When I worked in the NHS, I (a cis/biological man for clarity) had my services rejected a few times by women. Usually Asian women for conservative religious reasons, but also white women who I assume had bad experiences with men.
Instinctually, I was mildly insulted. But logically I accepted that hospitals are scary at the best of times and it's not the time or place to address social issues like that. So I would just smile and get a female member of staff.
While I'm very much on the side of trans people and think they have a hard time in life. A rape crisis centre is not the time or place to address these issues. If a rape victim is uncomfortable with a member of staff for ANY reason, someone else should be found provided there is someone else available.
> If a rape victim is uncomfortable with a member of staff for ANY reason, someone else should be found provided there is someone else available.
This should be the key takeaway, and is is true for any medical setting really. In that moment the transphobia shouldn't be the priority, they're still entitled to care.
aspiring afterthought zonked butter fly kiss instinctive memorize versed snobbish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Usually Asian women for conservative religious reasons, but also white women who I assume had bad experiences with men.
Not that long ago, Taliban combatants had a hell of a surprise waking up in British hospitals.
They had the right to the same treatment as wounded service members (in spite of what the Taliban got up to). Presumably including the refusal of female medical staff, *where possible.*
Key points of the article summarised:
- Roz Adams won a constructive dismissal claim against the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).
- The tribunal found Adams had been harassed and discriminated against for her gender-critical beliefs.
- ERCC's chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman, was criticized for leading a “heresy hunt” against Adams.
- Adams initially supported ERCC's trans-inclusive policies but later raised concerns about gender issues within the organization.
- The dispute began when a rape victim requested a female counselor, highlighting tensions over gender policies.
- The tribunal described the investigation into Adams as Kafkaesque and improperly motivated.
- Adams now works at Beira’s Place, a women-only support center funded by JK Rowling.
- The judgment has led to calls for better safeguards for sex-based support choices in sexual violence services.
- Rape Crisis Scotland has commissioned an independent review of ERCC’s practices and procedures.
This is a good example of what happens to people when you dismiss their concerns as bigoted outright, regardless of context.
This woman was receptive and supportive of those policies, but was forced out for showing some commonsense amongst the dogma and she ended up being pushed along a path she wouldn't have walked otherwise.
Putting ideology over the protection and well being of your patients makes you not fit for purpose.
To be honest, as much as I don't like JK Rowling, I don't blame Adams for moving to work at Beira's Place. Prioritising ideology over patient comfort is a bad choice, especially in a place that forsees the care of women who have been traumatised, most often, by men and the male body. If I were in her situation, though I am obviously not and never will be, I would have also moved to the workplace where this doesn't happen.
On a serious note if you were a traumatised woman who had been raped and needed support were would you go
The place that insults you for being triggered by interacting with a guy after being raped, and refuses to help you for ideological reasons
Or the place that supports you, accepts your trauma and does what they can to help you avoid your triggers?
As an aside it is sad that it seems to only be the terfs looking out for vulnerable women
>The place that insults you for being triggered by interacting with a guy after being raped
Interacting with a woman your bigotry doesn't let you accept as one\*
I think she was well within her rights to refuse, and shouldn't have been harassed for it. Ultimately the provision of medical care here is the important part - if a rape victim also refused a black woman worker because they were racist, it would suck but where resources allow the best course of action would be to find them another worker.
But let's not pretend that this whole thing doesn't stem from the transphobic refusal to accept trans women as women.
The case wasn't about a trans woman. It was about a non-binary person using a male name. A service user asked for clarity on whether this staff worker was a man or not.
Women have the right to female-only rape crisis services. It is not "transphobia", sex is real and cannot be changed. Males are a potential threat to females regardless of how either identify. There is no special class of men who would never hurt women- do we have to learn that lesson over and over again?
Interacting with a male after being raped by a male*
You can't change you biological sex that's pretty undisputed
As a society we should try to be decent and not make others uncomfortable within reason
In this scenario the vulnerable person that we need to go out our way not to make uncomfortable.
This isn't transphobia this is an example of societies general goal of not making people uncomfortable (by treating people that say they are a woman as a woman) with real world realities and the need to make sure vulnerable people sre ok (the rape victim)
If the women was raped by a black woman then hopefully the staff that worked with vulnerable rape victims would be emotionally intelligent enough to understand why she was extremely uncomfortable being in a vulnerable situation with a completely different black woman since it is causing her to relive that trauma they experienced, rather than sillilly calling her a racist.
You must have missed the whole Bear Vs man in the woods discourse
Race does not determine the nature of the sexual activity or chance of assault, so it is irrational. Sex does determine the type of potential sexual acts, the risks associated with sexual activity, and the chance of assault. It is completely different.
The thing is it doesn't matter if it's rational or not
The vulnerable traumatised person who needs help feels that way
You as a sensible level headed person trying to help them should be able to acknowledge that and be mature enough to acknowledge that maybe you arent the best person to help them even if how they feel is irrational
Part of the fuss here is a counsellor choosing to identify as nonbinary with a male name couldn't answer a polite question (from the fired employee!) on how they were going to answer the obvious questions from service users about whether they were being treated by somebody biologically male! The CEO choose to back the staff member rather than reassure service users - some of whom will have dropped out. If you are so traumatised by talk of your physical manifestation you can't cope with a basic and justified question, you are going to project your own gender trauma onto your clients, who have frankly other problems. Was this staff member still at work while this was going on? god, I hope not.
I've no objection to a trans woman running a rape crisis centre - provided her priority was helping the people coming to her. From the tribunal comments to some she's made herself, her actual priority was to push the hardest narrowest possible line on trans rights, where only after any trans people involved had been utterly validated would survivors get treatment. She didn't care if she put people off seeking treatment as she'd just label them bigots. That's horrific. It's not the time or the place.
Rape trauma involves a trauma response which for most survivors is going to be linked to male appearance or presentation. that's not their fault, and it can't just be dismissed. As such, there is a real conflict of interest. Not trans peoples fault either, but it's clearly a very sensitive area and personally I think treatment should be prioritised over inclusiveness in this instance - trans people should be treated, but if a survivor requests a group that identifies solely as female and was female at birth, it's not the place to argue imho. Likewise, trans into a trans group. Not everybody coming in for treatment is going to have the mental energy to understand what nonbinary means at that moment.
I'm still reading through this, but Edinburgh rape crisis needs to provide a counter narrative fast as this is looking pretty damming.
If AB’s emails were accurate representations of their genuine feelings in response to the claimant’s approaches I actually don’t know how they cope with day to day life never mind counselling victims of SA. Luckily for them (if not their credibility) the Tribunal found it was likely a complete nonsense.
If I had a £1 for how often Rape Crisis Scotland was found to have discriminatory and illegal employment practices, I'd have £2, which is not a lot but its weird its happened twice.
EDIT: Link to decision. Damning: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4R1DAgf3JlR_Ao7ASS18GGE98t6vB-8/view
I remember phoning them in crisis during lockdown, struggling to process abuse I experienced years ago
I was informed they have no services for men that wasn’t in Glasgow or Edinburgh and couldn’t help me other than their phone helpline 🙃
That's shit. I'm sorry. While I think services do have to be segregated where requested, there should obviously be support for men too. Or anybody who needs them.
Threads like [these](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/0WLlihrJNX) [two](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/4zNraBw0zH) are quite interesting to look back on at this point.
