Head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre :'Protesters against gender reform ‘give platform to fascists’

[MiladyBerserko]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/704cabe4-1668-11ec-8aba-5ab737a99668?shareToken=6744174f2fbc51ae49c37bcdbf332099

Share token above
'Women who oppose plans to make it easier to change gender have given a platform to “fascists who want to eliminate trans people”, according to the head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

Mridul Wadhwa, 43, a trans woman who was appointed chief executive in May, accused those protesting against the Gender Recognition Reform Bill of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.'
See rest of article

@ArabellaScott

The closest thing to logic I can see from tras on that subject, Tony, is that anyone with a trans identity is automatically exempt from any accusations of bad intent or wrongdoing.

It's a bit of an odd position really, the line is that declaring oneself trans (or, I suppose, non-binary) is such a drastic and terrible step to take that nobody would do it 'just to access vulnerable people'.

Only those who are good and pure and true in their intent would ever call themselves trans. I think that's the line.

Conveniently ignoring those who will pursue particular professions, over a period of years, purely to target and access vulnerable people.

Yes!

TransAngels
TransSaints

Never ever a Transgressor!

@Whatthechicken

MW gets so much press coverage because of her views, as the head of ERC you’d think she’d start using this platform to advance the safety, dignity and care of women, bringing some of the issues that women face to the national press…after all, I would presume that that is the main objective of her role? But it’s clear that women must take a back seat (again) and we must all listen to her personal objectives. Any role she obtains is a cover, all she needs is for it to be high profile.

HIS views, not her views, he doesn’t have a GRC so is a male in the law of Scotland

His views has no credibility, he has no integrity, no skills for the post he holds; his qualifications are in hotel management, and clearly has his own agenda made clearly by the transcript written up by Jean Hatchet. He should not be in a post in any Rape Crisis Centre anywhere. Shame on everyone who enable him and thinks it’s appropriate .

@Rhannion

His views has no credibility, he has no integrity, no skills for the post he holds; his qualifications are in hotel management, and clearly has his own agenda made clearly by the transcript written up by Jean Hatchet. He should not be in a post in any Rape Crisis Centre anywhere. Shame on everyone who enable him and thinks it’s appropriate .

Exactly this. I read the transcript of the talk they gave and there was nothing there about helping women recover from assault. It was all intersectionality blah, blah. How is this person treated like some kind of expert in the field of women's trauma when their knowledge seems so shallow. What am I missing?

Brodie’s Trust have lost confidence. Thankful they are standing up to this nonsense, but overall quite upsetting that it has come to this. Hopefully ERCC will have to sit up and listen.

twitter.com/thatveganlass/status/1438422792291196928?s=21

Is it known/clear who is responsible for MW continuing to be in post, despite not meeting the requirements for the job? I mean in ANY other situation where it became clear the person had been appointed on false pretences and didn't meet a clear requirement for holding the post, they'd be out. Why hasn't this happened and who is in charge who should have done it?

Spotted this in a Waterstones in Scotland just now. Quite fitting, I thought.

Have you seen these tweets from Jean Hatchet?

twitter.com/JeanHatchet/status/1437714100742656002?s=20

Am in a meeting with Mridul Wadwha. Already want to scream at the things being said by organisers

Inc “work to ensure LGBT is embedded across South Yorkshire” ….they intend to target all commissioners

“At Edinburgh rape crisis we had to cleanse our history of not being trans inclusive”

JFC - Wadwha is talking about “cleansing” the women’s movement.

Not sure of the stats on this…. “The rape crisis movement is largely run by white, cis, heteronormative women”….

Desperately want to say something …. Wadwha talking about how Scotland is engulfed in transphobia and suggesting this is why service users are afraid to access rape crisis! They have to learn not to be “transphobic”
@ForwomenScot

Now framing it as opposition from the right wing. Wadwha talking about Scottish women “exposing themselves in recent weeks …as right wing and …working with fascists”
@ForwomenScot

I’ll transcribe this later

Wadwha “there was a protest outside Scottish Parliament the week before last - organised by those who oppose the GRA reform …and also those who oppose the existence of trans people”

“We have been listening but at that protest there were people - that group of women were joined by fascist groups”
@ForwomenScot

“They have given that space to them and that’s quite scary” …. Lies are scary Wadwha. Lies are really scary.

