Mridul Wadwha and the thought police

When we are forced to counsel men we resent it. All of us do, we do our best. Yes, I know that because we talk about it. Is a male bodied client getting the best service from us? Maybe not!

Who's actually benifiting here?

You must be incredibly dishonest to post those things when you have been told repeatedly they are false.

yes. On this thread in the last few pages we have had someone who works directly in the role AND a service user both stating that barelys claims are absolutely false.

I keep coming back to it, but this is exactly like barely stating they 'know' what working class women want based on knowing a few of them. Despite the working class women of MN FWR telling barley they have NO FUCKING idea what working class women actually want or need.

And still it goes around and around and around.

Once you see the tactics being used, there is no way that any of this can be declare 'debate'.

I'm simply here giving you the debate you so often claim to want.

No you are not. From your very first posts under barelybadminton you have sneered, you have denigrated, you have admonished, you have name called.

Your standard of debate is not to provide evidence. I don't recall you ever providing evidenced links since way back when. You have provided some pretty dodgy links like to try to prove that the majority of women are into kink that was a fucking ludicrous piece of work.

You have kept up the sneering, the undermining, the constant barrage of denigration that comes from your own prejudice.

Your declaration of 'simply here giving you the debate you so often claim you want' is another delightful sleight of hand based on falsity.

Just like a wonderful bit of DARVO. Well you hateful women, if you did not do things to deserve being called prudes, liars, pearl-clutchers, 1950's housewives, anti-trans, and on and on and on, barely wouldn't call you that in the name of 'debate'.

On this thread alone barley you've stated that "it's not causing any problems" and that it's the trans status of people that anyone cares about.

You must be incredibly dishonest to post those things when you have been told repeatedly they are false.
If you can't debate honestly it's hardly a debate.
On another thread it took you three or four posts to even answer a straightforward question honestly- about you stating that the Times had said a story was untrue then quoting lots of irrelevant things that didn't answer the question that had actually been asked to you.

It's at very best incredibly rude and at worst it seems like it breaks Talk guidelines to constantly state stuff so disingenuously.

You have proved that you think rape victims and HCPs are lying when they say male staff are traumatising, so you're not really on a very good footing tbh.

MP who argued that amendment - just a bigot.
Women who self exclude from rape services run by males - just a bigot
Rape survivors who couldn't accept a male counsellor - just a bigot
DV survivors who couldn't accept a male in their accommodation - just a bigot
Women who work in the sector who don't wish to counsel males - just a bigot
Women who ask questions - just a bigot
Women who don't believe transwomen are women - just a bigot
Women who don't believe it's possible to change sex - just a bigot
Women who say no - just a bigot

Mridul Wadhwa - who:

took a job reserved for a woman, has personally led to at least two women not receiving support, provided substandard counselling to one woman on here, called women 'bigots' if they don't accept transwomen are women and said rape victims should be 're educated'.

• someone you are willing to defend above the word of all of these women on here?

I'm simply here giving you the debate you so often claim to want.

The debate we want is robust debate, backed up by evidence and well argued. Taking down your half-truths on the other hand is like shooting fish in a barrel. Easy, and not very satisfying.

Many people's vision of feminism is not to accept that male violence is inevitable and as such feminism should be reduced to establishing single sex spaces for safety and ruthlessly policing the borders of them but a radical transformation of society and the end of women being confined to a sex class - genital differences would no longer matter socially as Shulamith Firestone said.

This is complete nonsense. I can have a utopian vision of a society in which nobody steals anything because everyone is able to meet their own needs by honest means, and nobody is greedy. That does not mean I should be campaigning right now for everyone to leave their doors unlocked, and if I don't it's because I'm a defeatist proclaiming that 'robbery is inevitable' and we shouldn't try to improve social conditions.

I'd love a society without male violence. So would we all. Until and unless we get there, women's spaces need protection. (And in that utopia, people would still have a biological sex! It would be gender roles that were abandoned.)

And yet, despite this clear and obvious precedent, we are supposed to believe that we can trust trans rights activists when they say that because there are currently no biologically male people who “identify as” female working as medical examiners, that means there never will be at some point in the future?

It is sadly evident that there are men who will go to extreme lengths to get off. Predators for whom transgressing boundaries is a hugely strong drive. This means that wherever there is an opportunity to exploit vulnerable victims, these men will seek it out.

Had the amendment failed, had the wording been kept to 'gender', this would have been a little flag waving for these men. A way to access women at their most vulnerable. It would be a matter of time.

I am fucking sick of reading about these men. They are in the papers daily - raping, murdering, terrorising, abducting, hurting and harming women and children. I wish they didn't fucking exist. I wish we didn't have to consider their presence.

But we do. They exist. They will seek loopholes and exploit them gleefully.

We have created this monstrous situation where a woman in a spa who complains to the management that a male with an erection is leering at women and girls is called a dick by men on the sidelines.

This is where the 'gender' and all the rainbow bullshit has got us. This is where we are. Women were physically attacked by stupid anarchist idiots for trying to protect children. Women are being arrested for talking about the problems. We are here talking about the problems and being berated and insulted and attacked for even doing so on a website called 'Mumsnet', in the subsection of the 'feminist' section that is specially been hidden away to hide it from those who don't wish to see it!

I care about children and women. That's it. Other problems can be dealt with by other people.

I cannot believe someone is willing to stand up and call all the women who work in the sector, who are rape survivors, who are mothers, who are women with eyes and brains in their heads who can see exactly what is happening 'bigots'.

