..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

[TorghunKhan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o

No women only spaces for 16 months. Basically women, RAPED women - were told they could not definitely see a woman to help them with such an awful crime, they might have to see a man in a dress, and if they objected they were to be 're eductaed' by the man in charge - a man who himself applied for, and got!! a job which was supposed to be only filled by a woman.

It's shameful, disgusting, but whats worse is how many people put up with it!! Who thought this was ok?! why did nobody do anything, or say anything FOR YEARS

It’s a lie. A completely fabricated lie, cooked up to make a man in a dress appear a victim

It does seem so, because in the OD article the writer (who has some dodgy genderist connection I can't remember) says that he's been shown redacted emails to ERCC containing threats and calling for "trans genocide".

if the discussions about this on MN hadn't been hidden away on the naughty step you would have been hearing about it for a long time.

Exactly. Bring these discussions out into the open.

Glad the wanker is gone. Shame he wasn't fired though.

For context, the claim Wadhwa and OD made, backed up by Maggie Chapman MSP, which senior employee Katy McTernan refuted in court under oath.

The letters include numerous threats of vigilante violence. One seems to call for a genocide of trans women. Another chillingly presents the board with a choice of sacking Wadhwa, or seeing transphobes “take matters into their own hands”.

Wonder where MW will pop up again now.

I wonder what Roz Adams would have done if MN hadn't allowed discussions in the years prior. Or if JKR hadn't entered the battle.

It's scary how close we got.

Ok so still catching up with thread from posts later last night but ...

This thread is about an investigation into rape victims being denied access to appropriate channels and the one most comfortable to them, I.e a woman.

IT IS NOT saying only women should have access to this support following their assault. That is a completely valid point but not what this thread is about

I think some posters needed to have read the op properly first

There's every reason when they refuse to start their own thread about their own outrage or even do anything about it but instead choose to hijack a thread that's about a very real problem that's affecting only women.

We don't need "but what about the men" on a woman only issue.

It's also ironic how this is their only posting and they also don't see why men should have to campaign for their own places and indeed, expect a man's needs to be met through something that a woman has had to campaign and fight for.

Stop defending men, they really, really don't need you

Given that he wasn't fired, or blamed, probably in a very similar place, doing the same thing again.

Oh he'll walk into another role given to him by fawning handmaidens with their brains rotted by gender ideology.

Any women having such a damning report written about them would never work again but being male and trans will make Mridul Teflon coated.

Yes didn't it come out in Roz Adams' tribunal that they had a folder called 'hate emails' - the contents of which was emails from worried women asking whether they could see an actual woman not an identifying 'woman'?

They saw everything which didn't affirm their ideology as being hate or being a threat. I don't think I've ever seen gender critical women make threats of vigilante violence or genocide. TRAs on the other hand, do so regularly, and almost always with no consequences.

Women staying no is hate speech to gender ideologues.

She/he has never advocated for their son after his rape on here or in real life. They made that quite clear, in fact, they were quite affronted and appalled when I suggested they started a campaign to improve male rape support services.

The only time on here was on a thread about an issue affecting only women in a rape crisis support centre where they felt the need to persistently minimise female rape experience and get bothered about that her son only had one support option of one day a work which was inconvenient because it might fall on a work day.

The only intention of their posting was to ensure the patriarchy wasn't forgotten about

The wikipedia page is misinformation - they say there was 'hate speech' but that could have just been women saying that biological sex mattered - that's what came out in the trial. That's what MW and accolytes thought 'hate speech' was. Basically anything that disagreed with their ideology.

No they very much had the right end of the stick and continued to wave their shitty stick all around.

They didn't do themselves any favours by being absolutely outraged at being asked to start their own post about support and was equally outraged at being asked to do something in real life to begin a change.

They also ignored all posts where signposting for support was given and instead, chose to continue to fan the flames about men's rights on a post that was started about a female only issue.

Please put something on the talk pages for both articles, source it properly, the BBC etc (the irony!), as many well sourced articles as possible and ask for the miss information to be removed and a more banned article put up. (I only have a VPN, all VPN traffic is banned from editing)

I don’t know the ins and outs of what the poster has done in her personal life to support their son.

I do think, however, that when women disagree with a conversation about women’s issues, they’re very quick to either be called male, or be told they’re fawning handmaidens etc etc.

I don’t think that’s necessary, or helpful to having a reasonable conversation. I think it brings a hostility to it that isn’t necessary, and women just end up fighting each other.

Honestly, I don’t really understand why. Does everyone who disagrees/makes a different point have to have a penis, or could they just be a woman with a different view.

And this is how the narrative is shaped.

This is how women's perfectly reasonable demands are recast as hate and bigotry.

The shocking thing is that so many have fallen for. I wonder how many will ultimately be able to admit that, even to themselves?

“being absolutely outraged at being asked to start their own post about support”

That’s interesting. There was a similar reaction on another thread discussing the impact on women of unwanted / inappropriate male behaviour. A poster joined and tried to turn it into a discussion about their son and became argumentative at suggestions of starting their own thread.

Lots of people objected and it has been all over twitter.

JK Rowling set up and funded an alternative.

Women DID do things. It is as a result that this man has had to leave.

I am going to say this: I am an Asian woman with a similar background to MW. I also work in the social sector. I suspect he was able to get away with it for so long because he accused anyone who objected of being racist. Certainly on X and other places, the narrative is all "racist white feminists headed by JKR persecute innocent brown immigrant woman" This really enrages me.

Unfortunately, the social sector is very prone to polarised narratives and a sort of "oppression Olympics" for lack of a better word. MW had established himself as an object of sympathy because he was brown and "trans".

Frankly they did not do enough. Nowhere near enough.

Whilst our children are brainwashed in schools, whilst victims are turned away, whilst women's sport is ruined, whilst women's safety and privacy is taken away

There is not one days rest to be had, there is not one comment that should not be made, not one protest that should not be gone on, there is no one you should not offend, not one risk to reputation you should not take.

This is an existential threat to women, to the family, to children

Men are not women. Not now, not ever. Laugh in every celebrities face, mock every post on social media, wear the T-shirt, fly the banner, stick the sticker

FIGHT.

I have a question. The BBC article says: "In its recommendations, the review said the Edinburgh centre should take advice from Rape Crisis Scotland on the definition of "woman" and publicise this within the service."

Does anyone know how Rape Crisis Scotland does define a woman? If it's "anyone who identifies as one" then are we back to square one?

Does anyone know how Rape Crisis Scotland does define a woman? If it's "anyone who identifies as one" then are we back to square one?

I thought it was.

To the mother of the son who was raped - I have a male family member who was also raped... as a child, by men.
He's always asked for a female therapist as he feels safer with a woman rather than a male. He would be terrified if he got into his session and was suddenly alone with a male.

There are less services for men because there are less men being raped. Rape services across the board are underfunded. But he made a good point about being able to have a choice about who you see if you are in that position. If a biological male was sitting in on his sessions he would feel traumatised. Should he have the choice of who he is able to see?

This thread is about women who are traumatised by what males have done to their bodies. And who should have the right to see female counsellors in safety without being duped or lied to or hounded out of a service supposedly created for them.