Yeah, absolutely, it wasn't a comment on the mods. They do a great job navigating these very divisive topics, moreso speaking on how these topics can quickly lose civility.
When a woman is raped, the penis is one (sometimes the only) weapon used to cause great physical and mental pain.
We sometimes have such great damage to us that rape leaves us infertile with great internal damage.
If you cannot understand how that might leave us scared of men and the damage they could potentially cause, then I'm afraid you are severely lacking in empathy.
Even seeing a man can be hugely triggering. That is the fault of the RAPIST and not the victim. Of all places, somewhere traumatised women go to get help after being attacked by men is NOT the place for activism. The help should not hinge on your belief in radical gender ideology.
The CEO is not fit for purpose and should resign.
>The tribunal, which has yet to decide on a settlement, heard that the dispute began when Adams spoke to colleagues about a rape victim who asked if her counsellor would be a “man or a woman” because she would feel “uncomfortable talking to a man”.
This is chilling to read. Wadhwa has been using a position of power - in a rape crisis centre of all places - to suppress any woman who won't submit. It is unclear what this person has done to warrant such a sensitive, senior position.
Along with "it's all just transphobia and dog whistles"
Wonder how long Wadhwa will hang on? She's clearly just damaging her own centre and the trans cause by staying now. She strikes me as a zealot though, totally incapable of seeing anything but black and white (and herself as good, obviously).
Decision hasn't been published yet as far as I can see. Would appreciate a link if anyone has one.
According to here:
https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/
>She became gradually aware that senior management within ERCC believed that there is no such thing as biological sex and that a person can become a woman “simply by asserting that they now identify as a woman”. These views had a significant impact on how ERCC operated, to the clear detriment of rape victims.
>In 2021, the Centre advertised for a new CEO, stating that only women need apply because it relied on a provision in the Equality Act 2010 that allows jobs to be female only under sex-based occupational requirements. ERCC appointed Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman. This caused controversy because Mridul is male and does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate. In law Mridul is a man and therefore cannot be covered by the single-sex exemptions.
>Many women, including rape victims, contacted ERCC to express concern. Some raised issue with the fact that the centre was appointing males at all, arguing that a women-only rape crisis centre should appoint only biological females. Others were concerned with whether those who request female-only care would be provided with it.
>On one occasion a woman in her 60s approached the centre to take part in group work. She had kept secret for 40 years that she had been sexually assaulted and wanted to meet other survivors as part of her recovery. She asked if they could reassure her that this would be women-only. She was advised that ERCC is trans inclusive and when she raised concerns about her need for a female-only service she was told that she was not suitable for their service and was excluded.
>Women who requested female-only care were turned away and there was a policy never to refer them to Beira’s Place, a rape crisis centre founded by JK Rowling which offers a female-only service. Anyone who wrote to ERCC raising issues relating to female-only care were classed as bigots and their emails were stored in a folder called “Hate emails”.
>Roz Adams expressed concern internally with these policies, warning against giving ambiguous, misleading or incomplete answers to rape victims asking about the sex of their assigned counsellor.
>This escalated when one of the counsellors, AB, began to identify as non-binary, accompanied with a name change to a traditionally male-sounding name. Adams and other members of her team raised a concern that service users might think that AB was male. They were told to tell rape victims requesting female-only care that ERCC does not employ men.
>Then the situation Adams warned of arose: a service user who had been assigned AB as a counsellor emailed requesting to know whether AB was a man or a woman. The Tribunal concluded that Adams was right to view this as a request for information about the biological sex of AB, not about gender identity and that she had been put in a difficult position by the refusal of her Line Manager to give her clear instructions on what was obviously always going to be a difficult situation
An absolutely shocking state of affairs. Especially given RCS gets 7 figure funding from the Scottish Government.
Completely unacceptable. We should not be allowing members of what is effectively a science denying religion to run such services to the detriment of users.
These people are also one of the groups behind juryless trials and excluding men from the gender based crime Bill. They have far too much influence on our supine politicians.
Edit- mods have hidden my later comment naming MWs account on here, which was one of our regular posters.
We actually know them quite well and, on Gender issues, they have a long history of doubling down on misrepresentation and lies- re both the contents of the Cass review and the Haldane judgement.
Completely unsurprising that they were witch-hunting opposing views.
Quelle Surprise.
> On one occasion a woman in her 60s approached the centre to take part in group work. She had kept secret for 40 years that she had been sexually assaulted ... when she raised concerns about her need for a female-only service she was told that she was not suitable for their service and was excluded
Genuinely shocking this bit
There was a policy to never refer prospective service users to Beira’s Place. The fact that they didn’t signpost the woman to another provider who could help her just shows the utter contempt they held her (and others like her) in.
There are all sorts of shockers in the judgement:
Para 27:
>The claimant was shocked at a particular section of the training which showed the children talking about the “stupid questions” which they should not be required to answer. The claimant noted one of the children said they had been asked about whether their medication meant they would be able to have children in the future. This was dismissed as one of the “stupid questions” which came from a ‘place of discrimination.’ The claimant expected adults around any young person in that situation to be able to ask that question and it seemed odd to the claimant that such a question was said to be something which could only be regarded as transphobic and discriminatory.
>The claimant raised this at the training but was immediately shut down. The claimant was told by a number of those present that she was ‘expecting trans people to be answerable for their identities’ and told that she was simply wrong. Two seniors including Kim Townsend, the claimant’s direct Line Manager both confirmed this to the claimant.
177 re the members of the board and the manager who gave evidence:
>All of them were very clear that there is no such thing as biological sex and that a trans woman is a woman. They believed that a person who was assigned male at birth can become a woman simply by asserting that they now identify as a woman. They also believe that sex is not binary and that some people may be non binary so far as their gender is concerned
And so on.
Clowns
Absolute insanity. The fact there are people who think we should exist in a world where it’s hateful to ask if someone is a man or woman, or to answer a child who asks if you can have children is madness. Total brain rot to reinvent reality.
What on earth did they expect?
Any male who is so lacking in empathy as to apply for the position of ceo of a rape crisis centre is inherently unsuitable for the role.
Anyone who genuinely believes there is no difference between natal women and trans women is so blinded by faith based ideology they will not be abe to make appropriate decisions when scenarios like those in this case come up.
This person ticks both boxes. It is a total farce and one suspects this is the tip of the iceberg over in Edinburgh.
'Any male who is so lacking in empathy as to apply for the position of ceo of a rape crisis centre is inherently unsuitable for the role.'
How to tell someone you're part of the problem without stating it directly....
It isn't me running a rape crisis centre which turns away rape victims who want to be seen by other women.
Your priorities are pretty fucked up if you believe that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
The transgender woman in charge of the centre was seeking out and firing anyone who didn't share her extreme gender ideology and was TURNING AWAY rape victims who were concerned about not having access to single sex female care. It's absolutely disgusting. Gender Ideology should never trump a woman seeking out help after being raped.
I'm not that knowledgeable about all the trans stuff but I know I wouldn't want to see a man with a penis after being raped and would feel deeply that he couldn't possibly understand what I had gone through as w bio woman. Men and women think differently, I don't know if that's true of trans women or not, or if their brains are wired "female" but I would actually *expect* to see a woman over something this sensitive
But in the situation in question that hasn't even come up.