Well, I can. It's still hard for women to grasp just how much they are hated. Despite all the evidence, it's hard to understand why males would do this. Would attack, undermine, threaten, abuse, dismiss, mock, belittle and sneer and impugn. But we are learning. I am learning. And I will not wheesht.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre provide support to all sort of groups, including transgender people. Brilliant.

What they do not do is provide a single sex service for the women who need it. It is stated on their website that their 'women's only groups' are for anyone who identifies as a woman. It wouldn't be hard for them to provide a single sex service in addition to that for those who need it (and they do need it - there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that women are currently self excluding from the service).

So why @barleybadminton are this group of women being denied services? It's not taking services away from anyone, it's adding additional services for those who need it.

At this point, it looks like for the sake of an ideology, you and captured organisations are looking to deny women services which are perfectly legally allowable in the EQA 2010 as a punishment for not following your belief system - this was demonstrated by MW's 'reframe your trauma'' statement. And that is deplorable.

It would be impossible to set up a project with such small numbers and ludicrous to divert funding, resources and skilled workers away from the VAWG sector to do so when those women can be accommodated within the existing sector and this is not causing any problems according to staff on the ground.

Why can't 'transwomen' be accommodated within men's services?

Actually Barley, now I am pissed off. You have spent quite some time here on these boards. Either you are disingenuous or you do not read our posts. Nobody has suggested that male violence is inevitable. Ever.

We have said that safeguarding means planning so that the worst is avoided. This is crucial to protect children and vulnerable women.

We have also said that traumatised women may be triggered by someone they perceive to be male.

You keep arguing that avoiding the hurt feelings of biological males (transwomen) is more important than the danger to children and the trauma to women. And whilst doing so, you call us bigots. It is appalling.

The truly transformative, radical belief is not that women should cease to be “confined to our sex class” by pretending that our sex doesn’t matter.

It’s to truly, profoundly believe and understand that women are entirely worthy and fully human as we are - the ones who give birth, have periods, are smaller etc. It’s not to say “we’re all the same, really” because that just perpetuates the eternal masculine dominant. It’s cringeworthy that someone who calls themself a feminist has not given this more thought 😬

Women are important. That’s the radical view.

One or two males are more important than hundreds of women in your view.

I suspect many second wave feminists would be horrified at what is being pursued in their name and of those those that are still alive many are

Tell you what. Please back this claim up with evidence from original sources from the actual second wave feminist themselves. And more than just 'one' barely.

Or is this another of your 'rhetorical' statements?

It is my view that the gender critical movement is harming women, feminism and LGBT people. It is a view shared by many women, feminists and LGBT people. I suspect many second wave feminists would be horrified at what is being pursued in their name and of those those that are still alive many are.

Your view, and you have nothing to back that up.

I am lucky enough to have a wide range of family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances from an extremely wide demographic that covers class, age, nationality, ethnicity, race, political leanings, sex, religion, sexual orientation and even - hold the front page - trans and none of them NONE believe or agree with what you are peddling. Not a single one.

Just to clarify.

The constant demonising, the derogation, the derision, the use of 'rhetoric' to make over inflated statements that are always downplayed, it is very obvious across threads and easily comparative across time.

should be

The constant demonising, the derogation, the derision, the use of 'rhetoric' to make over inflated statements that are always downplayed after being called out (like, oh, yes, you caught me again...), it is very obvious across threads and easily comparative across time.

And frankly, if you poll of 'feminists' is like your poll of working class women, it is most likely very few and probably none outside your own narrow political agenda.

It's causing massive fucking problems!! Neither me or my colleagues want this situation but we're powerless to speak out; I don't want to counsel a male bodied client and feel conflicted, it's not fair on me or him.

the end of women being confined to a sex class

Humans are mammals. Sex is dichotomous*. If we cease to have 'sex classes' we'll cease to exist after one generation.

*academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361?login=false

No chance of that 334bu an inordinate amount of woman and girls must be sacrificed on the altar of this radical transformation for the supposed Utopia. We constantly ask for a number that is deemed acceptable collateral damage, funnily enough those espousing this are never keen to give one.

n+1 innit?

And until this " Utopia" arrives can we agree to keep all male people of all gender identities out of female only safe spaces as they present statistically a clear and present danger to women.

No chance of that 334bu an inordinate amount of woman and girls must be sacrificed on the altar of this radical transformation for the supposed Utopia. We constantly ask for a number that is deemed acceptable collateral damage, funnily enough those espousing this are never keen to give one.

Perhaps that’s why you hate us so much, because in speaking truth we reveal to you the truly viscerally unpleasant, unjust, supremacist oppressor side of your nature, a side you really don’t want to acknowledge, don’t want to have to deal with the existence of. Far easier to demonise the women who show up your failings than address those awkward, embarrassing failings, that sit so badly with the image you want to present to the world, and to yourself.

yes

Many people's vision of feminism is not to accept that male violence is inevitable and as such feminism should be reduced to establishing single sex spaces for safety and ruthlessly policing the borders of them but a radical transformation of society and the end of women being confined to a sex class - genital differences would no longer matter socially as Shulamith Firestone said. I see more of the spirit of many of the original radical feminists in the non binary zoomers and trans millenials than I see in the gender critical movement, stuffed as it is with reactioneries and pompous old men who wouldn't have been given the time of day by the likes of Dworkin and Millet.

And until this " Utopia" arrives can we agree to keep all male people of all gender identities out of female only safe spaces as they present statistically a clear and present danger to women.