Either way, vulnerable women lose
Susan Dalgety on the mess at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre:
Today, there are 17 rape crisis centres across Scotland, from Shetland to Dumfries and Galloway. In 2020-21, Rape Crisis Scotland – the movement’s national body – received more than £5 million for its sexual violence support work, much of it from the Scottish Government.
But as the movement evolved from a voluntary service to a professional one, the principle which underpinned it remained constant. Survivors of rape and sexual assault should have access to female-only support services. Women looking after each other in a way only women can understand. Until recently that is, when gender identity ideology, which dismisses the reality of biological sex, began to assert itself in that most sacred of female-only spaces – rape crisis centres.
A report published this week shows that the sector is now in turmoil across the UK. Women’s Services: A Sector Silenced, launched by human rights charity Sex Matters, reveals that groups are mired in confusion as they grapple with the conflicts arising out of a move towards “trans-inclusive” services, often forced on them by funders. It also points to growing evidence that women are reluctant to seek help because they do not want to risk being counselled by a man.
The lead author of the report, social-science researcher Matilda Gosling, says that those sector leaders who believe in the necessity of single-sex spaces face an intolerable choice between not offering the services that women need or losing out on funding. “These are brave, principled leaders who’ve been put in an impossible situation – and either way, vulnerable women lose,” she says.
All for the sake of men who claim to be women. It doesn’t seem entirely fair, does it.
As the report was published, an employment tribunal involving a former member of staff at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) began. Roz Adams, a support counsellor, is claiming constructive dismissal after she was subjected to a nine-month disciplinary process where she was accused of being “transphobic”. She had suggested that the centre tell a woman survivor that one of its advice workers was “a woman at birth that now identifies as non-binary”.
This is not the first time the Edinburgh centre has hit the headlines in recent years. It is run by Mridul Wadhwa, who was born male. In August 2021, Wadhwa told the Guilty Feminist podcast that “bigoted” rape victims would be challenged by the centre, adding: “…if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”
Wadhwa, who self-identifies as female, later stepped back from the remarks, issuing a statement that said: “The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre or the rape crisis movement in Scotland is not looking to re-educate survivors when they come in for the urgent, potentially life-saving support they may need – that would be inappropriate.” But the damage had been done, with reports of women refusing to use the Edinburgh service. And evidence at this week’s tribunal further revealed Wadhwa’s strong views, including a suggestion at a public meeting in Edinburgh University last year that firing staff can be as important as hiring them when creating “inclusive” workplaces.
Be more inclusive by firing people.
A witness, who had attended the event, said that when asked how best to bring staff on board if they were not sure about trans-inclusive policies, Wadhwa replied: “Fire them.” But perhaps the most harrowing evidence to emerge from the tribunal, which is expected to end next week, was on the first day, when Roz Adams told of a woman who was refused support from ERCC because she asked if the service was women-only. She explained that the woman, in her 60s, had wanted a female-only group therapy context. On being told the ERCC was “trans inclusive”, the woman asked “is that women-only?” and later received an email saying she was not suitable to use its service.
Because she’s not inclusive enough. Women who’ve been raped are turned away from a rape crisis centre run by a man because they don’t want group therapy with men. That’s inclusion.
It also emerged that the Edinburgh centre refuses to refer women to Beira’s Place, the female-only sexual support service set up by author JK Rowling a year ago, even though they have closed the waiting list for their advocacy services. Adams, who now works at Beira’s Place, told the tribunal that ERCC “have made it very clear they won’t refer people on to our services”.
That too is inclusion. It’s all so inclusive that women have nowhere to go.
Refusing to refer to Beira’s Place is an interesting decision. You would think ERCC would be all too happy to protect vulnerable trans staff members and service users by diverting potentially transphobic rape victims out of the building and on to another service.
Piglet, that would require the ERCC high-ups to possess a shred of empathy, but what you suggest would leave them in a win-lose situation. Yes, they get to protect their oh-so fragile trans staff members but if they refer rape victims to a genuine female-only service then they’re not adequately punishing the uppity transphobes, and that just won’t do.
There are people out there through no fault of their own and for whatever reason who have phobias. My late sister-in-law was a highly respected and qualified nurse who had a lifelong phobia about feathers, brought on we believe by an old and probably well meaning man who would sneak up to her pram and tickle her with a chook feather when she was an infant. Hydrophobia, agrophobia, etc are others. The list is quite large. Some phobics seek cures; some don’t. But no phobic is blamed for being that way inclined, except for transphobes.
Now if some bloke wants to dress up as a woman and stand next to me at some public urinal, it’s no big deal. But if he wants to use the same restroom as my wife, daughters or any female prone to be offended by his behaviour, that is a different story. At the very least, I will call the cops and have him chucked out; along with his preferred pronouns and all.
I guess that makes me a transphobe. Well, life wasn’t meant to be easy.
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/phobias/types-of-phobia/
Not quite right. Transphobia is, as far as I know, an offshoot of homophobia, and the latter term is not an absurd hijacking or misuse. The idea is that it’s not rational, it’s just a phobia. It fits for same-sex love/attraction/sex. It does NOT fit for knowing what sex people are.
“But no phobic is blamed for being that way inclined, except for transphobes.”
I think you should add ‘Islamophobes’.
@# 5:
That’s a tricky one, Jim. Common definitions of ‘Islamophobia’ conflate hostility towards Islam with hostility towards Muslims. To attack Islam, its philosophical base and essential propositions is thus to attack Muslims. But to liberal democrats, no philosophy or proposition is beyond examination and critique. If to attack one or more ideas is to attack those convinced of the truth of those ideas, then no dialogue is possible. And I am sure GWF Hegel would agree.
If you are tired of life, just buy yourself a one-way ticket to say, Pakistan, stand up on any street corner and yell out “Islam is bullshit,” or “down with Islam.!” You will be likely rushed by young male enthusiasts, brandishing whatever weapons they find handy, keen on entering Paradise at a time of their own choosing, scoring their allocation of 72 virgins each, and not particularly interested in philosophical discussion of any kind.
Am I or am I not an ‘Islamophobe?’ That’s another tricky one..