..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

“There is so much information out there to process, I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity.”

If some people genuinely use this to filter information, how much of what they believe to be true is simply nicely toned propaganda? I was always cynical, even as a child. But maybe because I have been in marketing and comms for decades, I reject this type of filtering instinctively.

By this stage, we have seen just how many people feel they have the luxury of choosing who to believe in their state of confident ignorance. While others choose to do the work and search deeper to understand what is the truth and what is false.

When did truth become so entangled with kindness in this era of overwhelming information? There is so much information out there to process, I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity. To me, the filter is ‘could this have true information that can help me to understand a situation I don’t have deep knowledge about’? But I have been called naive in my expectations of humans before too.

Some people seem to say things like ‘if you said things more nicely, maybe I would have listened to you and believed you, but you are mean. So I believed the people who were speaking nicely. I am the reasonable one and you are just passionate and angry. In additiion, I want to be able to denigrate you while insisting you all still welcome my opinion’ . However, this is not that unique a prospective, because we have seen it enough on MN to consider this disconnected thinking is a quite regular position.

If you are a person who can only process information said nicely, what does that say about you and how informed you really are? This is a general comment and not aimed at specific posters.

Mind you, if you are someone who also declares that we should be kind and well mannered above all else, while denigrating others at the same time, surely shows a rather significant inconsistency. Obviously, some people are more prone to detect it after spending time arguing with others on the internet.

To me it shows that some people’s proudly declared kindness can only be performative.

"I have no idea of the work issues"

It really is quite remarkable how many people who have - and freely admit they have - no idea of the issues are nonetheless willing to wade right into telling women they're wrong. And often spend significant amounts of time arguing over this unknown issue they don't care about at all.

Most odd.

Quite.

And I'm on 100 posts per page, so nor do I! But the poster blithely claimed that was their entry point. They should have done some reading around the case before posting their entitled views.

Also, I use the app, have no idea where "page 23" is.

You've got to love people that dive in on page 23, happily admit they can't be bothered to read what has been said, refuse to engage with the actual topic and then seem proud not to be bothered.

Oh wait, you don't.

I mean. So much that Wadhwa said publicly was concerning. The fascination with women orgasming during rape, the fun counselling (when Wadhwa doesn’t seem to have any qualifications in trauma counseling), telling women to reframe their trauma to accept male people when they want single sex, the political tantrum about the same sex medical examiners, the whole power trip Wadhwa had about the US food voucher role, and on and on and on.

YY, totally.

It seems an example of that ‘kindness’ that only goes one direction.

The red flags with this male person’s employment in that role were plentiful. Including how this male people also considered their four one on one counseling rape victim sessions ‘fun’! I cannot imagine how any woman or girl would feel to know their counseling session was ‘fun‘ time for this male person.

I mean. So much that Wadhwa said publicly was concerning. The fascination with women orgasming during rape, the fun counselling (when Wadhwa doesn’t seem to have any qualifications in trauma counseling), telling women to reframe their trauma to accept male people when they want single sex, the political tantrum about the same sex medical examiners, the whole power trip Wadhwa had about the US food voucher role, and on and on and on.

I see the SNP are rallying round Mridul. 🤮

*also huge. Of course it's not just that, she has proven herself thoroughly unfit for this role.

Brindley now seems to be fully compromised with regards to that self ID meeting and the people sending letters into the media to help Brindley keep their job.

I cannot see how Brindley can stay with this level of unprofessional conduct.

Me neither. The conflict of interest is huge.

Brindley now seems to be fully compromised with regards to that self ID meeting and the people sending letters into the media to help Brindley keep their job.

I cannot see how Brindley can stay with this level of unprofessional conduct.

I'm becoming increasingly enraged about the role Sandy Brindley has played in this. Inviting her partner to sit in on a meeting with female survivors of rape, without saying who she was, and then that partner berating women for wanting single sex spaces and telling them it was illegal to provide them was disgraceful.

I mean, the very fact that this is not an isolated issue that many rape crisis centres now offer no female only groups means that Wadhwa is not ‘the only bad one’. The issue is now deeply embedded in policy throughout the UK.

It is. Even when they say it's "women only" or "women centred" they mostly mean they include males if they identify as women, either with or without GRCs.

Tell that to yourself from pages 23 onwards. Not that I’ve actually looked at where this even began.

You all go on about people being stupid and not listening/being ignorant to the cause of gender identity and their relationship to women’s issues. This is why. Because becoming informed involves joining a mass of women who shout at strangers on the internet - not a particularly welcoming group to even consider joining.

Not interested.

Perhaps don’t tell people what to say, think, or do. I don’t know whether you realise, or care - but it totally devalues the rest of your argument.

This isn’t a dictatorship, and any willingness I hold to actually look into what you’re saying, and become more informed on the matter, disappears when you speak to them like that. You’re making the “camp” you fall into look completely undesirable.

I’m sure you’re making some great points that really are worth looking at, but even getting to them currently involves me stopping wondering who you’re talking to like that and why.

And “FWIW” I had a feeling you would, because you’ve had some problem with basically everything I say for the last 3/4 pages now.

Of course, we don’t create safeguarding exceptions for any group of male people. Regardless of what they believe about their identities.

So, safeguarding in this way is an ‘all’ proposition.

Yes, exactly. My Nigel as much as anyone else's.

How have we got back to pandering to the person determined to derail and minimise?

This thread is about Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. More widely it's about the harm the gender identity movement is doing to women's rights. It's not really an appropriate opportunity to virtue signal about how unbothered you are.

Of course, we don’t create safeguarding exceptions for any group of male people. Regardless of what they believe about their identities.

So, safeguarding in this way is an ‘all’ proposition.

And FWIW I fully agree with @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime