Mridul Wadwha and the thought police

Good grief, yet more DARVO.

Even if you disagree with their policies it is unconscionable the way some people are behaving towards some VAWG organisations on social media and it is causing real damage to the sector - and now a bunch of right wing men have joined in who are often celebrated and encouraged by so-called feminists it is even worse

It's not gc women issuing rape / death threats, bawling outside women's meetings, issuing threats of sexual abuse at women speaking out. It's not women trying to dismantle services / resources for women and to centre men in them. Thank heavens for women and men courageous enough to stand up and speak out about the dangers all this poses to women and girls.

as caring and compassionate workers they don't want to have to turn away someone who has been raped and desperately needs support on the grounds she is trans. They don't want to be forced to ask a shaking, traumatised woman intrusive questions about her gentials should someone who looks like Mridul present as a service user rather than a worker.

So fundraise for your own trans organisations to help transgender people. Then when the women's organisations are contacted by such a person they can be directed to a specific trans organisation which will be able to help transgender people who have been raped. Wadwha could help to set this up.

And they know, because they actually do this work, that the number of trans women presenting for help is tiny and is not impacting on other service delivery.

A tiny number. And how many women does each of this 'tiny number' of transgender people affect if they are allowed to use services which are supposed to be for women?

Talk to anyone who actually works in the sector and they will tell you that funding, not trans women is the biggest problem facing VAWG organisations - and efforts to raise funds are being hampered because of gender critical abuse.

I'm pretty sure there are women on here who work, or who have worked in this sector, and they disagree with you. So you don't mean 'talk to anyone who actually works in the sector', you want us to talk to someone who agrees with you, even if their own experience is different.

And what is this 'gender critical abuse'? Can you give examples? Or is it that gender critical feminists are raising awareness that these organisations which used to be exclusively for women and girls are now also for any male who wants to use them and therefore exclude women who need a single-sex environment?

[quote Waitwhat23]'Wadhwa claimed in the podcast that those worried about policy at local centres should “reach out to them and ask those questions”. Yet, what happens when the women are told that they cannot be guaranteed female support? In advance of the Forensic Medical Services (FMS) Bill debate and Johann Lamont’s amendment to ensure that survivors could request the sex of the examiner, Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood Magazinewrote“Last night I spent an hour on the phone with a heartbroken mother of a girl who was raped by a number of teenage boys and who did not get the support she needed because she was told that a woman counsellor could not be guaranteed. She developed PTSD.” As one woman who attended a meeting with the CEO of RCSwrote: “We reached out to be told that TW are not only women, but female too. The damage that meeting caused us. For so very long. The woman who should have helped us rode all over us. For men. And a fucked up belief in queer theory. What utter bastards. The lot of them.” Why is it so difficult in services that,accordingto Wadhwa, were “set up with the blood, sweat, and tears of women” and whose “workforce is reserved for women only” to guarantee that a female will be a counsellor if needed?

The reaction of the service to the FMS Bill amendment explained much. The amendment was so small, yet so significant. It was born from the single most important request of the survivors, that they be allowed to request (in the understanding that it might not be guaranteed) the sex of a medical examiner. Surely, we thought, this was such an easy but important way to grant survivors a measure of autonomy and a reassertion of control over their bodies? The reaction of RCS was to fight it. Theyclaimedit was irrelevant, that no examiners were trans so it was immaterial, that it would never be an issue, that more important things were at stake. Perhaps. But if so irrelevant, why not concede a small but vital piece of reassurance? Because, of course, it wasn’t. Because to campaigners like Wadhwa this was, again, a denial of womanhood of those who chose to self-identify into it. Wadhwa’s reaction to the passing of the amendment was to leave the SNP and join Patrick Harvie’s Scottish Greens, a party who – with the honourable exception of Andy Wighman – hadrefusedto sign motions condemning violence against women.'

From this piece - forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/[/quote]
@Waitwhat23 I remember the Olden Days when it was all fields round here and the Green Party were interested in fields.