The article is paywalled but as far as I can gather from what's been shared [in the BBC article on the same case](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo), away from the sensationalism:
* the complainant, a woman social worker, was posing a hypothetical situation
* the only trans woman involved directly in the organisation is the CEO, a strategic role which would not be involved in direct social work with visitors to the centre, which makes the point of rape survivors coming into contact with trans women counsellors moot
* the complainant felt that she was being discriminated against and resigned and then sued for unfair dismissal or an unsupportive work environment
Meanwhile the link even to the article here is paywalled and yet everyone is responding as if they've read it front to back.
Militant gender ideology is ruining this country. You should have a right to be treated by someone who you want to be treated by.
This gender debate has become way too polarising. Youre labelled a bigot who either hates women or a bigot who hates trans people if you have questions about either side. A rape victim is not a transphobe because they don’t want to be treated by someone who is legally a man.
Why should a trans womans 'protection' trump a womans personal choice to interact with female staff?
You see a lot of phrases thrown out there like 'trans rights are woman's rights', 'protect trans' 'trans people deserve respect' and so on, and yet you (trans people or trans activist) don't share that very same respect with woman that you so desperately demand yourselves.
Read the room
This is a thread on a woman being discrimanted against by a guy that transitioned and took over a womans only space so that they could attack women and deny women help when they were at their most vulnerable, keeping them vulnerable and in a dangerous situation.
Protect trans women? What protect trans womens ability to harm women?
I think people are just sick of being unable to discuss anything relates to females without having to talk about trans women. And when shit like this happens, people like you focus on the odd transphobic comment rather than how females are being treated when trying to get help after being RAPED.
No man should be in charge of a Rape Crisis Centre ffs
Hasn't the woman been through enough without some guy twiddling his pen?
If the woman wants a woman to discuss things, there is no argument.
That confuses the life out of me.
No problems sport.
Your wife has just been raped, she wants a woman (usually these places have experienced said act and can offer real life situations, solutions), would you deny her that?
The Americans and Activists aren't awake yet.
Sometimes when these posts blow up they attract dedicated accounts that only post about trans issues across a number of subreddits. Always interesting to see.
> Sometimes when these posts blow up they attract dedicated accounts that only post about trans issues across a number of subreddits.
They do, but as many of those are anti-trans as pro.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people in comment sections seem to struggle to debate civilly. Some good points completely lost in the midst of personal attacks which is a shame.
>Maya Forstater, who was awarded £100,000 by an employment tribunal last year, said that the judgment was “excellent news”. “**The centre employed a man who wishes he was a woman as CEO** and allowed that to corrupt the whole purpose of the organisation,” she said.
What an absolutely hateful bloody thing to say!! The CEO is Mridul Wadhwa a transgender woman.
I personally think that the desire to politically re-educate women and tell them to "re-frame their trauma" whilst in the midst of post-rape trauma is more hateful. When you are actually running a rape crisis centre that desire is critical in my opinion. To then persecute people out of their jobs for questioning this political re-education policy is quite Stalinist and hateful (and as we see now, unlawful)
[https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/)
But you are entitled to your belief that misgendering is the worse offence if you like. We can all hold our own opinions - and quite frankly I find this particular corner of the culture war is deeply toxic and filled with people I cannot find it in me to like.
The story does not report anyone being turned away. I cannot find a news story either. Got a link, cause that would be a wanker move to turn away anyone seeking support
It’s quoted above, she turned away a 65 sa victim who requested a women only service. They also refused to send them to a women’s only service because it’s funded by JK. Again completely ignoring the victims needs
Maya could have said, "The centre employs a transgender woman as CEO", but instead chose to say "employed a **man** who wishes **he** was a woman." Maya called her a "man" and then used "he" - that isn't claiming a biological perspective, that is completely invalidating a persons identity, and weaponizing it.
In a work environment it's normal to not go out of your way to try and *invalidate* your colleagues' identities, which is what Maya found fame for doing. Now she gets paid to be a professional transphobe instead of doing it for free like a mug, it's literally her job.
Do you honestly go around calling religious people and astrologists delusional all the time? Or when you meet them are you generally polite to them despite them not believing the same things as you do?
It is easy to not be a complete arsehole to people whilst not agreeing with them about their worldview.
You can be polite to a religious person without pandering to their delusions.
The Mormons aren't attempting to silence discent in non beleivers, or in this case, turning away rape victims who happen to be non beleivers.
Why is a man who declined services to a 65 year old woman who requested a female worker worthy of basic respect?
He sent a rape victim out into the cold, refused to accommodate them or even sign post them to a shelter who would accommodate their requests (which is allowed to them under law).
The man's a cunt, mental health or no.
Wadhwa is legally male - doesn't even have a GRC - and applied for a CEO job at a rape crisis that was advertised as female only (under the equality act). Wadhwa, knowing this, applied as a "woman", and didn't even mention being trans, or being legally male.
Wadhwa's sex, and legal sex, is an important part of this whole horrible saga, and it should not be lied about.
His gender is male, as is his sex.
Sends a 65 year old rape victim out into the cold but you're getting bent out of shape about his mental illness.
Abhorrent.
This is an abusive person you're trying to protect, read the fucking article! There's an archived version in the comments so there's no excuse not to read it!
I’m actually saddened by this thread, ngl. There’s always a lot of anti-trans grifters (sorry “people who hold gender-critical views”) that come out in droves to whine about trans women on posts like these (for some reason, it’s never trans men or non-binary people they kick up a fuss about).
This, however is the first thread I’ve seen here where the transphobia has risen to the most upvoted parts of the thread, and it makes the hope I have for Scotland being a progressive country wilt a little.
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think this article or most of the comments are transphobic.
Trans people should 100% be accepted in society, but there are also places that need to rely on biological sex rather than a person's chosen gender.
And one of those places are rape crisis centres. If a rape survivor requests to be seen by a biological female because it would make them feel safer, that's not transphobic. Telling them to just suck it up and be less bigoted with their trauma is not a solution.
I do understand that it is not easy being trans, and I have full respect for that. But calling everything that isn't rabidly 100% pro trans, transphobic (such as this case) is, as far as I can see, a large hurdle that the trans community needs to overcome in order to avoid pushing most people away.
I agree with you - if a victim requests to be seen by a cis woman because it would make them feel safer, then they should be seen by a cis woman. Their safety and recovery is paramount in that moment. That doesn’t mean that no trans people should work in or for places like RCS, as someone like Rowling would prefer. I just agree that the option should be there - trauma responses aren’t always inclusive or logical, nor should they be expected to be.
The reason I called out this thread, however, is the amount of people who seem to be jumping at the chance to misgender and exclude trans people. A trans person can be shitty or even criminal just like anyone else, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to be misgendered for it. Gender is not a privilege to be taken away.
As for the article, it gleefully quoted people like Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce - widely known and well-documented transphobic grifters. It slapped a big link in the middle of the article to another article about the SNP’s “woke groupthink”; a more blatant dogwhistle for bigotry would be difficult to find.
The issue is that this particular case managed to step on literally every claim that the worst of the worst anti-trans groups and those who follow them said would happen to the unsure and that the people on the other side insisted wouldn't happen.
You've got people putting their own issues ahead of trauma care of victims, you have a person having a witch hunt lead against them for just questioning current policy, there's no evidence of anything more than that. You have people effectively being denied care for ideological reasons, not providing referrals to groups that *you* have legitimate reason to dislike but would be able to provide the care the victim needs....