I’ve asked the following see attachment

Aaaaand….. I was thrown out of the meeting

I asked a question about the Equality Act. The very basis of what is being discussed! And they can’t or won’t answer so threw me out

Importantly Wadwha was just discussing what you do to be more inclusive as an org. The language used terrified me. Talked of transphobic views surrounding us in society so Wadwha knows those views have been absorbed …

“We have to acknowledge those views in our organisations and see if they are views that can be changed or if they are permanent…. Can do this anonymously… it’s a journey”

The implication here is that anyone not in favour of admitting trans identified men to a women’s single sex service must be “found” and “changed” …. Honestly the most sinister talk I’ve been at

Wadwha was Also doubling down when talking about victims using services “have to learn not to be transphobic … have to unlearn so many things” …. Women who have been raped Wadwha don’t have to learn a thing. They have to be provided with help to recover.

Anyway you’ll be happy to know I took the colours with me. #WomenWontWheesht

Wadwha was Also doubling down when talking about victims using services “have to learn not to be transphobic … have to unlearn so many things” ….
Jesus christ.

@NecessaryScene

Sadly, this is what we have seen from other trans activists who take roles meant to progress the rights for females. Eg. Women’s officer roles. Each time, their own personal agenda is prioritised and is often at odds with the people they are supposed to represent.

It may at first seem weird how this always happens - surely not all trans people can be so self-centred?

But the answer is straightforward - the only sort of male who would dream of taking a woman's position is an incredibly self-centred one who does not care about women. Or at least cares about them less than they care about themselves - or at least "trans rights".

So that's why this always happens.

Any transwomen who might actually do the job well are decent enough to not apply for it.

Any male who would apply for such a role is not fit to hold it.

Spot on.

Spotted this in a Waterstones in Scotland just now. Quite fitting, I thought.

wonder if it was a staff member or a customer!

[quote Whatthechicken]Brodie’s Trust have lost confidence. Thankful they are standing up to this nonsense, but overall quite upsetting that it has come to this. Hopefully ERCC will have to sit up and listen.

twitter.com/thatveganlass/status/1438422792291196928?s=21[/quote]
That’s heartbreaking that Brodie’s Trust are being put in that position, however well done to them for their statement and the wonderful work they do.

Only read the OP and article.

Why isn't this person focusing on their org, their sector. Rape.

???

Read a bit of thread.

Another thought.

I don't think it's ok for the head of a rape crisis org to be making political statements like this.

These orgs are for all women who need them. Right wing left wing. All women.

This piece is highly political and surely could make the org seem like it is not the place for women with certain views.

That's really really bad.

The message should be support for all women we will help. Anything else is potentially putting women off from getting in touch, when they need help.

This person could have done a lot of good by lobbying for males who are victims of sex offences to get help.

A group where barriers are different and under reporting is a big problem.

Or trans people.

Or LGBT+ people.

Or wherever they felt the need was.

We are told that TW are at very high risk of sexual assault, rape. And are disproportionately in sex work which is very risky plus often other really awful stuff.

This is what comes up over and over.

It's orgs and sectors that already are in place that are entered and then mission changed etc.

Rather than a focus on providing new services or building existing ones, for the group/s that they clearly are very concerned for.

And that happens over and over and over.

It's invariably about opening up existing things that were created to help women.

Never about services for the group that matters to them most, and that has a totally different set of issues etc etc.

I think that says it all tbh.

Agree, NiceGerbil. Hell, I'd be right behind TRAs if they were doing their own fundraising and setting up. This glomping onto women's things and changing them completely is unconscionable.