Why on earth are they so focussed on trans issues?

And for what? Because as caring and compassionate workers they don't want to have to turn away someone who has been raped and desperately needs support on the grounds she is trans. They don't want to be forced to ask a shaking, traumatised woman intrusive questions about her gentials should someone who looks like Mridul present as a service user rather than a worker. And they know, because they actually do this work, that the number of trans women presenting for help is tiny and is not impacting on other service delivery.

Even if you disagree with their policies it is unconscionable the way some people are behaving towards some VAWG organisations on social media and it is causing real damage to the sector - and now a bunch of right wing men have joined in who are often celebrated and encouraged by so-called feminists it is even worse.

BINGO - again.

their anger at the damage that the gender critical movement is doing to organisations which work with survivors of sexual violence

Classic example of DARVO right there!

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

'Wadhwa claimed in the podcast that those worried about policy at local centres should “reach out to them and ask those questions”. Yet, what happens when the women are told that they cannot be guaranteed female support? In advance of the Forensic Medical Services (FMS) Bill debate and Johann Lamont’s amendment to ensure that survivors could request the sex of the examiner, Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood Magazinewrote“Last night I spent an hour on the phone with a heartbroken mother of a girl who was raped by a number of teenage boys and who did not get the support she needed because she was told that a woman counsellor could not be guaranteed. She developed PTSD.” As one woman who attended a meeting with the CEO of RCSwrote: “We reached out to be told that TW are not only women, but female too. The damage that meeting caused us. For so very long. The woman who should have helped us rode all over us. For men. And a fucked up belief in queer theory. What utter bastards. The lot of them.” Why is it so difficult in services that,accordingto Wadhwa, were “set up with the blood, sweat, and tears of women” and whose “workforce is reserved for women only” to guarantee that a female will be a counsellor if needed?

The reaction of the service to the FMS Bill amendment explained much. The amendment was so small, yet so significant. It was born from the single most important request of the survivors, that they be allowed to request (in the understanding that it might not be guaranteed) the sex of a medical examiner. Surely, we thought, this was such an easy but important way to grant survivors a measure of autonomy and a reassertion of control over their bodies? The reaction of RCS was to fight it. Theyclaimedit was irrelevant, that no examiners were trans so it was immaterial, that it would never be an issue, that more important things were at stake. Perhaps. But if so irrelevant, why not concede a small but vital piece of reassurance? Because, of course, it wasn’t. Because to campaigners like Wadhwa this was, again, a denial of womanhood of those who chose to self-identify into it. Wadhwa’s reaction to the passing of the amendment was to leave the SNP and join Patrick Harvie’s Scottish Greens, a party who – with the honourable exception of Andy Wighman – hadrefusedto sign motions condemning violence against women.'

From this piece - forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

That's the real issue - that's what organisatoons working with rape survivors wanted the debate to be about

Please link up where this debate has been pushed for outside of the discussion on this bill. Please link up the numerous discussions had outside parliament by people like the CEO of Edinburgh rape crisis centre about the push to have more female medical examiners that has been across mainstream media.

Or was it used as a tactic to silence Johann Lamont and others discussing the future negative implications of a bill. Knowing that this would be an issue before long. Particularly when transitioned males have taken roles stated clearly were meant for women already.

and that's why they were angry that it was hijacked and turned into yet another proxy war on the 'trans issue' and hypothetical but currently non-existent trans examiners.

You still haven’t said why anyone who is professing to care for females would not support clarity of intention for a poorly written piece of legislation? Regardless of who suggested the tightening of the language.

And by the way, debating a bill before it is passed means debating EVERY aspect and implication of the bill. Only someone so entrenched in their political agenda that conflicts with that of protecting females would continue to assert that a debate was hijacked when it did in fact mean a bill that was clear in its intention.

Only someone who doesn’t support females having clear laws to protect their interests would continue to attempt to minimise the effect of having such ambiguity.

I look forward to the links of the very loud campaigning done to get more female medical examiners by Mridul Wadhwa. Or maybe some people believe the only place that discussion should be had was in parliament at that particular moment. And that all discussion should have been on that issue and nothing else discussed.