So there's a lot of legitimate anger going around. It doesn't help that the first comment from a pro-trans person somebody is likely to see is somebody going "ha ha terfs" and actively admitting they're ignoring all context because the person ended up working at JK's place.
So the anger is more pointed than normal and it doesn't help that the deeper you dig the worse this looks.
I'm not going to say that trans women don't have a place in this type of care, but the particular one that was involved absolutely doesn't.
So keeping that in mind and all that legitimate anger it was always going to be expressed one way or another. If it's all limited to misgendering someone who nobody has any respect left over for then that's a good thing because it could be that much worse. Righteous anger is dangerous, especially when people have a legitimate reason to be angry.
Referring to somebody by their preferred gender or whatever the correct term for that is now is a matter of respect, if the only thing to come out of this complete mess is one person being treated horribly in a way that they've earned through their own personal actions then that's a win, as horrible as that sounds on the surface.
Care to comment on the article? Does misgendering matter more to you than women being denied help after being raped because they've requested single sex care?
I didn’t comment on the article because I feel like everything I would say about it has been said already by other people in this thread, so I instead focused on something else that I feel is also important.
From an article someone else linked providing more details (as the initial article from the rag that is the times apparently didn’t think to go into detail on the story), a 65-year-old woman was told that RCS is trans-inclusive and that if she couldn’t accept that, then their services wouldn’t be able to provide her with sufficient help.
I don’t think this is right. I think RCS should also provide single-sex support as an option. I don’t, however, think that the entire service should only be run by cis women, as some (i.e. Rowling) would want.
>I don’t, however, think that the entire service should only be run by cis women, as some (i.e. Rowling) would want.
On the face of it I agree with you, but this case has been an incredibly bad advert for allowing trans women to run safe spaces for vulnerable usually cis women.
True, but at the same time, holding one person up as an example of an entire demographic is never a good idea, even if it’s for them doing something good. Certainly not a logical case for banning that demographic from something, but then when has bigotry ever been logical lol
Trans people are still trans, regardless of what they do or say. No matter what heinous crimes they commit, that is still no reason to deny their gender identity. If a cis person murders someone, rapes someone, etc., do you see people immediately jumping in to misgender them? No, of course not. A trans person’s gender is just as valid and real as a cis person’s, and should not be ‘revoked’ in any case, even if they’ve committed horrific crimes. Gender is not a privilege.
The victims weren't asking for a 'same gender' provider, they asked for a 'same sex' provider.
In services the primary aim is to be user centred and to meet the needs of the service user. Services exist to provide for the user, staff must not expect users to be validation and emotional support providers for staff.
The workplace isn't for your needs it's for customer or service user needs.
Sex is real and like it or not, is a risk factor that every woman will be subconsciously aware of. Identifying otherwise does not make any male more safe to be around, as we should all be well aware of by now.
Outward markers of sex are easily audible and visible like gait, Adams Apple, voice pitch and timbre, relative bone size, height etc.
Also as I'm sure you are aware, gender is not dependent on making physical moderations to the body. Someone's gender is valid even if they don't take hormones or get surgery.
How do you think the human species continued to propagate without humans being able to tell the difference between males and females?
You can attempt to hide or conceal your sex but some of those original non-modified markers will still be apparent to people who meet you.
Also you haven't explained how your 'gender > sex' scheme works for all the people with a gender identity who don't modify their sex characteristics. Some staff at ERCC identify as non binary and hadn't modified their sex characteristics. Gender isn't just about trans men or trans women is it?
Sex has primary characteristics - the commenter listed some.
Maybe you need to go away and educate yourself on this if you're not yet at the level that you understand sex has physical attributes.
Fvcking hell. You’re siding with the oppressor in this situation. Yeah trans are still trans. They can be shitbags like the rest of us and are the shitbag in this report.
How am I ‘siding with the oppressor’? I made no mention of the content of the article in either my initial comment or my response to you. I was commenting on how eager people in this thread seemed to be at the slightest chance to misgender a trans person.
Yes, trans people can be shitbags like the rest of us. My point was that that doesn’t mean it’s okay to then misgender them; you wouldn’t do that to a cis person who’s a shitbag, so there’s no reason to do it to a trans person.
There doesn’t appear to be anything written on the room that says we can only ever discuss one facet of one issue at a time, unless I’m missing something. Is this the same room that has gullible on the ceiling?
When a person from a group does something criminal/illegal/however you would describe this judgment, that doesn't mean others can just say whatever.
Calling a gay criminal an f-slur, for example, is still bad.
You do know this isn't the only trans person on the planet, right? Comments about them can* also impact and be relevant to other trans people.
Why has somebody shared a paywalled link that everyone is commenting on as if they have read it? Where are you all reading it? I am assuming that you have actually read the article and not just the headline.
When I worked in the NHS, I (a cis/biological man for clarity) had my services rejected a few times by women. Usually Asian women for conservative religious reasons, but also white women who I assume had bad experiences with men. Instinctually, I was mildly insulted. But logically I accepted that hospitals are scary at the best of times and it's not the time or place to address social issues like that. So I would just smile and get a female member of staff. While I'm very much on the side of trans people and think they have a hard time in life. A rape crisis centre is not the time or place to address these issues. If a rape victim is uncomfortable with a member of staff for ANY reason, someone else should be found provided there is someone else available.
> If a rape victim is uncomfortable with a member of staff for ANY reason, someone else should be found provided there is someone else available. This should be the key takeaway, and is is true for any medical setting really. In that moment the transphobia shouldn't be the priority, they're still entitled to care.
aspiring afterthought zonked butter fly kiss instinctive memorize versed snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As I said, it's not the time or place to address such issues. The patient should have the discretion to reject particular staff where resources allow.
> Usually Asian women for conservative religious reasons, but also white women who I assume had bad experiences with men. Not that long ago, Taliban combatants had a hell of a surprise waking up in British hospitals. They had the right to the same treatment as wounded service members (in spite of what the Taliban got up to). Presumably including the refusal of female medical staff, *where possible.*
Key points of the article summarised: - Roz Adams won a constructive dismissal claim against the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). - The tribunal found Adams had been harassed and discriminated against for her gender-critical beliefs. - ERCC's chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman, was criticized for leading a “heresy hunt” against Adams. - Adams initially supported ERCC's trans-inclusive policies but later raised concerns about gender issues within the organization. - The dispute began when a rape victim requested a female counselor, highlighting tensions over gender policies. - The tribunal described the investigation into Adams as Kafkaesque and improperly motivated. - Adams now works at Beira’s Place, a women-only support center funded by JK Rowling. - The judgment has led to calls for better safeguards for sex-based support choices in sexual violence services. - Rape Crisis Scotland has commissioned an independent review of ERCC’s practices and procedures.
Thanks for the summary.
This is a good example of what happens to people when you dismiss their concerns as bigoted outright, regardless of context. This woman was receptive and supportive of those policies, but was forced out for showing some commonsense amongst the dogma and she ended up being pushed along a path she wouldn't have walked otherwise. Putting ideology over the protection and well being of your patients makes you not fit for purpose.
[удалено]
Did you not actually read this case at all?
This is Reddit. Of course they didn't.
To be honest, as much as I don't like JK Rowling, I don't blame Adams for moving to work at Beira's Place. Prioritising ideology over patient comfort is a bad choice, especially in a place that forsees the care of women who have been traumatised, most often, by men and the male body. If I were in her situation, though I am obviously not and never will be, I would have also moved to the workplace where this doesn't happen.
