Times article Mridul Wadhwa placed on 'leave' in May.

I agree, I don't think it's compatible at all.

Link to radio interview in this thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5127505-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

It is a reasonable question to ask following the judgement of this case and of others.

Is transactivism compatible with continuing to provide a service to others, or does it necessarily focus only upon the needs of the activist staff? There would be grounds, quite honestly, to discuss the second. And to question whether this kind of activism can ever be brought to work when that work involves providing a service. Particularly a tax funded one. It cannot by nature do 'impartiality' or tolerate other views alongside it.

I think she misunderstood the name, 'crisis' is supposed to refer to the women <sigh> people they are meant to be helping not the centre!

Sandy is awful and should have been replaced long ago.

Illuminating interview with CEO Sandy of Rape Crisis Scotland on Good Morning Scotland on BBC Radio Scotland this morning. It starts on sentence guidelines but the interviewer moves onto the Edinburgh Rape Crisis, the tribunal outcome and what's happened to the CEO and does a good job trying to hold Sandy to account. Sandy responds very poorly. It's at 2.20 into the programme.

Yes, these men had Stonewall etc, and pretended to be part of the LBG movement that made serious gains in legal rights such as marriage. Undermining from within.

I think the cross dressers and their friends were more powerful than basement misogynists ranting on YouTube, and successfully managed to glom onto both LGB rights and feminism, both popular leftist causes (rightly), so a lot of the same basement guys thought "if you can't beat em..."

I agree with all of that; what I'm saying is simply that the crossdressers' version of Men's Rights Activism took off and won governments and corporations as the previous iteration didn't, and even questioning it became a near-criminal offence, which again, didn't happen when mocking MRAs.

I wasn't referring to systemic misogyny, but to the specific movements of MRAs, incels etc, which were being openly mocked online a decade ago. We didn't get attacked by corporations or governments for pointing and laughing at those men, but the moment they claim to be women, it's a different story. I'm all too well aware that systemic misogyny has never gone away, that women are not liberated from it, and that it's the basis of this movement, which is busy undoing what gains we've made.

I agree, they've played a blinder.

What I am saying is that because over generations men / the patriarchy have "agreed" not to be publicly hostile and worse towards women their attitudes haven't changed.

So that when the TRAs starting going full on anti-woman they just sat back with glee, and a few joined in.

If it had been any other protected characteristic, eg race, can you imagine that society would have allowed "self identified PoC" being allowed to rampage through all aspects of society telling Black and other minoritised communities that HAD to accept those self identifying?

Of course not.

It is because the bedrock of our society always has been and still remains deeply sexist, that any of the anti woman rhetoric was not only able to be said in public but praised and endorsed.

This schooling of women would not have been tolerated let alone promoted against PoC, those with disabilities, and so on.

It is because did in the heart of too many (and not just men) women do not have or deserve their own rights.

They should accept what is given and what is taken away from them.

The impact of the GRA on women's sex based rights is social engineering, fully supported by and enabled by the dominate class of men.

When people are on leave under such circumstances, when are they officially categorised as having left/lost a post or title? Not until they resign or there's a board decision to remove them after due process that was denied to RA?

Jimmy Saville all over again. The fox being given the keys to the henhouse.

@Helleofabore I remember reading about this individual and his very offensive “women orgasm during rape” ideas. Still makes me feel very sick. And to think he was head of a rape crisis centre 🤬

Absolutely. Apart from the paperwork, which is changing your name on bills, the only bit open to discretion is to get a doctor to sign it off.

And given gender dysphoria is an entirely self-reported condition, how can they not? The argument being that no amount of dodginess means someone can't have gender dysphoria, I'm guessing.

One of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock said they were pretty certain that the reason a dad wanted their child to be given puberty blockers was to preserve them in a childlike state for predatory purposes.

And yet they were still referred.

It also is when you look at the kind of man who has interest in the orgasms of women during rape too (if I remember correctly). I mean, that really should have been a red flag right there.

Are there no checks and balances to this bloody process whatsoever?
Will he really be entitled to one for the asking when his agenda is as clear as the nose on your face? 🤯

yes. It needs to be repeated a whole lot.

Here is a man who wishes me to get undressed with him, and his agendas are quite various.

Here is a man who wishes me to get undressed with him, and his agendas are quite various AND he has a nice piece of paper.

What is different about my experience of being distressed and unwilling to take my clothes off as both these men would like, for their benefit? The paper makes no difference at all to me in that situation. That piece of paper is about a relationship with the state: it has absolutely no relevancy regarding impact on women, or the morality of permitting men to put women into this position of subordination and distress, or exclusion. And whether or not a piece of paper exists, it is perfectly possible to provide additional spaces for those who are not happy with their sex based space, without harming women and taking their resources.

The unfortunate thing is that governments and corporations love to insist that these pieces of paper do make men women, and simultaneously Better and Much More Vulnerable women, at that.

Quite. The experience of a woman is not changed in the slightest by whether or not a man is an owner of a piece of paper.

Let him get one.

He is, and always will be, a man!

Thank you for this. It’s mind boggling, and very chilling.

The insistence that 'rape victims need to reframe their trauma' was solely so that they could not escape or refuse consent to men who wished to be in this job and have access to them. It was a statement in fact that women, who had been harmed and abused by men, must in seeking help put the needs and wishes and experiences of other men above themselves, their trauma, their distress, their consent. As the price of being helped. By men who had taken over the women's service and redirected it to primarily serve the needs and feelings of said men.

This by a male who quite intentionally went to get this job that had been specifically reserved for women only, and when this went to court, sent women in to bat for him.

The true horror of it is quite boggling.

It is, but then you look at the kind of man who laughs at rape survivors in parliament and throws a tantrum and flounces when his party votes for a bill which would give women single sex treatment, rather than by "gender" so including males, after they have been raped. When the same man works in a rape crisis organisation.

But yes, I agree it is still fucking boggling.

Not sure if this has been posted but (again sadly) a very well worded and disected report on the whole sorry situation by a right wing paper.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13664689/EUAN-McCOLM-Vulnerable-women-let-gender-zealots-blame-want-forget-not.html

The facts aren't new, but shows that the press can when it wants perfectly well understanding the basis of women only services, and how political ideologues can totally corrupt services for vulnerable women.

But as always nothing like this from the Guardian.

It's serving up women who have been sexually abused to another abuser for his gratification.