Ie. Force only discussion on that aspect of the legislation (that could be discussed far and wide before, during and after the bill passed) and allow ambiguity to be left in the bill because any discussion of that aspect was hateful. Of course, only a fool would think that the discussion about tightening the language to make it robust could be had AFTER the bill had passed.

But nice distraction tactics.

Look!!! A squirrel!!!

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

And MW is not nor has ever been a woman

What is the complete information you would like us to knowBarley? Frankly we have heard enough to be able to say with certainty that it is not the gender critical movement that is doing damage to our women’s sex specific services. How dare you.

If they had wanted to centre the lack of female examiner's they would have demanded that the word sex was used and not gender and thus kept the focus on what is wrong with the system.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]So, what now? Mridul's partner is part of Sarco? Who get funding from the government to run refuges in Lanarkshire, as long as they accept male people? Which is why the single sex refuges in Lanarkshire shut down.

Gosh.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/mridrul-wadha-sacro-and-the-14-million[/quote]
Blaming a woman for the actions of her husband now? How very feminist.

Except we don't actually know if it is her husband. And he left around the time the contract was awarded so wouldn't personally benefit. He might even have left because he disagreed with it. But none of that matters because establishing the fact seems to be of little importance when rumours and incomplete information can be used to attack a trans woman.

Society does that to women. 40% of investigations are carried out by men because of a lack of female investigators. That's the real issue - that's what organisatoons working with rape survivors wanted the debate to be about and that's why they were angry that it was hijacked and turned into yet another proxy war on the 'trans issue' and hypothetical but currently non-existent trans examiners. As I said, I'd have paid it no heed personally and let them have the amendment but I understand the frustration of groups like Rape Crisis Scotland and their anger at the damage that the gender critical movement is doing to organisations which work with survivors of sexual violence.

Bullshit.

So many good posts here.

On the specific point of not enough female medical examiners - maybe this should be another thread, but I genuinely don't know if a medical examiner has to be a qualified doctor. So many medical functions are now carried out by other HCPs - nurses who've had specialist training in certain areas like prescribing, assorted specialists who assist with operations and rehab, for example. Paramedics are highly skilled at what they do too. Does this job need to be done by a qualified doctor? Would it be possible to train other HCPs to do it? I feel this should be a priority.

That would surely make it easier to ensure that a survivor of sexual assault can be examined by a person of the sex they feel comfortable with, which will usually be female.

Things have got very bad if we see these women as bigots for having an automatic trauma response to the idea of having a male person carry out an intimate examination in the immediate aftermath of an attack. If we went back ten years and told people this day would come, we'd be laughed at for fearmongering.

I'll quote from a member of the Survivors Reference Group who were involved in the consultation of the Bill -

“So I say this, with the utmost respect to all. When a female is sexually assaulted and seeks refuge at self referral, I will not stand for gender to be the priority. We must assume that a female survivor of a male attack would want to see a female examiner….If we need to be specific about seeing someone of the same sex on first contact after an attack you better believe that’s the fucking priority.“

I view anyone who believes that a rape survivor shouldn't be allowed to request (and that's what it was about - just the right to request, not demand) a female examiner to be absolutely beneath contempt.

I will never vote for the Scottish Greens, who voted en masse against the amendment, or any other MSP who put ideology above the needs of rape survivors.

I watched the amendment being debated live on the Scottish Parliament channel. Some of the speeches by MSP's who were against the amendment were an absolute disgrace. Nonsense like 'haven't liked the tone of the debate' was used as reasoning to block rape survivors from requesting who can examine them after being traumatised.

If there are not enough female medical examiners, then the Scottish Government need to train and hire more. But then, apparently the Occupational Requirement can just be ignored (as it was in MW's case) - that's why that situation is so galling. Women in Scotland are being let down so badly.

