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

CharleyParley, I get what you mean, you and I both don’t believe that he is a woman, however in my opinion you are giving him some validation in your comment by respecting his delusion, but that’s up to you, we agree to differ. MW is an adult human male who lied , by omission , to get a post that, by law and correctly, is reserved for adult human females.

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.

The majority of funding comes via grants not individual donations. The system has already been captured so there is more grant money available for organisations that are TQ+ inclusive than for supporting girls and women. In fact, as has been demonstrated, many sources of grant income may be denied to services that offer single sex support to girls and women and/or risk being defunded.

We need to stop claiming MW lied to get the job. The facts don't bear this out and those who need to listen to us never will if we continue with this claim.

MW started working in the VAWAG sector while still obviously male.

MW was employed in a role that was not frontline work but training outsiders (employed to train people, both male and female, who in the course of their work.- police, courts, NHS, social work, housing - would come into contact with ethnic minority women who had experienced male sexual violence).

This was in 2005, five years before the Equality Act and crucially after the Gender Recognition Act had disapplied the Genuine Occupational Requirement of the Sex Discrimination Act from those in possession of a GRC. Many people had no idea how that worked and wouldn't have known how to navigate this.

But as MW has said, it never came up. Now most people assume this means it never came up because MW passes so well. That wasn't the case in 2005 though. MW's sex was obvious back then. It is much more likely that it never came up because MW wasn't employed to work with female survivors.

And once you've got to know someone (and MW was very well liked, effective in the role and hardworking - in short an asset to the employer), you assess risk differently. It is clear from MW's own words about working at Shakti that there eventually was an intense focus on "reeducating" the survivors at Shakti that TWAW, said reeducation delivered by MW.

According to someone who met MW at the time, MW was not shy at declaring a trans status back then. Even when literally no one actually cared to know. (MW seems to not have been living "in stealth" at any point.)

By the time MW took up the post as manager of Forth Valley Rape Crisis, MW had already accepted a national award for campaigning for LGBT rights and had given an acceptance speech mostly about being trans.

There was no lie. It is difficult to accept this, I know, because MW likes to play up the whole I pass so well, they didn't know I was male that being accused of lying about being female seems to be taken as a compliment. It looks very much like even us "evil TERFs" believe MW passes so well that this lie is even feasible.

I've met MW. Hence I don't believe it is.

And every single time we repeat the claim that MW lied to get the job, those who should listen to our justified complaints about MW's comments will dismiss us as liars. Because they know MW didn't lie to get the Rape Crisis job. And if we're seen to be making false claims about that, why should they listen when we make claims about anything else to do with MW.

I agree I've seen no evidence of a false claim to be female, or that Wadwha was ever appointed to any post under the belief that he was female.

But he did apply to a post advertised as being open to females only, and the application was accepted, and he ultimately got the post. Other people were complicit in this process, so he didn't need to lie to them, but it was a joint fraud, almost certainly unlawful. You cannot advertise a role as being single-sex if it is not.

Before proceeding with the application, the placement should have been reopened without the single-sex stipulation, giving other better-qualified and less ideologically-compromised men a chance.

As it stands, the rule was just waived for Wadhwa. Which smells like corruption.

Charlie, I think you are one of the most articulate posters here and I agree with 99% of whatever you post but on this last point: no. Wadhwa applied for the job dishonestly.

It’s nothing to do with how well or otherwise MW passes. They applied for a job that was reserved for a woman under the single-sex exemption, knowing 100% full well that they do not meet the biological or legal definition of woman. That is dishonesty. That is a lie.

Yes, there should be as much opprobrium heaped on those who made the appointment, because they will have known throughout that MW was male - although I suppose it’s possible they may have assumed he since gained a GRC and neglected to carry out any kind of check because “gatekeeping”.

But their failure of process does not change the fact that a man who knows he is a man applied for a job that he knew was reserved for a woman. Where I work, misrepresenting yourself on an essential non-negotiable criteria of the recruitment process - including where the lie is by omission, as it is here - would, if it subsequently came to light, result in dismissal for gross misconduct, and the grounds for the gross misconduct would be dishonesty at the application stage.

I agree. The legality is debatable, but the gross misconduct of both Wadhwa and those involved in the recruitment is not.

