Full Transcript of the meeting with Mridul Wadhwa about rape crisis centers

[ChristinaXYZ]

For Women Scotland have the full transcript of this meeting on their website

forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Mridul-Wadhwa-Building-Intersectional-Inclusion-in-Rape-Crisis-Services-14Sep2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1nWY9_l4DrpSo5spLHokK5_NBBDF8yJMigurcrvVbBTTgjXkmTkwS2kfU

Of the survivors who used Rape Crisis Scotland in 2019/20, female survivors made up 91.5%, 3.6% were male and the sex if the rest is unknown. So their core service users are still female survivors.

What is going on is that rape crisis centres continue to be chronically underfunded even in Scotland. They cater to as many survivors as they can fit in, there is, sadly, no shortage of us (hence the waiting lists).

And they are no longer majority run by survivors or frontline workers but instead by managerial types, who use the third sector to further their careers, who make it their careers. (It's incredibly cliquey in Scotland, with these women moving from one board to the next, all on the same page.) And it's so much better for a career in this sector today if they are true followers of various strands of identity politics.

Which slowly but surely has taken the focus off the core users, their needs and the structural analysis of male violence traditionally used by VAWAG sector organisations that does not exempt any group of males from that analysis.

Ah, funding. Follow the money. Don't forget the links to other providers, too,

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/mridrul-wadha-sacro-and-the-14-million?r=956zy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

I think it's a fairly obvious state of current affairs that female rape and domestic violence victims are not a sufficient source of interest for those running the service.

Good point. Someone is trying to redefine the remit of the organization rather than expanding it. But the question remains: what does this organization actually do? It would be a worthwhile subject for some citizen undercover investigative reporting.

So and foremost, what I find most helpful in any inclusion work is to get a real sense of your team and where they stand on it.
And to accept that just because someone is not with it, or speak the most current language, that they are necessarily transphobic.

If you're not "with it", or you don't "speak the most current language", you're definitely a transphobe!

Former Rape Crisis director here, also v experienced in charitable governance. Those are very standard objects in charitable organisations, both in Scotland and England & Wales. Many charities still have the quite old fashioned (but legal) "relief of poverty" in their objects, and I would expect nearly all to promote equality and diversity in some way.

But....why does a rape crisis centre have to "promote" equality and diversity? Surely a rape crisis centre is about providing essential support to whoever needs it, not fulfilling artificial quotas or needing to be seen as woke enough?
It's just a bugbear of mine. How about just don't be racist arseholes, why the need to shout about not being racist arseholes?

"We encourage equality and diversity" - what, you want some sort of medal for making a big song and dance about NOT being an arsehole. When did not being an arsehole stop being the minimal standard?

They are conventions. When starting up, many charities pick from a range of standard objects. There are limited things that are legally charitable.

In any case, the promotion of equality IS appropriate. Women are victimised because we are not equal. A more equal society would have fewer rapes and less child sexual abuse.

So in line with the equality and diversity objectives, it would be possible to reject a white victim if there were too many of them using the services of a charity compared with other skin tones. Or reject a natal woman if there were too many of them.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Here's a report they published in 2016 giving a survivor's account of her rape and the aftermath. It includes this text, members of the trans community mentioned but no mention of "men":

Established in 1978, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is a specialist support, advocacy and information service for women, members of the transgender community and young people aged 12 and over in Edinburgh, East and Midlothian who are affected by sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse. All our services are free and confidential.

www.ercc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Edinburgh-Rape-Crisis-Centre-A-Womans-Story-230516.pdf[/quote]
That's such a sobering piece - it's shocking how little thought is put into the system that expects so much of victims of Rape. I realise this is a few years old but it struck me that this is the sort of thing MW would want to 'wash' from ERCC history because of this section:

"During a support session at ERCC, my worker called the representative’s landline number and managed to speak to the head of the firm. On my behalf, she explained how trying to engage with this request was causing an inordinate level of stress: why was amobile number provided on their letter that no-one could make contact with? He seemed to understand this. He was apologetic and said he’d speak to his colleague named in the letter. It was put to him by my support worker^ that I was willing to engage on condition he could provide a female worker^. He assured her that he would try to accommodate this."

