Do you think there are jobs they shouldn’t do?
Princessconsuelabananahammock9 that is a interesting, its sex and 'trans' when employers only have an exception for sex.
I think that your partner a female, could not have been appointed to the leadership role in that Scotish Rape Crisis services.
The leadership role because it was a sex specific leadership role had an unspoken 'and be seen to be of the sex' element. The service is not-for-profit business in the charity sector. Your partners personal circumstance meant the female and seen as female requirement can never met.
The hire process sex exception is a choice. So the first screening process should have been a simple 'are you a female' question. Your partner could truthfully answer yes but any male is telling a lie.
I do not believe that the male who was appointed would have gotten that job without ticking the 'passable enough' box. So male+trans who's too male presenting or female+trans whos too male presenting would have been rejected
If your parther was 'not passable enough' and got the job TMAM activism would have resulted in sacking your partner for being a man and being dishonest.
The CV stage is a prior experience = can do job.
At interview stage is a will the face fit. Your partner would have gotten 2 different reactions between suit with 'breastcut" and high heels and suit with 'chestcut' and boot heels.
With optic 2 TMAM panel members are in a bit of pickle. Their problem is how do they establish your partner (who is a qualified, female and otherwise best fit) is not woman enough for the job when they hire a male who was the alternative.
The 'seen to be' bit.
Fundementaly government should be providing the services directly within the Health system. If it was happening the leadership role would not be as important.
(The healthcare on non-direct provision is a reflection of how womens (mainly) rights to 'whole care' health care is not a core to government health policy. (To put it very crudely its like a stroke paitent with motor function loss being told we dont do physio or any of that follow-on stuff.))
I do believe that the provision of services would still have ended up where it did because your partner (the hired male) would not have been involved in ignoring the core strategic missions
▪︎providing a service to service users which is fit for purpose. (largest group will always be women so the bulk of the money to buy services is spent on women)
▪︎ fundraising to ensure service provision.
The employer (women mainly) imposing the TWAW ideology on to the service did so without regard to the 'to be fit for purpose' element and that is why the change in culture and ethos failed its largest demographic.
The funding.
The stigma around sexual crimes, and even the idea that a man could not rape his wife meant that it was quicker for people seeking social change to fund raise and provide the care outside the system. Society agreed that it was a social good and provided 'invested' via personal charitable donations and eventually 'investing' by 'charity'' funding from tax funds.
Ignoring the services oversight and failings in that area, the funding has a large PR element and the complex social link of man/male plus rapist V woman/female plus victim exists
So that employer would have had to tap dance on TWAW so TMAM but in the end would not hire your qualified best for the job partner because your partner was trans.
Would you agree that it would be your partner being 'trans' enough to 'pass' would be the employers problem and/or under TMAM rolling back 16 years being 'trans and not yet passing but aiming to pass' would still be the employers problem?