Still, Charlie's right that framing it as 'lying to get the job' is unhelpful. It was simply applying to a role they were not qualified for, with the recruiter complicit in ignoring the unsuitability.

The lack of honesty isn't the fundamental problem here - it's the undermning of women's space and services.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis provide services to a variety of people, including transgender people so it could be argued that there is no requirement for the CEO to be female, given the varying demographics using the service.

However, those in charge of recruiting for this post chose to invoke the single sex occupational exemption. Meaning that only females were eligible to apply for the post. Wadhwa is not female so was not eligible to apply for the post - it doesn't really matter how well liked or hardworking Wadhwa is, they should never have been offered an interview.

However, I believe this situation was allowed to occur because the organisation is completely captured. There seems to be strong links to the SNP and as we've seen with other services, funding can be very contingent on how 'inclusive' the services offered are. The fact there are now no single sex services available at Rape Crisis Edinburgh means that it's not meeting the needs of women, but as that doesn't seem to have any bearing of funding, who cares right?

It also seems to me to have discriminated against other transwomen who may have wished to apply for the post - they would have seen the occupational exemption and thought, correctly, that they weren't eligible to apply for the post. Why was an exception made for Wadhwa?

We could say, without fear of contradiction, that MW chose not to divulge their true sex when initially entering the sector.

We could also state that MW is male, as he does not have a GRC.

We could also state that RCS advertised his current position as a female only post, citing the correct sections of the EA2010 to do so.

We could therefore assume that something is happening that we are unaware of, something that places both MW and RCS in a less than secure position and undermines the work RCS do.

As others have said, quite elegantly, if MW was as bothered about trans people and the violence done unto them then he would be using all of his contacts to provide adequate care and support form them. That he chooses instead to undermine the trust so many women placed in a number of crisis centres tells us a lot, probably more than MW would be able to understand or acknowledge.

I understand why you feel it was dishonest, OnlyTheLangOfTheTitberg.

There is no question about the legalities involved - it is neither dishonest nor unlawful for a candidate to apply for a position he or she is not qualified for as long said candidate does not misrepresent him- or herself. The Legal Feminist explored the legalities in this recent article:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/12/fostering-good-relations/

MW has been working for RCS for over seven years. MW has been working closely with the senior leadership of RCS for years.

MW cannot get a GCR in the UK, because MW was not born in the UK and the UK does not have an agreement to recognise the GRCs issued in India.

Be in no doubt whatsoever that those who employed MW knew exactly who they were employing. And why.

In my view, this appointment was a foregone conclusion and I believe it happened because of not in spite of who MW is. I think of it as an internal promotion. Hence dishonesty is not what springs to mind as there is none - MW's employer told us in a meeting that a male person becomes female (not merely a woman) on making a verbal statement of identity. They require no changes whatsoever, that is their minimum standard for trans inclusion. And MW meets it.

They also disagree with the Equality Act. Frankly, I'm astonished they even applied the occupational requirement at all, given that they believe there are no legal exceptions to trans inclusion and there was no need to apply it.

If you're in any doubt as to where the senior leadership of RCS stands, do remember that the CEO of RCS opposed giving female survivors the legal right to request an examiner of the same sex.

I have a few choice thoughts about a) any male candidate who applies for a job limited to female candidates under Schedule 9 and b) any employer who first invokes the occupational requirement to be a woman and then ignores it, but I refrained from expressing my rage because it's neither a helpful contribution to the issue nor is this good for me. (And I'm not talking about the MN moderation rules here.)

So please don't mistake my preference for an accurate assessment of the situation for even a fraction of acceptance for what is going on or an ounce of respect for any of the people involved. I have none.

@Waitwhat23

Edinburgh Rape Crisis provide services to a variety of people, including transgender people so it could be argued that there is no requirement for the CEO to be female, given the varying demographics using the service.

However, those in charge of recruiting for this post chose to invoke the single sex occupational exemption. Meaning that only females were eligible to apply for the post. Wadhwa is not female so was not eligible to apply for the post - it doesn't really matter how well liked or hardworking Wadhwa is, they should never have been offered an interview.