So many powerful posts in the early hours. This is where the anti-women posters who come on here to smear women with their allegations of transphobic dog whistles and similar have some uses.
They enable women to clearly articulate the inherent misogyny that's evident in comments like this and to highlight the toxic undercurrent of distaste for women fighting for safeguards for women and children.

Grim. Really grim.

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

Indeed.

Well said Sophocles and Helleofabore.

I doubt ‘everyone’ believed this person was female.

We had a woman on mumsnet who had worked with MW in the belief MW was female. This poster was hurt, betrayed and appalled to find out MW was male.

Given that the role MW was working in was reserved for a female this was a reasonable assumption to make.

It is extremely helpful to have the dishonesty of what happened with the clause in the bill so clearly demonstrated here.

Trans people are generally clear that sex and gender are not the same thing (this varies, but let’s suppose for a moment that is the dominant view). Gender identity can override your sex to the extent that it becomes more important, therefore trans women are women, trans men are men.

Women also believe that sex and gender are not the same thing. However, we (feminists) don’t believe that gender overrides sex, and that we need to continue to clarify that in public life, sex based language is important to protect and uphold womens rights.

Johann Lamont attempted to make sure that this distinction which we all supposedly agree on was clarified in law, but WAIT! No, it’s a transphobic dog whistle, it’s a cheap shot, it’s manufactured to piss off trans people.

You have to be kidding if you think this sort of disingenuous bait-and-switch convinces people of the moral rectitude of the cause.

So once again, we are back to: what sort of person believes that a shaking and traumatised woman on the worst day of her life should be denied the right to a medical examiner of her own sex, when that person is the ceo of a rape crisis centre?

Yes that's how some people perceived it. It was unnecessary, it neither changed the law or the bill and didn't address the fundamental problem of the lack of female examiners.

And what would have been the point of a poorly worded law being passed, without the discussion on how that loose language could have negative impacts on the people it was supposed to be helping?

Besides, it also made sure the message was that greater focus needed to be applied by that government to get more female medical examiners. Not pass a law expediently that moves the focus from the government’s need to provide a patient focused service.

It was a cheap shot by a gender critical SNP to turn a crucial bill into an excuse to own the trans which ended up shifting the debate away from the real problem and turning into yet another row about trans people.

And this is where poster’s own political agenda and prejudice becomes clear. A poster who has had a long habit of denigrating and demonising women for fighting to maintain strong safeguarding protections and who are discussing the real and negative impacts of conflicts of rights for transitioned males with the rights for women.

‘Cheap shot’, ‘Own the trans’, ‘row against trans people’. Derisory language from a derisory poster. Like other words the poster uses against women posting on a feminist board- ‘prude’, ‘pearl clutcher’, ‘anti-trans’ and I could keep listing them. But, a poster who is heavily invested in shaming women who have disagreed with them.

A poster heavily invested in demonising women who have said that transitioned males are not women.

No! A feminist MP who recognised the negative impact of such ambiguity within that legislation and sought to strengthen the legislation, to make it stronger in the intention to provide women a medical examiner suiting THEIR needs.

If this creates issues for trans people, are you saying that pro-women = anti-trans? Something that extreme trans activists have been denying for so long.

I understand why Rape Crisis Scotland objected to it,

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

although personally since it makes no difference I'd have paid it no heed and not given them the row they wanted.

So, barely would have steadfastly ignored the long term negative implications of the legislation because…. why? Women and girls aren’t worth clarity? Or women and girls deserve to have their needs ignored for the sake of ‘not saying the quiet big out loud’?

That a woman or girl in the future can be presented with someone of the same ‘gender’ as them after requesting an examiner of the same sex is bad enough. That is gaslighting. Then in their traumatised state, they do not understand that they actually have the right to say ‘no’ and insist a female medical examiner be found, seems to be something some posters want to allow to happen.

The clear language now means if a female is requested, that is what is expected.

Why would any poster not want that? Why would any poster have not have paid that clarity ‘heed’? And why would any poster frame correcting ambiguity in legislation in such negative light, since it supposedly made ‘no difference’? Progress?