This is what MW wants to 'wash' from ERCC. The ability of support workers to advocate for the needs of survivors on their terms, specifically when female only support or engagement matters.

MW has very lofty ambitions if MW think every single piece of survivor testimony, contributed by women, can be erased to suit MW's activist agenda. Women's lived experiences of Rape, trauma, recovery - every part of it matters & in important ways is part of what holds up others who come later. The gall of Wadhwa to think they can erase the importance of all those whose recovery helped build a service that recognised women's trauma based recovery needs.

How much more damage will MW be given room to cause before someone steps up & says no more?

@AnyOldPrion

Does the whole statement seem garbled to anyone else? I feel different concepts are being mixed together and there’s no real clarity over what is actually being done and how it benefits those who need to use the service.

It was garbled to me. I found it really difficult to read. It kept saying what is trans inclusion but never answered the question. A lot of words to say so little.

I struggled with it, too. It was internally incoherent, meandering, with lots of irrelevant sidetracking, and MW seemed to just be left to ramble for a very long time without questions. I did wonder if MW was supposed to give a little prepared talk and didn't bother actually preparing anything. That's often a bad idea because the danger is that you're not careful and get carried away, as MW did here.

These comments were in my view worse than those made in the Guilty Feminist podcast, because they were unequivocally attacking survivors without any concessions made to their trauma. And to malign those female survivors as transphobic who say nothing at all but just self-exclude because they cannot use a mixed-sex therapeutic environment is astonishingly hostile rhetoric from the CEO of a rape crisis centre.

I wonder if we'll get another statement in clarification or if we're now beyond that...

This is what MW wants to 'wash' from ERCC. The ability of support workers to advocate for the needs of survivors on their terms, specifically when female only support or engagement matters.

I completely missed that in my quick read through. What a great point.

If a person has a support worker why do they need the ERCC?

He recently said “ he was drawing a line “ under what he said on that Guilty Feminist podcast.I think a line MUST be drawn under his tenure as CEO of Rape Crisis Edinburgh as soon as possible.

If a person has a support worker why do they need the ERCC?

The support worker was from the ERCC, they were talking to the legal defence team who she needed to have a meeting with.

There is another part in the ERCC report I linked that PlayYouLikeAShark mentioned, about female only care, in fact the exact scenario that MW flounced out of the SNP due to when they supported Johann Lamont's amendment from gender to sex. Interesting that they still have this up:

I was required to go back to the GUM clinic for a fourth appointment. I was surprised when my name was called out by a male nurse. It was clear that this nurse would be seeing me for this consultation. I was not asked if I felt ok about having a male nurse, especially when he was lone working. Equally I was not asked if I would have preferred a female nurse. The lone-working male nurse was professional and I had no issue with him personally, especially as there were no intimate or invasive procedures. That isn’t the point.
I remember feeling that for some women, the presence of a lone male nurse in the room could be frightening/intimidating. It would be better practice if the woman could be offered a choice, e.g. a male nurse or a longer wait for a female nurse.

www.ercc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Edinburgh-Rape-Crisis-Centre-A-Womans-Story-230516.pdf

And also here

CID Officers explained that there would need to be a forensic examination when the on-call forensic examiner (FE) arrived. I was not given any idea of how long that would be.
I felt that I had to wait a long time for this.
I was asked to get on to the examination table. I was wearing a medical gown and no other clothing.
I do not recall being asked if I would prefer a female FE. When the FEs arrived, they were two men. The nature of the testing was explained to me. I was never asked if I felt ok with a second person attending. I did not feel in the frame of mind to object.
I was asked to get on to the examination table. I was wearing a medical gown and no other clothing.
I was feeling very apprehensive and vulnerable. I felt like a piece of meat, not a live human being who has just been through extreme trauma. I did not want any man anywhere near me and certainly not touching me. Because I wanted all this to be over, I didn’t feel able to voice this. I just wanted to scream at them. Clinical information was given to me but I felt no compassion, care or consideration for my feelings.