However, I believe this situation was allowed to occur because the organisation is completely captured. There seems to be strong links to the SNP and as we've seen with other services, funding can be very contingent on how 'inclusive' the services offered are. The fact there are now no single sex services available at Rape Crisis Edinburgh means that it's not meeting the needs of women, but as that doesn't seem to have any bearing of funding, who cares right?

It also seems to me to have discriminated against other transwomen who may have wished to apply for the post - they would have seen the occupational exemption and thought, correctly, that they weren't eligible to apply for the post. Why was an exception made for Wadhwa?

To answer your question imho it’s was allowed because MW is/ was a friend of the first minister, he joined the SNP, then went to the greens when that important vote didn’t go the way he wanted. A vile liar

We had an ex colleague of MW's on here recently who had worked with MW around the time of employment at Shakti. Said ex colleague had thought MW was female (and was shocked to find out otherwise).

Is there any indication of Shakti Women's Aid's position concerning female single sex exceptions for appointments? Wadwha was employed there first, returned to India and then took up a position on return despite having no discernable qualifications.

Guilty Feminist podcast interview transcribed by For Women Scotland.
(extract)
Deborah Frances-White:
So Mridul, I am extremely interested in your work in Scotland. You were born in India, but you migrated to Scotland. What made you start wanting to work in women's services?

Mridul Wadhwa:
I don’t think there was a time. So for any migrant listening. We have two here actually, including me, are three of us. It happened not to deliberately. When I graduated, I did a Masters at Edinburgh University, there was a job going at Shakti and I just completed a masters in training. And they needed someone to do some training. It wasn't by design. I just applied for this job, it looked interesting. Obviously, I had been around violence. I grew up in a home with domestic abuse. I'd experienced violence as a transwoman in India. And so it looked like somewhere I wanted to work. And I applied and I got the job. And I just stayed.
Like before working in women's services, I used to teach people how to sound American in India, in a call centre. So it is not by design that I got into this work. But I stayed by design because in fact, I moved back to India and then moved back again to work at Shakti Women’s Aid.

Deborah Frances-White:
How long have you been there now?
Mridul Wadhwa:
So I've worked in the women's sector now since 2005, so quite a few years. And when I worked at Shakti Women's Aid, you know, it was eye opening, not just to see an experience, like what does domestic abuse really look like, although I grew up in a home with domestic
abuse, but to see that, to see what it looks like, in the Scottish context, and then the further marginalisation of minority ethnic women, particularly immigrant women, because, you know, the all the messages were and in at least in the early part of my career, you know, Scotland was the big name to talk about domestic abuse and sexual violence a little bit more openly and that sort of stepped out of women's organisations into a little bit more into the mainstream of the public sector." (continues)

forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf

Shakti Women's Aid Company number SC273279
Incorporated 13 Sep 2004

"To provide specialist service to BME women and their children experiencing/fleeing domestic abuse"

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC273279/filing-history?page=5

2015 flyer, Shakti Women's Aid training for statutory and voluntary organisations, "Domestic Abuse and BME Women, Children and Young People". MW is listed as one of the contacts.

2016 Full Accounts suggest the Information and Training project was funded by Big Lottery.

Screenshot of March 2015 Trustees' report.

Case Study ScotsGov
(no date)

"Shakti Women’s Aid came into being in September 1985, when a small group of black women applied for funding, with the help and support of Edinburgh & Lothians Women’s Aid, to the (then) Edinburgh District Council, for funding to set up a separate refuge for BME women and their children fleeing from domestic abuse. In April 1986 the Edinburgh District Council Housing Department approved funding for office premises and two part-time workers, and by September 1986, the workers were in post.

Shakti’s definition of Domestic Abuse is wider than most, it not only recognises perpetrators as a partner or ex-partner, but also other family member such as in-laws.

Prior to the birth of Shakti BME women and their children were using the main stream women’s services, where some of them faced racism and discrimination. In addition, women found that the service provided to them was inappropriate and or did not meet their emotional, cultural, religious and practical support needs. It was recognised early on that a Specialist Refuge Accommodation was needed to allow BME women to overcome additional barriers such as communication, religious and dietary practices racial discrimination, which is unfortunately still a reality for many BME women living in Scotland, individual’s facing racism from people on the street to structural racism such as immigration laws, and other discriminatory practices which exist within mainstream service provision. In June 1987, the first refuge (Shakti) for BME women in Edinburgh was opened.