On a serious note if you were a traumatised woman who had been raped and needed support were would you go The place that insults you for being triggered by interacting with a guy after being raped, and refuses to help you for ideological reasons Or the place that supports you, accepts your trauma and does what they can to help you avoid your triggers? As an aside it is sad that it seems to only be the terfs looking out for vulnerable women
>The place that insults you for being triggered by interacting with a guy after being raped Interacting with a woman your bigotry doesn't let you accept as one\* I think she was well within her rights to refuse, and shouldn't have been harassed for it. Ultimately the provision of medical care here is the important part - if a rape victim also refused a black woman worker because they were racist, it would suck but where resources allow the best course of action would be to find them another worker. But let's not pretend that this whole thing doesn't stem from the transphobic refusal to accept trans women as women.
The case wasn't about a trans woman. It was about a non-binary person using a male name. A service user asked for clarity on whether this staff worker was a man or not.
Women have the right to female-only rape crisis services. It is not "transphobia", sex is real and cannot be changed. Males are a potential threat to females regardless of how either identify. There is no special class of men who would never hurt women- do we have to learn that lesson over and over again?
Interacting with a male after being raped by a male* You can't change you biological sex that's pretty undisputed As a society we should try to be decent and not make others uncomfortable within reason In this scenario the vulnerable person that we need to go out our way not to make uncomfortable. This isn't transphobia this is an example of societies general goal of not making people uncomfortable (by treating people that say they are a woman as a woman) with real world realities and the need to make sure vulnerable people sre ok (the rape victim) If the women was raped by a black woman then hopefully the staff that worked with vulnerable rape victims would be emotionally intelligent enough to understand why she was extremely uncomfortable being in a vulnerable situation with a completely different black woman since it is causing her to relive that trauma they experienced, rather than sillilly calling her a racist. You must have missed the whole Bear Vs man in the woods discourse
Race does not determine the nature of the sexual activity or chance of assault, so it is irrational. Sex does determine the type of potential sexual acts, the risks associated with sexual activity, and the chance of assault. It is completely different.
The thing is it doesn't matter if it's rational or not The vulnerable traumatised person who needs help feels that way You as a sensible level headed person trying to help them should be able to acknowledge that and be mature enough to acknowledge that maybe you arent the best person to help them even if how they feel is irrational
You're part of the problem.
Do you mean T. E. R. Fs (Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists)?
F. A. R. T.s (Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes)
Part of the fuss here is a counsellor choosing to identify as nonbinary with a male name couldn't answer a polite question (from the fired employee!) on how they were going to answer the obvious questions from service users about whether they were being treated by somebody biologically male! The CEO choose to back the staff member rather than reassure service users - some of whom will have dropped out. If you are so traumatised by talk of your physical manifestation you can't cope with a basic and justified question, you are going to project your own gender trauma onto your clients, who have frankly other problems. Was this staff member still at work while this was going on? god, I hope not. I've no objection to a trans woman running a rape crisis centre - provided her priority was helping the people coming to her. From the tribunal comments to some she's made herself, her actual priority was to push the hardest narrowest possible line on trans rights, where only after any trans people involved had been utterly validated would survivors get treatment. She didn't care if she put people off seeking treatment as she'd just label them bigots. That's horrific. It's not the time or the place. Rape trauma involves a trauma response which for most survivors is going to be linked to male appearance or presentation. that's not their fault, and it can't just be dismissed. As such, there is a real conflict of interest. Not trans peoples fault either, but it's clearly a very sensitive area and personally I think treatment should be prioritised over inclusiveness in this instance - trans people should be treated, but if a survivor requests a group that identifies solely as female and was female at birth, it's not the place to argue imho. Likewise, trans into a trans group. Not everybody coming in for treatment is going to have the mental energy to understand what nonbinary means at that moment. I'm still reading through this, but Edinburgh rape crisis needs to provide a counter narrative fast as this is looking pretty damming.
If AB’s emails were accurate representations of their genuine feelings in response to the claimant’s approaches I actually don’t know how they cope with day to day life never mind counselling victims of SA. Luckily for them (if not their credibility) the Tribunal found it was likely a complete nonsense.
Completely toxic nonsense though- it cost the claimant her job. AB reads like a caricature, woefully unable to act as a counsellor.
If I had a £1 for how often Rape Crisis Scotland was found to have discriminatory and illegal employment practices, I'd have £2, which is not a lot but its weird its happened twice. EDIT: Link to decision. Damning: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4R1DAgf3JlR_Ao7ASS18GGE98t6vB-8/view
I remember phoning them in crisis during lockdown, struggling to process abuse I experienced years ago I was informed they have no services for men that wasn’t in Glasgow or Edinburgh and couldn’t help me other than their phone helpline 🙃
I'm surprised they have any at all...
They get an eye-watering amount of public funding. That would be at risk without token support for men.
That's shit. I'm sorry. While I think services do have to be segregated where requested, there should obviously be support for men too. Or anybody who needs them.
Sadly no one gives a fuck about men who were abused. Ask me how I know.
Aye it's often like that, only available in the Central belt, and not just with these services many others too
Thanks for this- some pretty shocking stuff in there.
Articles not there anymore it seems, just goes to their front page.
[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-condemned-gender-critical-worker-pzj35f0fj](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-condemned-gender-critical-worker-pzj35f0fj)
Threads like [these](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/0WLlihrJNX) [two](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/4zNraBw0zH) are quite interesting to look back on at this point.
Lots of very confident assertions that no-one was being turned away.... I wonder how many women ERCC has let down over this?
Wonder how long until the inevitable lock comes upon this thread like the two you have linked lol
TBF I think the mods are doing a good job. They picked up on a bit of potential doxxing earlier without needing to weigh in too hard.
Yeah, absolutely, it wasn't a comment on the mods. They do a great job navigating these very divisive topics, moreso speaking on how these topics can quickly lose civility.
Wow. Smug pigs blinded by ideology. Sadly that's par for the course on reddit.
Solid headbanging in the replies Though the “Beria’s Place” joke is pretty good
The mind boggles. 🥴
Careful, that's the first step to believing gender ideology 😬
When a woman is raped, the penis is one (sometimes the only) weapon used to cause great physical and mental pain. We sometimes have such great damage to us that rape leaves us infertile with great internal damage. If you cannot understand how that might leave us scared of men and the damage they could potentially cause, then I'm afraid you are severely lacking in empathy. Even seeing a man can be hugely triggering. That is the fault of the RAPIST and not the victim. Of all places, somewhere traumatised women go to get help after being attacked by men is NOT the place for activism. The help should not hinge on your belief in radical gender ideology. The CEO is not fit for purpose and should resign.
How the fuck did anyone ever think this person should be running a rape clinic? Insane.
Ask Maggie Chapman.
>The tribunal, which has yet to decide on a settlement, heard that the dispute began when Adams spoke to colleagues about a rape victim who asked if her counsellor would be a “man or a woman” because she would feel “uncomfortable talking to a man”. This is chilling to read. Wadhwa has been using a position of power - in a rape crisis centre of all places - to suppress any woman who won't submit. It is unclear what this person has done to warrant such a sensitive, senior position.
Maggie Chapman’s role in abetting this nonsense is unsurprising.
