I think I've figured out why the Guilty Feminists feel guilty...

I would really like to hear your reasoning.

It seems like a sort of dehumanisation arising from "progressive stack" thinking. You don't see people as individuals, you see them as part of an identity group, and treat them on that basis. Regardless of what they've personally experienced.

As such, Wadhwa, being trans, is far more oppressed than the "cis, white, heteronormative women" that insist on taking up the service's valuable time with their petty rapes.

So the women will have to take one for the team, to help balance out Wadhwa's alleged group oppression.

And there's a kind of inversion of what Spock said - "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one". That's the logical way to construct a system, but in this sort of "fight the system" thinking, (certain) individuals gets prioritised, no matter the total harm. The majority deserve to suffer just for being the majority, almost (ie " "normative").

This is very much the modern Disney mindset where the misunderstood hero fights an oppressive system. "The desires of the one outweigh the needs of the many." (Although usually there is denial that there's any conflict, so no "outweighing"). Unfortunately we can't ALL be the lead character and expect everyone else to be supporting actors. We need a system that can maintain tens of millions of lead characters.

If people are trained to think in that romantic "hero vs the world" mindset, then they're primed for a conman willing to exploit that, if he can just persuade people that he's the hero and misunderstood, and everyone else is the mean nasty society. Tap into excessively-narrow sympathy, forgetting the wider picture.

The sole purpose of rape crisis centres is to support victims of rape. They are not validation tools. Therefore Wadhwa is extremely bigoted in demanding the victims centre Wadhwa and has shown their absolute unsuitability for their role.

TRANSCRIPT of Mridul Wadhwa on the Guilty Feminist podcast
forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf

Littlebrown thank you for all the excellent links and info in this thread

Very good piece here from forwomen Scotland

Explaining the background

forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/?fbclid=IwAR0F_4HKh_UtdbAe_zmEPMQowOsUr0_vvPeKZZ3rer7nCYFNEKcdRJE9t4E

Why are they choosing this work when they know and apparently don't care that it is traumatising to entirely innocent victims?

I'd like to see research on males demanding entry into female trauma and health services. Such as:

• rape centres and helplines
• breastfeeding classes
• menstruation
• menopause
• female-only health conditions - endometriosis,
• miscarriages
• stillborns

To understand what's driving these males, why they do it, what the impact is and categorise the conditions so that the public know what they're dealing with

Nothing in the mainstream newspapers about this significant story

I really wish someone would write a coruscating piece on this specific issue.

Or corporate feminism.

'Women have had enough of being told what to think, and what beliefs they must accept, and who they must be kind to, and what language they must use - especially as this isn’t happening to equivalent male services.

Women are not bigots for needing and wanting female spaces.' - Dr Jessica Taylor

Thank you, Jessica Taylor. Fantastic thread.

Nothing in the mainstream newspapers about this significant story

This is so upsetting and so angering. I don't post much on MN, but I feel like I have to say something here. I cannot understand why apparently intelligent women and 'feminists' are determined to throw other women under the bus like this. It hurts my heart.

DFW - if you do read this thread, I have a question for you. In a few parts.

1. If you were in a situation where your presence caused upset and pain to incredibly traumatised women, for whatever reason, would you prioritise yourself in that and insist on remaining in it?

1. Even if you firmly believe that you thought you were doing good, that the work you are doing is important, but you are also blocking access to services for traumatised women who don't have a loud voice, by being in that role would you really, really believe that there was no alternative person who could do that work as well as you and not cause that problem?

1. If you suspected that either or both of those things were true, would you not, as a woman, as a human being, decide that your skills and talents would be best used somewhere that you weren't also causing trauma and pain to incredibly vulnerable people?

That is what your friend MW is doing. When you get right down to it. Forget anything else, your friend is prioritising themselves over vulnerable, traumatised women in so much pain and fear that they cannot see past anything else and in their safe space should not have to. They are picking themselves over those women. Time and again. It is, if nothing else, incredibly selfish and I don't think it speaks very well to their character. If they believe they are doing important work well, then presumably they could do other kinds of important work well. Why are they choosing this work when they know and apparently don't care that it is traumatising to entirely innocent victims?

I would be incredibly ashamed of myself if I was doing that.

Fantastic thread on this from Dr Jessica Taylor

twitter.com/drjesstaylor/status/1425009284614610949?s=21

Not read whole thread so apols if already said, but the bit where DFW admits her kidney wouldn't help her mum (due to adoption) is the bit where she accidentally admits she knows transwomen are biologically male.

But whilst she would not force her "foreign" kidney into her mother's body because she has been informed of the harm it would do, she is happy to force males into women's spaces despite being informed of the harm it is doing.

That woman should come on here and discuss it with us. DFW, would you do a webchat on MN? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

On second thoughts, I suppose they are being kind, very kind, to males who wish to be treated as women.

Women who have been traumatised by male aggressors? (Bearing in mind that most victims of sexual assault, by a huge margin, are women, and that almost all aggressors are male.)(Bearing in mind how trauma responses work, how fear works).

Not so much.

'The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that for the year ending March 2020 there were 773,000 adults aged 16 to 74 years who were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year, with almost four times as many female victims (618,000) as male victims (155,000)'

Guilty Feminist

Guilty, certainly. But feminist? Not by a mile. Come off it.

*EmbarrassingAdmissions

the right to hold the belief and the execution of those rights

Manifestation rather than execution, iirc?*

Haha, yes, I used the wrong word there.....!!

I have been through a couple of tribunals myself and have very little faith in the process to be honest. They seem to be needlessly intimidating and complicated - almost as though they don't want them to be accessible to the ordinary, working person who cannot afford a solicitor - and then the legal to and froing and jargon and it makes your head spin.

From that link

The role requires an experienced and effective feminist leader, with the ability to lead across both the strategic and operational work of ERCC.

We are committed to a diverse and inclusive workplace and especially welcome applications from women of colour, trans women and disabled women.

You can't be a feminist, effective or otherwise, and support transgenderism. The two conflict.

It's all such a mess.

goodmoves.com/vacancy/a4s3z00000xnayfAAA/Chief-Operating-Officer

Interesting note about the Equality Act there...

Except Wadhwa isn't a woman biologically or legally.

I've lost track of what's sufficient in Scotland, is it still GRA 2004?

the right to hold the belief and the execution of those rights

Manifestation rather than execution, iirc?

Given some tribunals recently and their judgments that some items were definitely unpleasant and even harassment but not sufficient for them to rule against the employer, I can't pretend to fathom what would count as adequate grounds, tbh. I've no idea what some judges would be prepared to countenance as "all in a day's unpleasantness" for people who hold a belief in the material reality of sex but no belief in gender ideology.