Rape crisis charity drops promise to define ‘woman' after transgender row
A rape crisis charity embroiled in a transgender row has dropped a pledge to issue a definition of women, The Telegraph can reveal.
Vicky Ling was commissioned to investigate
Her report found that the centre had failed to properly protect
Ms Ling called on RCS to devise and publish a 'shared definition of woman/female' to be adopted across its network.
The charity, which receives more than £3 million in annual funding from the
However, the charity is now understood to be focusing on ensuring 'dedicated spaces' in rape crisis centres are provided for 'women born as women', rather than drawing up a definition.
It said that, because the Supreme Court was considering a case that concerned the
'Betrayal of women and girls'
However,
'Once again women have been badly let down by an organisation that is supposed to support them, but which is failing to show any common sense,' she said.
'It is unacceptable that RCS still cannot give women reassurance that they will be able to access single-sex spaces at these centres.
'Ultimately, the SNP's reckless self-ID policies are to blame for this betrayal of women and girls.'
Activists such as Wadhwa, who left ERCC last year after Ms Ling's report was published, insist that any
Opponents of this view insist that
A clear definition of women was intended to ensure survivors would understand whether they could expect to encounter biological men when accessing services described as female-only.
Senior insiders at RCS said that while new rules were being consulted upon, it would be made explicitly clear to survivors which 'spaces' might include trans women.
The Ling Review was ordered last year after it was found that
'Heresy hunt'
Staff were instructed to simply insist there were no men working at the centre, despite Wadhwa, who came to view Ms Adams as a 'bigot and a transphobe' and orchestrated a 'heresy hunt' against her, being chief executive.
Wadhwa had publicly claimed in 2021 that 'bigoted' rape survivors who might fear biological men should expect to be 'challenged on [their] prejudices' at ERCC.
Ms Brindley, who had previously described Wadhwa as an 'amazing sister' and 'champion for women's rights', has refused calls from figures including
An RCS spokesman said it was in discussions with survivors to ensure 'any terminology used to describe different spaces within rape crisis services is accessible and easily understandable'.
They added: 'The independent review of ERCC published last September identified that although the national service standards for rape crisis centres require centres to provide women-only spaces, they do not define what this means.
'The Supreme Court is currently considering the legal definition of women, and we don't feel it would be helpful or appropriate to pre-empt this by issuing a definition of women.
'Irrespective of the outcome of this case, however, it is clear that rape crisis centres can ensure survivors of sexual violence are able to access dedicated spaces for women born women if this is what they need.
'We are currently consulting with our independent member centres on the provision of protected spaces within centres, to ensure survivors are able access the services they need.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now --before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion." Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste - as DOGE officials said they intended to do. "District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be "fiercely protected." DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote.
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court to hear Alabama appeal in push to execute intellectually disabled man
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from Alabama 's Attorney General's Office in its push to execute an intellectually disabled man, according to an order released early on Friday. Joseph Clifton Smith, now 54, was sentenced to death for a decades-old murder — a decision that continues to be challenged in court. In 1997, Smith beat Durk Van Dam to death with a hammer and a saw in Mobile County to steal his boots, tools and $140, Reuters reported. Van Dam's body was found in his truck in an isolated wooded area. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and can't be executed. People who are intellectually disabled are protected from the death penalty following a Supreme Court ruling from 2002. But this fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about what to do in cases when IQ scores are slightly above the widely accepted 70-point marker to determine if someone is intellectually disabled. When a federal appeals court ruled in May 2023 that Smith could not be executed due to his intellectual disability, it detailed how he struggled in school from an early age. Since first grade, Smith struggled in school, and when he underwent an intellectual evaluation he received an IQ score of 75, CNN reported at the time, citing the appeals court. In fourth grade, Smith was placed in a learning-disability class. 'After that placement, Smith developed an unpredictable temper and often fought with classmates. His behavior became so troublesome that his school placed him in an 'emotionally conflicted classroom,'' the appeals court wrote in its ruling. Smith dropped out of school after failing seventh and eighth grade and then spent 'much of the next 15 years in prison' for crimes of burglary and receiving stolen property, according to the ruling. The appeals court said Smith confessed to killing Van Dam and that he 'offered two conflicting versions of the crime.' Smith first said he watched Van Dam be killed, and then he said he took part in his murder but didn't mean to kill him, according to the appeals court. The Alabama Attorney General's office decried the appeals court's ruling, saying at the time, according to CNN, 'Smith's IQ scores have consistently placed his IQ above that of someone who is intellectually disabled. The Attorney General thinks his death sentence was both just and constitutional.' The Supreme Court will now consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
