criticism of the BBC News channel’s early review of front pages which are based purely on the front pages as these are released the night before. They have doing that for decades.

And why can't SARSAS offer support to TiMs at another refuge rather than offering mixed-sex refuges which will not be acceptable/bearable for many women who are victims of VAWG?

And why can't SARSAS offer support to TiMs at another refuge rather than offering mixed-sex refuges which will not be acceptable/bearable for many women who are victims of VAWG?

Because that is denying their existence! Genocide! Transphobia!

I wonder if they've worded it like that because they've got an eye on the court case?

In addition to being fuckwit ideologues.

FFS

So, is the article supposed to be fake or the guidance?

It would have been a foolish person to declare the article was fake. And as far as I can work out, almost just as foolish to declare the guidance must be fake because it is not yet published. Or.... a journalist for the paper has been sent a copy of the guidance, which is not yet available on the internet, and has written about it.

Or was the news outlet supposed to be fake?

Remember how women talking about things that affect women such as menstruation and pregnancy is upsetting to transwomen as it reminds them that they will never experience it themselves? If this was true then these men wouldn't want to put themselves in a situation where they are likely to hear about this as a worry post rape.

Is it:
A, women must not mention it so as not to upset any potential transwoman that may be present. There are allegedly lots of transwomen who fully pass so you have to assume one is in the room at all times

Or

B, it's not upsetting/the joy from being with traumatised women is worth it

I can only assume that all the efforts to make sure that there isn't even a single female only group amongst all the mixed sex 'womens' groups mean that B is the winner.

Do you take everything shared on twitter as truth when the person themselves sharing it admits they can't find any evidence?

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The new document, called Draft Guidance On Protected Spaces For RCS Member Centres, says a woman can also be “someone whose sex at birth was assigned as female and lives as a woman”.

Goodness, what are they "self identifying" or "living" as then? What is this mysterious concept "woman"?

Nothing constructive to say why you jumped down my throat then. Quelle surprise.

Nothing constructive to say

Yes, that's pretty much your entire contribution to the thread.

Have they learnt nothing from the ERCC debacle?

Deleted

👍

What do you refer to though? The article or the guidance?

I give a journalist some extra space if they say they have seen a document and then they write about it if that document is one that is expected and it is highly likely that they may have been sent a copy.

Particularly if they are reporting that the guidance offers little constructive change to the current guidance when someone like Sandy Brindley is involved in any way in its creation.

What is more likely? A media outlet writes a fake feature on a new guidance, or they have indeed been sent a copy of the guidance which is yet to be published? Particularly if the paper involved has a 100 year history and is part of a major publishing congomerate so likely to suffer significant reputational damage if they were found to fake something.

So, "Do you take everything shared on twitter as truth when the person themselves sharing it admits they can't find any evidence?"

I do what I used to imagine most people would do, I look at the source and evaluate whether it is likely to be the truth before I post. I also ask questions to clarify what it is that people cannot find because posting suggesting that fakery is involved.

But then, I guess if my motivation is to portray a group of people as being gullible and believing 'fake' news, I would not bother with any of that. I would just post something like, oh I don't know, "It's probably fake then isn't it."

But then, I guess if my motivation is to portray a group of people as being gullible and believing 'fake' news, I would not bother with any of that. I would just post something like, oh I don't know, "It's probably fake then isn't it."

Bingo. What we have here is someone shouting 'fake news' to try and discredit and smear. And then trying to constantly derail the story, long past everyone else has found the source and moved on.

In your own words, ShireMaiden, buzz off.

It really looks to be no material change, as the article states. It could be a rearrangement of words but business as usual.

And it is certainly not an uncommon practice for a draft guidance document to not be published on a website yet have someone who has seen it send it to a National new source for that nation.

I made one post and was done. made 6 posts getting at me. Yes, I will come back at somebody doing that.

And then 3 more of you decided to join in to keep it going .

There is one derailer here, and it's not me. Feel free to stop insulting me and move on 👍

But then, I guess if my motivation is to portray a group of people as being gullible and believing 'fake' news, I would not bother with any of that. I would just post something like, oh I don't know, "It's probably fake then isn't it."

Classy 😂

I remember when the whole Isla Bryson thing came to life and a poster on here claimed it was a 'fringe issue that no one in Scotland was talking about' so I took a photo of a newsstand at Tesco on which every single paper covered the story on the front page.

I'm reminded of that on this thread...

In the document, RCS – which receives millions in public funding – explains that when it uses the word “female” it is “signifying an ordinary biological perspective on women.”
It states: “This language has been selected as it corresponds to the language of the Equality Act in relation to the protected characteristic of sex.
“When we use ‘woman’, we mean anyone who self-identifies as a woman. We use this language as it corresponds to a gendered perspective.”

“This language has been selected as it corresponds to the language of the Equality Act in relation to the protected characteristic of sex.
This is not true. Any male who self-identifies as a woman is still a man in law.
The guidance encourages unlawful discrimination against women - both direct and indirect - by making it more difficult for them to access the service which they are more likely than any males to need and making disproportionately less provision for them.

And RCS and ERCC are completely ideologically captured (as very clearly demonstrated in the recent independent review of ERCC) so this comes as no surprise to anyone.

So women who are not meeting their mysterious concept of ‘living as a woman’ aren’t welcome?

..a woman can also be “someone whose sex at birth was assigned as female and lives as a woman”.

Do we know for sure that the author of the story has got this right? Rather than the more usual “someone whose sex at birth was assigned as male and lives as a woman”.

Especially given the preceding definition of the word “female” as “signifying an ordinary biological perspective on women", and the phrase "..a woman can also be".