Current status

Due to the immigration rules Women with no recourse to public funds do not have the same rights as women who have indefinite to leave or is a British citizen. Consequently, these women may have to live in abusive relationships putting themselves and their children (if any) at risk of domestic abuse.

One of our biggest and most distressing challenges in recent years has been the marked increase in contact from women who, due to discriminative immigration rules, have ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ (NRPF), meaning they have no access to social housing, benefits and some of them have no right to work in the UK.

Women’s’ options are to return to their abusive partner or live on the streets, forcing them and their children into a very dangerous and unpredictable life.

We want to eradicate gender based violence and believe this must include all women, regardless of their immigration status. We believe that preventing these women from accessing services is a breach of their basic human right to be safe and live a life free from violence and fear.

In June 2016 three of our staff members completed a sponsored walk, raised around £1500 for these women.

In Scotland, for the past 20 years, Shakti has been at the forefront of campaigning and raising awareness about the problems faced BME women and their children who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) and are subjected to domestic abuse.

Shakti is a member of the National No Recourse to Public Funds Campaign Group and has been actively involved in the Campaign to Abolish No Recourse to Public Funds. The Campaign Group have been successful in the Home Office introducing Concession for Destitute Victims of Domestic Violence (concession allowing victims of domestic violence on spousal visas with no recourse to public funds (NRPF’s) to access benefits and public housing while they apply for settlement under the ‘domestic violence rule’). The campaign is on-going.

In 2016 Shakti organised a conference on this issue ‘Disparity in Britain. Changing Europe: the real experiences of women subjected to domestic abuse’."
onescotland.org/nacwg-news/case-study-shakti/

From the legal feminist article linked above -

'Discrimination claims?

No doubt the runner-up was a woman who was properly eligible for the role, and who did not get it because Wadhwa was given the job instead. That woman has not suffered direct sex discrimination: the reason she didn’t get the job was not because she’s a woman, but because Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre decided to ignore the occupational requirement it had specified and give the job to a man instead. There might be some way to frame an argument that the runner-up had suffered indirect discrimination by saying that the failure to operate the occupational requirement properly was a provision, criterion or practice that put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men – but that is already sounding convoluted and unnatural, and I admit I lack enthusiasm to analyse it further. I don’t think it would succeed.

The position of a man deterred from applying for the role (or who applied but was rejected on grounds of his sex) is more straightforward. A candidate in this position has suffered direct sex discrimination, which ordinarily would have been sanctioned by the occupational requirement. But in waiving the occupational requirement for the benefit of Wadhwa, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has at least arguably lost its protection. A discrimination claim must ordinarily be brought within 3 months of the act complained of, so it is unlikely that the Centre will now face a claim of this nature relating to the CEO post. But it appears intent on repeating the same error in its more recentadvertisementfor a Chief Operating Officer. That advert states that only women need apply, but also says:

“We are committed to a diverse and inclusive workplace and especially welcome applications from women of colour, trans women and disabled women.”

It seems, then, that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre proposes to apply the same modified occupational requirement – to be either a woman, or a man who self-identifies as a woman – to the role. It is not at all clear that it is entitled to do so, and an employment tribunal claim by a potential male candidate for the role who has been deterred by the schedule 9 stipulation must be a real possibility.'

I find this astounding.

The statement from EHRC in that article is an absolute disgrace too.

@ArabellaScott

We had an ex colleague of MW's on here recently who had worked with MW around the time of employment at Shakti. Said ex colleague had thought MW was female (and was shocked to find out otherwise).

Although to some extent the belief and shock could be at least in part be due to the context? Who would expect a man to be disguising himself as a woman in that position? Any doubt about his sex could have been internally dismissed as baseless.

Possibly in part due to a liberal guilt thing about perceptions of other races? I'm sure Wadwha leverages that for all it's worth...

So please don't mistake my preference for an accurate assessment of the situation for even a fraction of acceptance for what is going on or an ounce of respect for any of the people involved. I have none.

Not for a second, definitely no disagreement there.

