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.

@Grammarnut Yes of course providers could provide sex based and gender 'mixed sex' based rape support at different times. But that way vulnerable women wouldn't suffer enough for trans activists to be content. They don't want separate services so all can access them, they want GC women excluded.

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

SARSAS ( the provider listed above who exclude women who need SS support following rape/ sexual assault) used Cheryl Morgan who also trained the police:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-used-violent-transgender-activist-for-equality-training-x0mktgclw

We used to assume rape etc support providers would have female victims at the heart of their work. It's hard for many people including MPs to grasp that trans activist providers- even female VAWG leads in councils- are DELIBERATELY now excluding and causing further distress to the most vulnerable women. This is what TRAs do as soon as they are in positions of power.

Dear me, they must be simplistic souls.

For any women interested, the MoJ has responsibility for ensuring the funding they provide delivers SS services, but has failed to intervene across the country due to ideological capture by TRAs, so it will be interesting to see if the recent court case has any impact. If not, whether the UN intervenes (or has any power, I have no idea).

Failure to provide SS support for rape victims leaves the UK in breach of its international obligations to women in the Istanbul Convention:
https://claireob1.substack.com/p/the-equality-act-2010-and-support

The article was shared widely on facebook etc., and I know it makes a great headline but would have hoped by now the Scottish media had moved on from this.

If anyone remembers the discussion on the EHRC article about "Discriminatory Ads" they have quite clearly stated when and if a TW (with a GRC) can be taken as a "legal woman".

And also makes clear that self identifying does not exist in law.

So the actual issue for Scotland is not only the women survivors seeking support, but the fact that the Scottish establishment continues to support and fund a group that is in breach of the law. Let allow presuming to advise other service providers.

If this is the case, that funders and charity commissioners, dont think those in receipt of funding need to follow the law fine. But then it also means any of us, and any women's group can just say without any reference to the law, this job and / or this services in only for biological females.

Its a complete nonsense.

And much as it is nice to have another session of shock, horror, how can anyone thinks like this, we all know that they do.

And we know that many with legal and funding powers could challenge them.

But when it is about actually being in breach of the law and the "establishment" fails to act, what message does that send.

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.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the Sunday post only ever puts articles online later in the afternoon to try and encourage people to buy their newspapers.

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?

No dear. Unlike you I am aware that the Sunday post only ever puts articles online in the afternoon.

Love the patronising dear. Nice bit of misogyny there.

Oh love, I'm not embarrassed for needing evidence before diving in to the outrage 😁

The women here always take a dim view of posters calling others dear. Apparently it shows a "type" of person they don't like 👍

I'm not here to make friends love. I don't have a shiny shit what anyone thinks of me.

It was very clear from my OP that I was expecting a link to be available later as is normal with the Sunday Post.

How embarrassing for you that you jumped in to scream fake news with no evidence.

FFS what does it matter who posted what about the availability/non-availability of a source article. The obsessive dissection of this is fragmenting the discussion for which the thread was made.

As I was trying to point out. The guidelines as quoted in the article are in breach of the law.

So to repeat myself:

But when it is about actually being in breach of the law and the "establishment" fails to act, what message does that send.

I am entitled to defend myself against accusations of spreading fake news. Particularly when what I shared was directly from the newspapers Twitter feed. You are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

Didn't mean to make you feel the object of my post, Gargoyles.
I can see why you felt the need to respond to the non-issues derailing the thread. I hadn't really noticed who was posting what, I was jusr getting frustrated by trying to find the on-topic posts..

Thanks. Hopefully we can get on with the actual discussions now.

Oh dear you seem rather prickly.

Still not embarrassed honey.

People are whipping up a fervour about all sorts of made up things online around gender at the moment, it's not unreasonable to want to see an actual article.

It was directly from the Sunday Post's Twitter account.

You really think they'd mock up a front page that they weren't actually going to run?!!! What a beamer for you.

People are whipping up a fervour about all sorts of made up things online around gender at the moment

Yes, some people are saying a group of men are actually women! It's been going on about a decade now.

To quote yourself:

Hopefully we can get on with the actual discussions now.

You are also not the arbiter of the thread. Seems like you are the one now trying to continue the derailment.

Where does it say the MoJ has responsibility for funding SS services.

As we have gone through a trillion times in FWR under UK an organisation can, if it wants to, apply the SSE.

Nowhere does it say they have to.

And as far as I know must funders do not have this proviso. And if anything are more likely to say they should be trans inclusive.

Added to which Labour has constantly said there isn't a problem, because the SSE allow for " safe spaces".

But in relation to RCS this isn't the point.

They are claiming self identity is permissable. And in law (as yet) this doesn't exist.

But no one in a position of authority seems to think this is a problem.

But you can be sure they would is a women's service provider said their services was only by and for biological women.

Its the failure instituions that has created the problem.

But they were all and are still readily captured.

It seems what we need is someone to legally challenge RCS as, as far as I understand it, they are discriminating unlawfully by allowing some males access to services but not others on the grounds of gender identity.

Is my understanding correct?

Thank you. That is interesting

Yes. Quite.

And it seems that a Rape Crisis Organisation believes those particular news articles. With no evidence to support that any male can ‘live as a woman’. And look what happens when someone says male people cannot be women- the ‘fervour’ whipped up is remarkable.

They're not just discriminating against men who don't claim an identity - RCCs would be directly and indirectly discriminating against women in their provision of services.