2nd thread: AIBU to OBJECT to being asked to reframe my trauma by Edinburgh Rape Crisis CEO?

[herewegogc]

Hi all 2nd thread as the last one was filling up fast.

YANBU, op.

As I pointed out on another thread: two vested interests.

1. a vested interest in enforcing one set belief on all service users, that belief being the same one that justifies their own job position.

2. the husband so usefully acquiring contracts stripped from single sex provisions to turn them mixed sex.

This is a particularly appalling example of a widespread belief. I would suggest for those looking for evidence, you can watch the videos of the Scots Parliament meetings and see how such questions about single sex provision were responded to and treated.

However there is a MNetter (I won't name her, its for her to share if she chooses to) who has explained on a FWR thread how she and a number of other survivors in refuge met with management and tried to explain how they were affected by natal males being present, regardless of how they identified. They were treated with absolute disdain during the meeting, many of them were in tears by the end. One of the senior people at the meeting later publicly stated that no women had ever raised any concerns at having natal males in their refuges.

Another MNetter spent much of the past year living in a tent in all weathers, finding spots to pitch it where she could, as all the refuges approached insisted on a mixed sex policy and insisted she overcome her trauma to be able to accept natal male users alongside her to be allowed shelter.

These are the realities of this policy.

If anyone can spot the 'kindness' and 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and rainbows in all this please tell me. Because I find it appalling, cruel sexism that is about blaming victims and forcing female exclusion from female spaces for the better freedoms of choice and well being of people born male.

For the 5% who think it is entirely reasonable for a male to question women about their transphobia, please could you give your reasons. For most women here it is abusive behaviour and I cannot think what possible rationale there could be. But harder even to understand how many women’s services have capitulated to an ideology that is completely separate to the needs of women after rape.

@catzwhiskas

For the 5% who think it is entirely reasonable for a male to question women about their transphobia, please could you give your reasons. For most women here it is abusive behaviour and I cannot think what possible rationale there could be. But harder even to understand how many women’s services have capitulated to an ideology that is completely separate to the needs of women after rape.

Some of that 5% may have been the wrong way round before the thread title was clarified. But yes, would like to hear from anyone who thinks the OP is being unreasonable what their reasoning is.

TRANSCRIPT of Mridul Wadhwa on the Guilty Feminist podcast

From the link that Purgatory posted:

"But something felt "off", I felt slightly dirty. I felt I was betraying something in me, something called truth and something called self-respect."

That's also how we have to treat narcissists if we have to have them in our lives and try and keep them happy. How many of MW's 'fans' are genuinely admiring of MW and how many are keeping MW on side, for whatever reason.

It's already been said that anything said against MW or this 'cause' or even the truth being told results in accusations of transphobia. A very handy card to play when there is no actual defence.

Just found this thread again- couldn’t see it anywhere and thought it had been disappeared. This whole scenario is so sinister. It reminds me of the 1970s PIE scandal in the way the liberal elite have been cowed into support of an ideology.

21 August 2015
Written evidence submitted by Mridul Wadhwa to the Transgender Equality Inquiry
(extracts)
"I work for Rape Crisis Scotland as a Training and Volunteer Co-ordinator and as the Information and Education Officer for Shakti Women’s Aid.

I am also an associate of the College of Policing, England and Wales where I present on transgender and migrant women’s issues on the Equality and Human Rights course and am a domestic abuse trainer on the college of policing’s Domestic Abuse matters training program.

I also co-wrote and co-facilitated the Scottish Government’s training on forced marriage.

I have been involved in the violence against women sector in Scotland since 2005. I moved to Scotland from India in 2004.
[To study for a Masters at Edinburgh University in 'training']

I have consulted with the Scottish Transgender Alliance in making this submission and endorse all the issues and recommendations made by the Scottish Transgender Alliance
[relevant thread] www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829786-James-Morton-scottish-trans-alliance-quote

I believe the gender reassignment General Occupation Provision in recruitment is discriminatory to transsexual people especially trans women. I genuinely believe that there is no space for it in the gender based violence sector and that it has no place in violence against women work. I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago. I
have worked in the violence against women sector since 2005 and have never known for it to be used. I am disappointed to think that someone has the right to refuse work to me and others like me in my sector just because they think that I might not be a woman. When I started working in this sector, I was not out as a trans person, this was not out of fear of discrimination but more because I did not think it was necessary.