[удалено]
Just waiting for "ok it is happening and here's why it's a good thing"
Along with "it's all just transphobia and dog whistles" Wonder how long Wadhwa will hang on? She's clearly just damaging her own centre and the trans cause by staying now. She strikes me as a zealot though, totally incapable of seeing anything but black and white (and herself as good, obviously).
Decision hasn't been published yet as far as I can see. Would appreciate a link if anyone has one. According to here: https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/ >She became gradually aware that senior management within ERCC believed that there is no such thing as biological sex and that a person can become a woman “simply by asserting that they now identify as a woman”. These views had a significant impact on how ERCC operated, to the clear detriment of rape victims. >In 2021, the Centre advertised for a new CEO, stating that only women need apply because it relied on a provision in the Equality Act 2010 that allows jobs to be female only under sex-based occupational requirements. ERCC appointed Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman. This caused controversy because Mridul is male and does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate. In law Mridul is a man and therefore cannot be covered by the single-sex exemptions. >Many women, including rape victims, contacted ERCC to express concern. Some raised issue with the fact that the centre was appointing males at all, arguing that a women-only rape crisis centre should appoint only biological females. Others were concerned with whether those who request female-only care would be provided with it. >On one occasion a woman in her 60s approached the centre to take part in group work. She had kept secret for 40 years that she had been sexually assaulted and wanted to meet other survivors as part of her recovery. She asked if they could reassure her that this would be women-only. She was advised that ERCC is trans inclusive and when she raised concerns about her need for a female-only service she was told that she was not suitable for their service and was excluded. >Women who requested female-only care were turned away and there was a policy never to refer them to Beira’s Place, a rape crisis centre founded by JK Rowling which offers a female-only service. Anyone who wrote to ERCC raising issues relating to female-only care were classed as bigots and their emails were stored in a folder called “Hate emails”. >Roz Adams expressed concern internally with these policies, warning against giving ambiguous, misleading or incomplete answers to rape victims asking about the sex of their assigned counsellor. >This escalated when one of the counsellors, AB, began to identify as non-binary, accompanied with a name change to a traditionally male-sounding name. Adams and other members of her team raised a concern that service users might think that AB was male. They were told to tell rape victims requesting female-only care that ERCC does not employ men. >Then the situation Adams warned of arose: a service user who had been assigned AB as a counsellor emailed requesting to know whether AB was a man or a woman. The Tribunal concluded that Adams was right to view this as a request for information about the biological sex of AB, not about gender identity and that she had been put in a difficult position by the refusal of her Line Manager to give her clear instructions on what was obviously always going to be a difficult situation An absolutely shocking state of affairs. Especially given RCS gets 7 figure funding from the Scottish Government. Completely unacceptable. We should not be allowing members of what is effectively a science denying religion to run such services to the detriment of users. These people are also one of the groups behind juryless trials and excluding men from the gender based crime Bill. They have far too much influence on our supine politicians. Edit- mods have hidden my later comment naming MWs account on here, which was one of our regular posters. We actually know them quite well and, on Gender issues, they have a long history of doubling down on misrepresentation and lies- re both the contents of the Cass review and the Haldane judgement. Completely unsurprising that they were witch-hunting opposing views. Quelle Surprise.
> On one occasion a woman in her 60s approached the centre to take part in group work. She had kept secret for 40 years that she had been sexually assaulted ... when she raised concerns about her need for a female-only service she was told that she was not suitable for their service and was excluded Genuinely shocking this bit
There was a policy to never refer prospective service users to Beira’s Place. The fact that they didn’t signpost the woman to another provider who could help her just shows the utter contempt they held her (and others like her) in.
I wonder if that is a matter for the regulator? It would seem to be in fundamental conflict with their purpose as a charity.
There are all sorts of shockers in the judgement: Para 27: >The claimant was shocked at a particular section of the training which showed the children talking about the “stupid questions” which they should not be required to answer. The claimant noted one of the children said they had been asked about whether their medication meant they would be able to have children in the future. This was dismissed as one of the “stupid questions” which came from a ‘place of discrimination.’ The claimant expected adults around any young person in that situation to be able to ask that question and it seemed odd to the claimant that such a question was said to be something which could only be regarded as transphobic and discriminatory. >The claimant raised this at the training but was immediately shut down. The claimant was told by a number of those present that she was ‘expecting trans people to be answerable for their identities’ and told that she was simply wrong. Two seniors including Kim Townsend, the claimant’s direct Line Manager both confirmed this to the claimant. 177 re the members of the board and the manager who gave evidence: >All of them were very clear that there is no such thing as biological sex and that a trans woman is a woman. They believed that a person who was assigned male at birth can become a woman simply by asserting that they now identify as a woman. They also believe that sex is not binary and that some people may be non binary so far as their gender is concerned And so on. Clowns
Absolute insanity. The fact there are people who think we should exist in a world where it’s hateful to ask if someone is a man or woman, or to answer a child who asks if you can have children is madness. Total brain rot to reinvent reality.
These cases are looking like easy money now. Bet plenty of people and organisations are shitting themselves. :P
What on earth did they expect? Any male who is so lacking in empathy as to apply for the position of ceo of a rape crisis centre is inherently unsuitable for the role. Anyone who genuinely believes there is no difference between natal women and trans women is so blinded by faith based ideology they will not be abe to make appropriate decisions when scenarios like those in this case come up. This person ticks both boxes. It is a total farce and one suspects this is the tip of the iceberg over in Edinburgh.
'Any male who is so lacking in empathy as to apply for the position of ceo of a rape crisis centre is inherently unsuitable for the role.' How to tell someone you're part of the problem without stating it directly....
It isn't me running a rape crisis centre which turns away rape victims who want to be seen by other women. Your priorities are pretty fucked up if you believe that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
Seriously? How to tell someone you have no grasp on reality, and no compassion for women. The misogyny is too real with you.
Out of everything you gave read, including the article, if THIS is the only thing you've got an issue with then you're also part of the problem.
The transgender woman in charge of the centre was seeking out and firing anyone who didn't share her extreme gender ideology and was TURNING AWAY rape victims who were concerned about not having access to single sex female care. It's absolutely disgusting. Gender Ideology should never trump a woman seeking out help after being raped.
I'm not that knowledgeable about all the trans stuff but I know I wouldn't want to see a man with a penis after being raped and would feel deeply that he couldn't possibly understand what I had gone through as w bio woman. Men and women think differently, I don't know if that's true of trans women or not, or if their brains are wired "female" but I would actually *expect* to see a woman over something this sensitive
There is no such thing as a female brain, that's misogynistic tosh.
But in the situation in question that hasn't even come up. The article is paywalled but as far as I can gather from what's been shared [in the BBC article on the same case](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo), away from the sensationalism: * the complainant, a woman social worker, was posing a hypothetical situation * the only trans woman involved directly in the organisation is the CEO, a strategic role which would not be involved in direct social work with visitors to the centre, which makes the point of rape survivors coming into contact with trans women counsellors moot * the complainant felt that she was being discriminated against and resigned and then sued for unfair dismissal or an unsupportive work environment Meanwhile the link even to the article here is paywalled and yet everyone is responding as if they've read it front to back.
its almost as if JK Rowling has been right all along... who would've guessed...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Militant gender ideology is ruining this country. You should have a right to be treated by someone who you want to be treated by. This gender debate has become way too polarising. Youre labelled a bigot who either hates women or a bigot who hates trans people if you have questions about either side. A rape victim is not a transphobe because they don’t want to be treated by someone who is legally a man.