I did skim through the piece quickly so missed those sections.

MW has a big task on MW's hands to erase women's experiences & their impact from the process ERCC are set up to support. Is MW going to sensor every survivors words & experiences so that the whole output in resources & evidence are sanitised to MW's requirements?

I can't find it now but the book that survivors wrote, which was supposed to be launched at the Audacious Women festival before ERCC cancelled due to issues with the 'women' part of the festival - someone posted on Twitter about their story in the book being removed without any discussion, contact or explanation. That came off the back of the last furore over MW's 'bigots, reframe your trauma' shite.

I'd suggest that anything currently on the ERCC resources pages are archived urgently & an eye kept on what they're doing to the contributions of survivors over the years. To 'wash & clean' an orgs history to warp it to your own worldview is abhorrent in these circumstances. Who TF does MW think MW is?

Also illustrating, yet again, TW needs and W needs at times directly conflict.

These needs cannot always be met in one centralised service under the name of 'women', without one side losing provision and quality and voice in the service: and the side that loses is always the female one. Because mixed sex services always primarily respond to and serve those born male.

Women service users are suffering while this very predictable situation is demonstrated enough times for women to be allowed to have those female only spaces of their own, where their needs can come first when they are in crisis. Women are not on this earth to provide support for male people.

Maa Kali

twitter.com/hightreebud/status/1324753104647135232?s=21

Nothing to worry about here. Nothing to see. A male person stating they are a goddess with the image of a dead person is totally an appropriate person to be telling women that they need to have their history ‘wash and cleaned’ and they be re-educated…

MW should be running a trans specific service, which is obviously where their primary interest lies.

Yes, this sounds like a great idea. Surely TRAs would get behind a service specifically for trans women and/or trans people and non-binary people? I would imagine there are specific needs and considerations that Mridhul could serve very well.

@ArabellaScott

MW should be running a trans specific service, which is obviously where their primary interest lies.

Yes, this sounds like a great idea. Surely TRAs would get behind a service specifically for trans women and/or trans people and non-binary people? I would imagine there are specific needs and considerations that Mridhul could serve very well.

Interestingly, MW is fully aware of the specific issues & needs of trans survivors & how the examination & investigation process can be traumatising, or re-traumatising for trans people.

Link to MW's written submission to the trans enquiry 2016

"Trans survivors of rape and other forms of sexual violence reporting to the police can experience additional trauma. This can be due to gender dysphoria about their gentials. There is also a general lack of awareness of trans inclusivity and sensitivity amongst police, forensic examiners and in the criminal justice system. I call for mandatory trans awareness training for those investigating sexual crimes within the police and the crown office. I would also extend this request this to those investigating domestic abuse crimes."

MW's insight into how Trans people struggle with the process for the reasons given shows an understanding that MW wilfully fails to have with regards to women who are traumatised or re-traumatised by the same process but for different & understandable reasons. Reasons that MW has deemed 'bigoted' and 'transphobic'.

MW really needs to 'self reflect' and realise MW's involvement in Rape Crisis is causing widespread distress & harm because MW is wilfully 'reframing' women's trauma as bigotry that MW is motivated to tackle, even in the most inappropriate environments such as a rape crisis service or support group or space.

It's past time MW resigned.

I'm going to post this, but with a 'content warning' because it's a blunt, honest & upsetting description of this woman's experience of the post rape experience that brings home just why MW's words of 'wash & clean' the ERCC's history demonstrates yet again how unsuitable MW is in any role within rape crisis.

Link to thread roll from Twitter

I cannot fathom how all of MW's cheer leaders aren't scrabbling now to talk MW into resigning. It's clear to anyone who reads MW's words that this is an activist pushing an activists agenda in the most inappropriate setting, to the detriment of women who have been raped/sexually assaulted. This is as bad as it gets IMO.

MW should resign immediately.