In Scotland, all fund recipients from the Scottish Government’s Violence against women funds are expected to implement a trans inclusion policy as a requirement of the grant. I would welcome similar mandatory requirements of all public, private and third sector grant recipients and contractors receiving funding to carry out work with those affected by sexual violence and other forms of gender based violence.

I migrated from India as a student and then an economic migrant. I was able to do so post transition and did not suffer significant life harming discrimination due to my trans status. This is only because of privileges that I had through my social background, a supportive family and my own resilience to challenge the structural and social barriers that exist for trans people in India. I have an Indian passport that says female, am married and am about to adopt a child in Scotland."
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19653.pdf

Re the "gender reassignment General Occupation Provision in recruitment":

Equality Act 2010
Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there."

Effect
787. This paragraph provides a general exception to what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination in relation to work. The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it). The requirement must be crucial to the post, and not merely one of several important factors. It also must not be a sham or pretext. In addition, applying the requirement must be proportionate so as to achieve a legitimate aim.

Examples [include]:

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

Mridul Wadwha

"When I started working in this sector, I was not out as a trans person, this was not out of fear of discrimination but more because I did not think it was necessary."

Wadwha has also said that men working in these roles is completely unacceptable.

Datun on that point I completely agree.

I have an Indian passport that says female

Investigation into the circumstances in which men in UK and abroad can change the sex marker on their passports is long-overdue. What must be considered are the potential consequences of doing so for children and women's welfare as well as fraud, criminality etc.

@Datun

Wadwha has also said that men working in these roles is completely unacceptable.

But male people get to decide who the men are...

HAs there been any official response from the Scottish Govt, MSPs , Local authorities or other funding bodies to this shitshow. Or are we supposed to believe that everything is hunky dory and we all know that of course TWAW ?

DrSbaitso

That's a very telling anecdote.

"It is the lie people objected to, not the person, not the person's choice or expression. It was the demand that our moral purity and values (kindness vs. truth) must be put on display, weighed and judged, that people objected to."

I think this absolutely nails how a lot of us feel about this. We don't care if someone is trans. We'll accept them as they are, like them for their character, most of us will use their preferred pronouns, and just go with the flow. But then we are tested as to how far do we really, deep down, believe that there's no difference between a trans woman and a natal one? Enough to let them join women's weightlifting? Enough to put aside our trauma and fear to prove our worth even if we just want to see a female counsellor after being raped?

What will be enough?

Yes, agreed. This is such an important facet to acknowledge in all of this. Most people don't actually care if someone is gender non conforming. I don't care what someone wants to be called or how they want to dress. It's not actually that interesting.

The problem comes when we are being compelled to parrot a falsehood that a man can turn into a woman, and should be treated as such in all ways, and gain automatic access to women's spaces, that is the objection. And when laws are being changed to facilitate this, and people are punished for not complying.

When we are expected to agree that the sky is green because someone else says so, even though we can clearly see it isn't. It's gaslighting on a massive scale.

@catzwhiskas

HAs there been any official response from the Scottish Govt, MSPs , Local authorities or other funding bodies to this shitshow. Or are we supposed to believe that everything is hunky dory and we all know that of course TWAW ?

I think, like most governments, they are just hoping that if they ignore us we will just shut up and go away.

I do wonder what it will take to tip them over the edge to actually acknowledge that this is not working and most people in society can see what's going on. And how do they crawl back from this without a massive about face?

Always interesting to see no supporting posts from those voting no (unless it is confusion before the edited title).

However, the context behind what Wadhwa’s latest statement is being filled in considerably.

This really is not a person focused on supporting females through these horrific events. And seems to have at least been honest that it was about power from the time they were ‘Louise’.

We Are Fair Cop:

"More interesting comment from Mridul Wadhwa in 2015. This person has fingers in many pies - including the College of Policing.

This explains quite a lot."

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1426446777037819905
.

I've been reading the thread from the start, brilliant contributions from people more knowledgeable than me! www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/nlc-vs-ggp/testimony/Aaron_Kimberly--Gender_Dysphoria_Alliance_Canada

The video above was posted earlier in the thread but I've just finished watching and thought it was worth reposting.