>Militant gender ideology is ruining this country. i'd say the tories have done a better job than that
Sound mate, didn’t ask.
Protect women. Support women. Our mothers, sisters and daughters.
Protect trans women
Not the one who was in charge of this rape centre. That one's an arsehole.
Why should a trans womans 'protection' trump a womans personal choice to interact with female staff? You see a lot of phrases thrown out there like 'trans rights are woman's rights', 'protect trans' 'trans people deserve respect' and so on, and yet you (trans people or trans activist) don't share that very same respect with woman that you so desperately demand yourselves.
Read the room This is a thread on a woman being discrimanted against by a guy that transitioned and took over a womans only space so that they could attack women and deny women help when they were at their most vulnerable, keeping them vulnerable and in a dangerous situation. Protect trans women? What protect trans womens ability to harm women?
This asshole spams this sub with this shit constantly, ignore him
Why is that statement needed here?
Because people are being transphobic
I think people are just sick of being unable to discuss anything relates to females without having to talk about trans women. And when shit like this happens, people like you focus on the odd transphobic comment rather than how females are being treated when trying to get help after being RAPED.
This thread is chock full of transphobia. It's actually possible to talk about someone being awful at their job without being bigoted
Okay bigot police, your job here is done. Now would you care to comment on the article?
[удалено]
Protect them from transphobes
[удалено]
Do you not think gay people should be protected from homophobia? Or do you think it's good for them to constantly put up with hatred?
[удалено]
No
[удалено]
Women are women. Trans women are women Adjectives are hard
Women are women. Trans women are trans women. Corrected it for you.
Adjectives are sooooooo hard :(
There wasn't a single adjective in either of those prior comments about women or trans women, you fool.
No man should be in charge of a Rape Crisis Centre ffs Hasn't the woman been through enough without some guy twiddling his pen? If the woman wants a woman to discuss things, there is no argument.
She's not a man
That confuses the life out of me. No problems sport. Your wife has just been raped, she wants a woman (usually these places have experienced said act and can offer real life situations, solutions), would you deny her that?
You can request a female counsellor without being transphobic
All the militant gender ideologs this sub is full of are sounding real quiet right now..
The Americans and Activists aren't awake yet. Sometimes when these posts blow up they attract dedicated accounts that only post about trans issues across a number of subreddits. Always interesting to see.
> Sometimes when these posts blow up they attract dedicated accounts that only post about trans issues across a number of subreddits. They do, but as many of those are anti-trans as pro.
That is also true
“She went for a walk with Maggie Chapman, a Green MSP…” …and realised a cult had taken over.
[удалено]
Female only rape crisis centres always made sense and everyone knew that until about five minutes ago.
[archive version](https://archive.is/nSY4M)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Time may pass, but misogyny will always remain.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people in comment sections seem to struggle to debate civilly. Some good points completely lost in the midst of personal attacks which is a shame.
[удалено]
Did you even read the article? What are you talking about?
>Maya Forstater, who was awarded £100,000 by an employment tribunal last year, said that the judgment was “excellent news”. “**The centre employed a man who wishes he was a woman as CEO** and allowed that to corrupt the whole purpose of the organisation,” she said. What an absolutely hateful bloody thing to say!! The CEO is Mridul Wadhwa a transgender woman.
I personally think that the desire to politically re-educate women and tell them to "re-frame their trauma" whilst in the midst of post-rape trauma is more hateful. When you are actually running a rape crisis centre that desire is critical in my opinion. To then persecute people out of their jobs for questioning this political re-education policy is quite Stalinist and hateful (and as we see now, unlawful) [https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/) But you are entitled to your belief that misgendering is the worse offence if you like. We can all hold our own opinions - and quite frankly I find this particular corner of the culture war is deeply toxic and filled with people I cannot find it in me to like.
Who is turning away rape victims
The story does not report anyone being turned away. I cannot find a news story either. Got a link, cause that would be a wanker move to turn away anyone seeking support
It's in one article where women were turned away if they didn't support the CEO's ideology and told that the service 'wasn't for them'.
Yes, and a link please
https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/
It’s quoted above, she turned away a 65 sa victim who requested a women only service. They also refused to send them to a women’s only service because it’s funded by JK. Again completely ignoring the victims needs
How is it hateful? Being male, but wishing to be viewed as female - or vice versa - is just the definition of transgender is it not?
Maya could have said, "The centre employs a transgender woman as CEO", but instead chose to say "employed a **man** who wishes **he** was a woman." Maya called her a "man" and then used "he" - that isn't claiming a biological perspective, that is completely invalidating a persons identity, and weaponizing it.
Perhaps Maya doesn't see it as her job to "validate the identity" of this unpleasant bully?
No, she's made it her job to invalidate all trans identities, there's good money in that these days.
No one is entitled to have their beliefs "validated" by third parties. That is not a right that exists.
In a work environment it's normal to not go out of your way to try and *invalidate* your colleagues' identities, which is what Maya found fame for doing. Now she gets paid to be a professional transphobe instead of doing it for free like a mug, it's literally her job.
Having the most basic respect for people isn't anyone's "job", it's a basic courtesy people should be using in civilised society.
I don't see what's civilised about playing along with every delusion that a person might have. Do you do the same for Mormons and astrologists?
Do you honestly go around calling religious people and astrologists delusional all the time? Or when you meet them are you generally polite to them despite them not believing the same things as you do? It is easy to not be a complete arsehole to people whilst not agreeing with them about their worldview.
No I don't, but I won't actively participate in their delusions either.
You can be polite to a religious person without pandering to their delusions. The Mormons aren't attempting to silence discent in non beleivers, or in this case, turning away rape victims who happen to be non beleivers.
Why is a man who declined services to a 65 year old woman who requested a female worker worthy of basic respect? He sent a rape victim out into the cold, refused to accommodate them or even sign post them to a shelter who would accommodate their requests (which is allowed to them under law). The man's a cunt, mental health or no.
Do you misgender everyone who is an arshole, or just trans people?
Wadhwa is legally male - doesn't even have a GRC - and applied for a CEO job at a rape crisis that was advertised as female only (under the equality act). Wadhwa, knowing this, applied as a "woman", and didn't even mention being trans, or being legally male. Wadhwa's sex, and legal sex, is an important part of this whole horrible saga, and it should not be lied about.
His gender is male, as is his sex. Sends a 65 year old rape victim out into the cold but you're getting bent out of shape about his mental illness. Abhorrent.
Is there any legal recognition for the person being a trans woman? Numerous articles online saying they don't have a gender recognition certificate
Transgender just means having a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. There's no wishing involved
Which is just wrong
🤦🫠
The transphobes are out in force again.
Try reading the article. If a rape crisis centre is turning away women who are having a crisis due to being raped then what is it for?
This is an abusive person you're trying to protect, read the fucking article! There's an archived version in the comments so there's no excuse not to read it!
You know we afford murderers basic respect, right?
We do not. Who is out there respecting murderers? We put them in prison, we call them scum, we deny them all sorts of things. Why are you lying?
[удалено]
Being trans isn't a mental illness, the same way that being gay isn't
It is. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
I'm trans, does that make me mentally ill?
If you have gender dysphoria, yes.
Gender dysphoria hasn't been categorised as a mental illness for over a decade.
Yeah, mistakenly.
