Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

They didn’t ask Ian Huntley if he would murder children when they gave him a job as caretaker.
Just because her employers do not see her as at fault doesn’t make. It right that she lied. You obviously know you do not have to be asked something in order to lie.

I suppose it comes down to where you set your moral compass.

Or whether there has been pressure put on them not to ‘hoof her out’?

Most employers would take a dim view of someone lying and getting away with it, if only because they won’t have a leg to stand on when someone else does it and claims unfair dismissal on grounds of precedent.

If it was seen as a lie, she would have been hoofed out by now. Clearly her employers don't see her as at fault.

You two really are clutching at straws now.

Lying by omission is still lying. Why do you think the oath people take in court is to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'?

People who claim to have a degree, or to be a qualified surgeon would (rightly) be taken to task if they lied on a job application and were found out. What's the difference? What sort of moral compass must someone have to think that it is acceptable to ignore a stated restriction on who is allowed to apply for a role, on the grounds that nobody questioned the applicant? They must operate in a moral vacuum. If someone burgles your house, do you expect them to get away with it because nobody asked them not to come in and do off with the silver?

I think it's fair to say that for many in this country respect for the truth has been going downhill for some time, but there are still those who believe in the spirit of the law, particularly when it is there to protect women, and don't rely on weasel words to wriggle out of obeying it.

The business of rights has always been tricky, as anyone with a basic grasp of equality and diversity will understand that there are times when one person's rights conflicts with another's. The right of one person to smoke can remove the right of another to breathe clean air, for instance. It is simply untrue that the rights of one group never cause another to suffer.

That is why we have laws in place - passed by people who have considered the various issues and weighed up the implications for all concerned. If people can just ignore the laws and hope that nobody notices, however, others will take the law into their own hands, and everyone's rights are trampled on.

But she didn't lie, did she? They didn't ask.

trisher

No Doodledog but the question was about the CEO wasn't it?

Was that aimed at me Mollygo? I'm quite happy that in my actions and my speech I have supported the rights of all people, women, children, trans people and men. I simply don't consider rights are something with a hierarchy or that giving rights to one group of people infringes on anothers
The belief that anyone suffers when another group of people are given rights is deeply rooted in fear. Over the years it has been used to deny rights to women, immigrants, homosexuals and now trans. And strangely enough when rights are granted no one suffers.

Trisher you are unbelievable. I’m almost tempted to show my husband.
You don’t believe ‘that any one suffers when another group of people are given rights’.
That’s your right and as far as it goes, there are areas where it’s true. Women gaining the right to become doctors did not stop men having the right to become doctors. Women having the right to vote, didn’t stop men having the same right.
I on the other hand believe that giving rights to a group by taking away another groups existing rights is wrong. The fact that the CEO in the title had to indulge in lying to achieve his aim supports my view, not yours.

GrannyGravy13

GagaJo

Your point is contradictory Mollygo. You're quite right, that the surgery is very hard to access and also highly complex with a frequently not satisfying result. Rightly, you say it is mentally and physically traumatic.

But then you seem to see that as a reason to exclude trans women .

A man who feels he is a woman has no idea what it is like to be a woman.
He has no idea of the mood swings and discomfort/pain associated with menstruation, menopause and all the problems it brings.
Deciding i am a woman albeit with a penis and all that decision brings needs some serious discussion both legally and morally.

Makes no difference if she is pre or post op though, does it? That experience is the same.

What about a woman born without a uterus? She'd have no idea either.

Yes, the legal side is an issue to resolve. But morally? Why? What is immoral about being trans? I do get that some don't agree with it. But it isn't immoral.

No it’s not contradictory, merely an explanation of why men might choose to avoid the trauma.
There are circumstances, as you well know if you’ve ever read any other posts than your own, where women’s rights should take precedence over those of transwomen, from the simple things like the right to be called woman to having the right to be treated or counselled by a woman, or being allowed to have a space safe from men, especially those who ‘feel’ they are women but go out of their way to demonstrate that they are not.

No Doodledog but the question was about the CEO wasn't it?

I suspect that if CraftyGranny is uncomfortable at the thought of an untransitioned transwoman counselling her, then she won't mind whether it is the CEO, one of her reports or anyone else.

No Doodledog but the question was about the CEO wasn't it?

Was that aimed at me Mollygo? I'm quite happy that in my actions and my speech I have supported the rights of all people, women, children, trans people and men. I simply don't consider rights are something with a hierarchy or that giving rights to one group of people infringes on anothers
The belief that anyone suffers when another group of people are given rights is deeply rooted in fear. Over the years it has been used to deny rights to women, immigrants, homosexuals and now trans. And strangely enough when rights are granted no one suffers.