@Mulletsaremisunderstood

DrSbaitso

That's a very telling anecdote.

"It is the lie people objected to, not the person, not the person's choice or expression. It was the demand that our moral purity and values (kindness vs. truth) must be put on display, weighed and judged, that people objected to."

I think this absolutely nails how a lot of us feel about this. We don't care if someone is trans. We'll accept them as they are, like them for their character, most of us will use their preferred pronouns, and just go with the flow. But then we are tested as to how far do we really, deep down, believe that there's no difference between a trans woman and a natal one? Enough to let them join women's weightlifting? Enough to put aside our trauma and fear to prove our worth even if we just want to see a female counsellor after being raped?

What will be enough?

Yes, agreed. This is such an important facet to acknowledge in all of this. Most people don't actually care if someone is gender non conforming. I don't care what someone wants to be called or how they want to dress. It's not actually that interesting.

The problem comes when we are being compelled to parrot a falsehood that a man can turn into a woman, and should be treated as such in all ways, and gain automatic access to women's spaces, that is the objection. And when laws are being changed to facilitate this, and people are punished for not complying.

When we are expected to agree that the sky is green because someone else says so, even though we can clearly see it isn't. It's gaslighting on a massive scale.

Remember Ashley Wilkes from Gone With the Wind? When Scarlett is insisting he tell the absolute truth, from his heart, about how he feels about her vs Melanie?

"My dear, why do you make me say things that will hurt you?"

Hmm it’s almost as though the only qualification they needed to get themselves into all these highly influential roles is being trans…yet we are to believe they are the most vulnerable under represented group who don’t have the same rights as everyone else

I noticed a link to DM regarding the age of children in Scotland being able to state gender but I haven't see one regarding the CEO/Rape Crisis Shelter situation. Has there been one? I know some people who only read the DM, so it would be helpful if they ran an article.

@DrSbaitso

I've had conversations with TRAs/their supporters (civil ones) in which they keep asking the question: is it fair to restrict someone based on their body/anatomy?

Obviously it is a disingenuous and unintelligent question in the same vein as "are you still beating your wife", but the fact that they frame it this way is interesting. They've all been male as far as I can tell.

Women do not ask this because women accept that there are some things that being female prevents you from doing. We know that we can't have children past a certain point. We know that having children will change our bodies permanently. We know that we can never hold the world record for overall fastest and strongest. We may of course say that being female doesn't prevent us from driving lorries or becoming mechanical engineers, because it doesn't. But we do accept there are some things a female body simply cannot do, and many things it is unlikely to be able to do (eg fight off a male attacker).

It's a very male idea that the only thing a male body should prevent you from doing is pregnancy/childbirth/lactation. The idea that it might hold you back from something you want that isn't related to reproduction is not at all alien to women, but it's very alien to men. So when someone feels that having a natally (and in this case legally) male body shouldn't stop them from doing anything they want to do, even and especially among the most vulnerable of women, it's hard not to see the whole thing as appropriation rather than co-identification.

It's a very, very masculine outlook.

This!

Reading MW's declaration that Rowantrees and Fair Cop reproduce, I can't help feeling that if MW had any formal counselling/therapeutic qualifications and experience, MW would have stated them.

@Helleofabore

Always interesting to see no supporting posts from those voting no (unless it is confusion before the edited title).

However, the context behind what Wadhwa’s latest statement is being filled in considerably.

This really is not a person focused on supporting females through these horrific events. And seems to have at least been honest that it was about power from the time they were ‘Louise’.

I voted no! It was the original title. At that point it was 75% no - clearly not accurately reflecting views, then.

No woman should feel weird about wanting single sex provision after being raped. It's deeply depressing that we even need to say that - shows how much our rights have already been rolled back.

This is such an important facet to acknowledge in all of this. Most people don't actually care if someone is gender non conforming. I don't care what someone wants to be called or how they want to dress. It's not actually that interesting.

I can't help but wonder if that's what a lot of the TRA starting shouting so loudly about - "You're not taking any notice of us! Look at me. LOOK AT ME!". But MW has taken it so much further, MW wants us punished. Or is there a teeny tiny touch of sexual sadism disorder in the mix.