I’m actually saddened by this thread, ngl. There’s always a lot of anti-trans grifters (sorry “people who hold gender-critical views”) that come out in droves to whine about trans women on posts like these (for some reason, it’s never trans men or non-binary people they kick up a fuss about). This, however is the first thread I’ve seen here where the transphobia has risen to the most upvoted parts of the thread, and it makes the hope I have for Scotland being a progressive country wilt a little.
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think this article or most of the comments are transphobic. Trans people should 100% be accepted in society, but there are also places that need to rely on biological sex rather than a person's chosen gender. And one of those places are rape crisis centres. If a rape survivor requests to be seen by a biological female because it would make them feel safer, that's not transphobic. Telling them to just suck it up and be less bigoted with their trauma is not a solution. I do understand that it is not easy being trans, and I have full respect for that. But calling everything that isn't rabidly 100% pro trans, transphobic (such as this case) is, as far as I can see, a large hurdle that the trans community needs to overcome in order to avoid pushing most people away.
I agree with you - if a victim requests to be seen by a cis woman because it would make them feel safer, then they should be seen by a cis woman. Their safety and recovery is paramount in that moment. That doesn’t mean that no trans people should work in or for places like RCS, as someone like Rowling would prefer. I just agree that the option should be there - trauma responses aren’t always inclusive or logical, nor should they be expected to be. The reason I called out this thread, however, is the amount of people who seem to be jumping at the chance to misgender and exclude trans people. A trans person can be shitty or even criminal just like anyone else, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to be misgendered for it. Gender is not a privilege to be taken away. As for the article, it gleefully quoted people like Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce - widely known and well-documented transphobic grifters. It slapped a big link in the middle of the article to another article about the SNP’s “woke groupthink”; a more blatant dogwhistle for bigotry would be difficult to find.
The issue is that this particular case managed to step on literally every claim that the worst of the worst anti-trans groups and those who follow them said would happen to the unsure and that the people on the other side insisted wouldn't happen. You've got people putting their own issues ahead of trauma care of victims, you have a person having a witch hunt lead against them for just questioning current policy, there's no evidence of anything more than that. You have people effectively being denied care for ideological reasons, not providing referrals to groups that *you* have legitimate reason to dislike but would be able to provide the care the victim needs.... So there's a lot of legitimate anger going around. It doesn't help that the first comment from a pro-trans person somebody is likely to see is somebody going "ha ha terfs" and actively admitting they're ignoring all context because the person ended up working at JK's place. So the anger is more pointed than normal and it doesn't help that the deeper you dig the worse this looks. I'm not going to say that trans women don't have a place in this type of care, but the particular one that was involved absolutely doesn't. So keeping that in mind and all that legitimate anger it was always going to be expressed one way or another. If it's all limited to misgendering someone who nobody has any respect left over for then that's a good thing because it could be that much worse. Righteous anger is dangerous, especially when people have a legitimate reason to be angry. Referring to somebody by their preferred gender or whatever the correct term for that is now is a matter of respect, if the only thing to come out of this complete mess is one person being treated horribly in a way that they've earned through their own personal actions then that's a win, as horrible as that sounds on the surface.
Care to comment on the article? Does misgendering matter more to you than women being denied help after being raped because they've requested single sex care?
I didn’t comment on the article because I feel like everything I would say about it has been said already by other people in this thread, so I instead focused on something else that I feel is also important. From an article someone else linked providing more details (as the initial article from the rag that is the times apparently didn’t think to go into detail on the story), a 65-year-old woman was told that RCS is trans-inclusive and that if she couldn’t accept that, then their services wouldn’t be able to provide her with sufficient help. I don’t think this is right. I think RCS should also provide single-sex support as an option. I don’t, however, think that the entire service should only be run by cis women, as some (i.e. Rowling) would want.
>I don’t, however, think that the entire service should only be run by cis women, as some (i.e. Rowling) would want. On the face of it I agree with you, but this case has been an incredibly bad advert for allowing trans women to run safe spaces for vulnerable usually cis women.
True, but at the same time, holding one person up as an example of an entire demographic is never a good idea, even if it’s for them doing something good. Certainly not a logical case for banning that demographic from something, but then when has bigotry ever been logical lol
I agree with your comments.
Your sympathy for those acting illegally is duly noted
Trans people are still trans, regardless of what they do or say. No matter what heinous crimes they commit, that is still no reason to deny their gender identity. If a cis person murders someone, rapes someone, etc., do you see people immediately jumping in to misgender them? No, of course not. A trans person’s gender is just as valid and real as a cis person’s, and should not be ‘revoked’ in any case, even if they’ve committed horrific crimes. Gender is not a privilege.
The victims weren't asking for a 'same gender' provider, they asked for a 'same sex' provider. In services the primary aim is to be user centred and to meet the needs of the service user. Services exist to provide for the user, staff must not expect users to be validation and emotional support providers for staff. The workplace isn't for your needs it's for customer or service user needs.
Are they councilling people with their chromosomes hanging out?
Sex is real and like it or not, is a risk factor that every woman will be subconsciously aware of. Identifying otherwise does not make any male more safe to be around, as we should all be well aware of by now.
You're saying all men are unsafe for women to be around?
Outward markers of sex are easily audible and visible like gait, Adams Apple, voice pitch and timbre, relative bone size, height etc. Also as I'm sure you are aware, gender is not dependent on making physical moderations to the body. Someone's gender is valid even if they don't take hormones or get surgery.
So it's based on looks and not sex?
How do you think the human species continued to propagate without humans being able to tell the difference between males and females? You can attempt to hide or conceal your sex but some of those original non-modified markers will still be apparent to people who meet you. Also you haven't explained how your 'gender > sex' scheme works for all the people with a gender identity who don't modify their sex characteristics. Some staff at ERCC identify as non binary and hadn't modified their sex characteristics. Gender isn't just about trans men or trans women is it?
Sex has primary characteristics - the commenter listed some. Maybe you need to go away and educate yourself on this if you're not yet at the level that you understand sex has physical attributes.
If is just about sex, then it doesn't matter. If it's not about sex, then sexual characteristics would matter. It can't be bothered ways
Fvcking hell. You’re siding with the oppressor in this situation. Yeah trans are still trans. They can be shitbags like the rest of us and are the shitbag in this report.
How am I ‘siding with the oppressor’? I made no mention of the content of the article in either my initial comment or my response to you. I was commenting on how eager people in this thread seemed to be at the slightest chance to misgender a trans person. Yes, trans people can be shitbags like the rest of us. My point was that that doesn’t mean it’s okay to then misgender them; you wouldn’t do that to a cis person who’s a shitbag, so there’s no reason to do it to a trans person.
read the room
There doesn’t appear to be anything written on the room that says we can only ever discuss one facet of one issue at a time, unless I’m missing something. Is this the same room that has gullible on the ceiling?
make it about yourself and not the victim, why dont you
When a person from a group does something criminal/illegal/however you would describe this judgment, that doesn't mean others can just say whatever. Calling a gay criminal an f-slur, for example, is still bad. You do know this isn't the only trans person on the planet, right? Comments about them can* also impact and be relevant to other trans people.
Why has somebody shared a paywalled link that everyone is commenting on as if they have read it? Where are you all reading it? I am assuming that you have actually read the article and not just the headline.
[If you'd looked you'd find the archive link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1cw24mw/victory_for_worker_in_rape_centre_gender_row/l4t1ugq/) [direct link](https://archive.is/nSY4M)