GagaJo

Your point is contradictory Mollygo. You're quite right, that the surgery is very hard to access and also highly complex with a frequently not satisfying result. Rightly, you say it is mentally and physically traumatic.

But then you seem to see that as a reason to exclude trans women .

A man who feels he is a woman has no idea what it is like to be a woman.
He has no idea of the mood swings and discomfort/pain associated with menstruation, menopause and all the problems it brings.
Deciding i am a woman albeit with a penis and all that decision brings needs some serious discussion both legally and morally.

Your point is contradictory Mollygo. You're quite right, that the surgery is very hard to access and also highly complex with a frequently not satisfying result. Rightly, you say it is mentally and physically traumatic.

But then you seem to see that as a reason to exclude trans women .

CraftyGranny, not only is the surgery difficult to obtain and complicated, with a risk of failure. Like any other operation it is also painful and also takes a lot of courage to actually go through with it.
Why would you bother with the physical trauma and the potential risks and the need for courage if you can self-ID as a woman and then be allowed to take natal women’s jobs, be allowed in natal women’s safe spaces and have the support to do that not only from men who ‘feel’ they are women, other transwomen, but also evidently from those whose version of feminism means they have little or no regard for the rights of natal women.

Are you saying that under MW's regime there will be no transwomen as counsellors, then, trisher? How will she justify that in the circumstances?

She isn't counselling anyone anyway she is a trainer and a manager.
Transwomen do not always have surgery, for one thing it is highly complicated and there is quite a high level of post surgery complications and problems, with some failing completely.
You do not have to have had surgery to obtain a gender recognition certificate. and that applies to transmen and transwomen.

I can understand that, CraftyGranny. You are far from being alone in that way of thinking.

Thanks for that doodledog, the reason I ask is that this CEO has not surgically transitioned, according to the Sun Scotland, Therefore, I really don't think I would be comfortable with her counselling me.

CraftyGranny

Can I just ask, are you considered a transwomen even if you haven't surgically transitioned?

I think that depends on who you ask, CraftyGranny.

There are those who believe that if someone says they are a woman then they are a woman (hence TWAW - TransWomen Are Women); but others feel that this view is dangerous to the rights of so-called 'natal women' (ie those of the female sex, as opposed to gender).

Can I just ask, are you considered a transwomen even if you haven't surgically transitioned?

The area he works in has a very low percentage of women/BAME people. For that reason positive discrimination is happening. I'm not sure that it always means the best candidate is chosen but as any judgement is debatable because of the nature of his work it is very hard to contest (and he wouldn't because he is very supportive of the policy).

Someone will always lose out, but if positive discrimination is fairly applied (which legally it has to be) then the people who lose out do so because they start off at an advantage over the 'favoured' group, which usually means that men have traditionally had an advantage over women, and that balance is being redressed.

Of course it's hard lines if you don't get the job you really want because the company has an unbalanced workforce. That's not your fault, and it's only natural to be narked - but in theory at least you should be well placed to get another one. Was your son told that this was why the other candidate was successful over him? That seems harsh, and quite unusual, I think, as positive discrimination can only be applied if all else is equal and it is the only way of choosing between the candidates. As a mother, I would probably have felt as you did if my son were certain that he didn't get a job for that reason, but as a feminist I wouldn't see it as one person losing out, but as a situation where the female candidate got the advantage that would usually go to a man. It's not always easy to hold both points of view at once, of course - I do realise that.

Personally, I think that positive discrimination can be a bit of a blunt instrument. In some areas, for instance, there are fewer disadvantaged groups than in others. An employer in a city centre might be drawing on suburbs with very different demographics for staff, so it's debatable which profiles should apply.

On the whole, though, I think that it is a good thing to make employers think about why some groups are under-represented and what can be done about it, and in some cases it is absolutely the right thing to do, because of the nature of the organisation and its clients.

If the ERC felt that all employees should be female, or that particular roles should be advertised as open to female candidates only, then (assuming they stayed within the law), I think it is very important that they should be able to do so and have that respected. Whether in this case a transwoman would be equally suitable is not for us, as outsiders, to decide, but it should have been put to the interviewers for consideration, and not circumvented by deceit.

I've mixed feelings about the quota systems I can see that women and BAME people are under represented in some things, but one of my DSs actually lost out because of this. He's quite philosophical about it and thinks it is needed, but I was quite cross for a bit. I'm gradually adjusting.

Or something else entirely, of course!

I remember men arguing they had been removed because the organisation was fulfilling a women's quota system.

Were they right, do you think?

Are quota systems/positive discrimination/sex-specific roles a positive thing to encourage diversity and accurate representation, or are they discriminatory and unfair?

GrannySquare

‘ Gay people make up between 1 & 8 or 9 % of the population . Are they anomalies?’

Is that what you think?

Nope. I think everyone varies in some way or another. I think variation is the norm.