Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) was plunged back into the news again on 11th September when an independent review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) was published. The catalyst for the review was one woman, Roz Adams, who won her tribunal against ERCC in May 2024 after being subjected to a heresy hunt for her gender critical views.

I read the whole review. I think every leader and board member working in the men’s violence against women sector should read it cover to cover. We are none of us perfect and it’s a real insight into how poor governance and lack of oversight can create the most basic of failings. But I’m not sure I’ll ever recover from the fact that ERCC had not updated their data protection policies since 2017 — so whilst in 2018 the rest of us were running around like lunatics trying to adopt and understand General Data Protection Regulations, ERCC just sailed right through it and stuck to the old legislation. As a CEO that makes me a little bit sick in my own mouth…

There were clearly issues in terms of governance prior to the appointment of trans identified male Mridul Wadhwa in 2021, but swiftly after his appointment his laser sharp focus on gender identity ideology cut through in his decision making. Some of these decisions were fairly weird in my view, like ERCC changing their values to include the words “stunning loving and brave” — which, quite apart from sounding like an advert for a vegan hair replacement product for men, isn’t true when you read in detail about the subtle but obvious practices incorporated at ERCC to erase women’s options of single sex spaces after they had been raped. 

Now I am not in the business of defending ERCC in this whole debacle but the idea that they are a standalone entity letting female victims down is very far from the truth. As I stated the review was commissioned by RCS and its purpose was to measure ERCC’s policies and practice against the Rape Crisis National Service Standards (NSS) — which are effectively quality assurance standards agreed for rape crisis services across the UK.  

RCS seem to think that because they commissioned the review and accept the recommendations they are now absolved of all culpability and can just merrily point the finger at the one bad apple. Unfortunately for them, there is a plethora of examples on why the background to the anti-women policies at ERCC were driven and supported by RCS — the fact remains they share the same ideology, and just a few of examples of these include: 

• RCS telling  the Westminster Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2021 that “proposed simplification of the process of applying for gender recognition certificates would have no impact on the delivery of Rape Crisis services across Scotland”.

• In turn RCS supported the controversial Gender Recognition Reforms in Scotland, on one occasion informing the UN special rapporteur they were “disappointed” in her after she raised legitimate concerns about the impact the reforms would have on female victims of men’s violence. 
• In 2021 RCS objected to legislation that would mean women who had been raped could request a female medical examiner. 
• Finally when Wadhwa referred to women who wanted single sex spaces as ‘“bigoted” and suggested  they should “reframe their trauma”, the CEO of RCS Sandy Brindley came out in support of him.

The reviews findings and subsequent recommendations come down to one very simple action — RCS need to define what a woman is. But we already know that RCS think the definition of woman includes men, not just because of the examples above, but because prior to working at ERCC Wadhwa worked for RCS as their Helpline and Volunteer Coordinator from 2014 to 2018.  Both the roles he took in RCS and subsequently ERCC were apparently reserved for “women” only. 

The review notes the “damage done” by ERCC to victims and survivors, but that damage needs to be owned by all who supported and pushed these policies. The arrogance of a man who is emboldened enough to come into a charity like ERCC — a charity founded in 1978 by second wave feminists — and create a scenario where female rape victims are having to beg for a space of their own from a man who thinks they are a bigot for doing so is reminiscent of something out of a Dickens novel — it’s the literal on your knees with a begging bowl pleading “please sir can I have my single sex space”…

But he didn’t arrive in that job by default, he arrived by design.

This isn’t just about Scotland, and it definitely isn’t just about rape crisis, the facts remain this debate kicked off nearly a decade ago, and in the men’s violence against women sector we all know there was no debate needed on the definition of a woman — they come to our services every day because of the oppression of their sex. 

If violence against women charities across the UK are serious about supporting and serving the majority of victims and want this exhaustingly long debate over with, they will all do one simple thing — they will define their women only spaces in biological terms, and they will do so clearly on their websites, loudly in their social media, and proudly in their strategies. In turn I would expect specialist services for victims who identify as transgender to be clear about the mixed sex services they operate. All victims deserve the respect of clear information after being subjected to abuse. 

Meanwhile RCS have claimed they accept and will act on the recommendations of the review — but at the point of writing we are five days on and they still haven’t defined a woman on their website. Perhaps they should be more “loving” and “brave” — although at this stage I’d just settle for honest.