Yes totally. That would be a "rights aren't pie" situation - setting up new refuges that cater for the unique experiences of the rapidly increasing numbers of trans people. TRAs generally seem to think that it's OK for trans people to have their own organisations. So having their own rape crisis centres and refuges also makes sense.

Another thing I wonder about MW is why he hasn't adopted a female name. And I wonder if he was called Andrew Smith or something (and claiming to be female and applying for jobs at women's refuges) if that would have been more of an issue.

It's not that I think changing to a female name makes you more of a woman somehow – I don't. But there's something kind of aggressive about it that ties in with him constantly making his transness the centre of attention and the priority. It's as if what he really wants is to make everyone aware of his maleness all the time. He reminds me of Alex "expand what it means to be a woman" Drummond in that way.

From Joanna cherry

@Jaysmith71

Whadha is not a transwoman. He is a man who unlawfully misrepresents himself.

Now where's me jackboots, I'm off to invade Poland.

I'm not sure I get your meaning here but as I don't use any word with "woman" in it to refer to male people, I probably agree with you. But just for the record, MW is a post-operative homosexual transsexual.

There is a tendency in these here parts to talk about good trans/bad trans and real trans/fake trans that puts homosexual transsexuals (HSTS) into the positive side of those pairings and non-homosexual transsexuals (aka AGP) into the negative side. This leads some people to believe that post-operative transsexuals are never AGP and no homosexual transsexuals are at the forefront of the movement against women's sex-based rights and that real trans people just want to get on with it and not push us out of our spaces.

The truth is that the trans community is like any other social grouping - there are all kinds of people in it with all kinds of interests, political leanings and motivations.

Some AGP push against women's sex-based rights, some push against self-id. Some HSTS campaign against women's sex-based rights and some support the campaign to uphold them.

And this is a case of an HSTS opposing the right of female survivors of male violence to access a female-only therapeutic environment to recover in.

MW is still a man, he isn’t “post” anything as he doesn’t have a GRC in India or the UK.

@Rhannion

MW is still a man, he isn’t “post” anything as he doesn’t have a GRC in India or the UK.

The GRC makes no difference to me as to whether someone is a man or not. The government politicians who pushed the GRA through parliament emphasised throughout that private people were under no obligation whatsoever to accept the legal fiction.

An adult human male is a man. No operation changes that fact. No piece of paper changes that fact. I'll respect his right to follow his preferences for femine-coded clothes, mannerisms, behaviours or activities but I do not accept his belief that that makes him a woman.

(I said he was a post-operative transsexual because he is simply that - a transsexual who has had surgery. There is nothing in my previous comment to suggest that I believe humans can change sex.)

MW claims to have had surgery but I would take that claim, as with everything else MW claims, with a very large pinch of salt.

Birth certificates can be changed to the opposite sex in India by a medical report attesting full surgery has been completed. So why hasn't MW chosen to do so?

Surgery etc is irrelevant.

This is a person who lied to get a job that had criteria for the applicants that they did not meet.

This is a person who is causing a lot of media attention around a service that is highly sensitive and all this attention and argument etc may well put people off accessing the service.

The act if hiring such a divisive person who had a certain amount of notoriety was obviously going to attract criticism argument. Heated argument and anger. Taking the spotlight off their core remit and putting it on a different area altogether.

The statements from this person clearly show their focus to be on an issue not related to the orgs aim to help rape victims.

I would not be surprised if donations have taken away. Maybe only a bit but every penny counts to these orgs. I would guess that most donations come from women (female). To deliberately make a hire that they knew would upset/ anger some or many of their key individual supporters seems frankly insane.

Further the statements interviews etc not only focus on a different issue. But strongly suggest that women with certain views. If raped. Are not welcome.

It's a proper shitshow.

All I can think is that those in charge of hiring took this decision deliberately because they wanted to send these messages.

They are not fit for purpose. In other words. They have sacrificed principles mission etc to show support for an unrelated issue. And many women supporters will have been lost, and their service is broadcasting that it is not open to all. And they did this with their eyes open.