Oh, yes, sorry, the ex-colleague's shock was due to the context, entirely. Quoting below:

'I worked with this person back in the mid 2000s, when they were at Shakti Women's Aid (I was at a partner organisation). They acted as a female advocate and activist in support for the extremely sensitive subject of DV and BME groups. They also provided training, were invited to speak at events and conferences, participated in consultations etc very much as a female on a very specifically female platform. I can't say I assumed they were anything but female and I don't think others did either, mostly because of the role they were in. I feel totally duped, like the work our team produced back then is now totally meaningless, fraudulent by this person's misrepresentation. I only just stumbled across this thread and I'm so angry!'

Hold on a minute Charley.

The rape crisis job stipulated female only using the exemption allowed in law.

A male applied.

Your point I think is that anyone can apply for anything (true).

That the recruiters can and may ignore one of the fundamental stipulations of criteria. (Seems a bit of a strange thing to do but ok).

If the person who misses the key stipulation is good then they can give them the job. (Ok).

But also WTF.

If they were happy to have a male for the job then why did they bother with the exemption?

What about the men who might have applied but saw it said female and rape crisis and so naturally didn't. Because the vast vast majority of people wouldn't apply for a job in a very sensitive area where they didn't meet a major criteria only allowed by law for s tiny minority of jobs.

The recruiters didn't rule them out. They knew this applicant- so knew male. If they had not, it would be because was not honest on app about sex. Either way. That's not on.

Hiring. Apparently a shoe-in. So why did they put the sodding female only on the ad then? They were happy to hire a male and sounds like they were always going to. So it was pointless.

Further.
If that's all fine then what. Anywhere this exception is used those of the wrong sex cann ignore it? And if their CV is strong etc then they might get the job? And that's not a problem? In which case why even bother having this exception available in the first bloody place.

I know you and on this I don't get where you're coming from tbh.

As for what they look like irrelevant. (Although feel for those who feel duped and that's a perfectly understandable reaction).

Their focus is on trans. That's not where it should be.

The fact they are trans is not exactly hidden now.

The attention drawn to the org is for all the wrong reasons.

Etc etc what I said earlier.

None of this is good for rape crisis in Edinburgh and possibly elsewhere.

I've asked all the same questions, NiceGerbil. Why bother applying the occupational requirement to be female, if you're going to ignore it? The link I posted upthread to the Legal Feminist blog explores the legalities (in short: it's not unlawful to apply, it's not unlawful to ignore this condition of employment and if there had been another male candidate who did not get the job because it was supposed to be for a female person, that unsuccessful male candidate could sue for discrimination on the basis of sex).

The point with the occupational requirement is that it works like all the other sex-based exceptions: it allows discrimination on the basis of sex. The Equality Act does not mandate their use, it allows their use. It's up to each organisation to apply it. RCS applied it and then ignored it. They can legally do so.

That's the facts and if we're objecting, we won't get far if we aren't doing so on the basis of the facts. So saying RCS acted unlawfully or MW was dishonest, these claims will be dismissed because they are demonstrably untrue.

What matters is that ethically speaking, they should not have done it. It's a betrayal of survivors that they have employed a male manager and it is abusive that they insist this manager is a woman and we're all bigots for objecting.

That's what we need to focus on.

It was dishonest though as I doubt they put male on the app.

And for me and I'm sure many people. It doesn't speak well of a person's ethics etc if they see no reason not to apply for a job in a really sensitive sector. When the info on the ad is exercising an exemption that is only allowed where absolutely necessary and they don't meet it.

So I do think these actions whether described as dishonesty or a lack of ethics or an attitude that the 'rules don't apply to them' are totally reasonable to talk about as they reveal something about this person's character/ thinking.

I mean yes I've been on threads where I say look this is a side track there's enough else to discuss.

But I'm on the other side here and I think it's relevant.

Oh hold on I think we're agreeing actually!

So that's good :)

'That's the facts and if we're objecting, we won't get far if we aren't doing so on the basis of the facts'

Whatever we do or say I get much doubt it will have any effect whatsoever on this person's position.

I reread my earlier post this afternoon. And I feel even more strongly. That this whole situation was obviously going to be divisive. Reported on. Etc. And bring rape crisis Edinburgh into the spotlight for this. This sort of controversy is the last thing they should be looking for and no way they didn't know it would happen.

Then there MW focus on trans. That's not what the org is about. It's about rape victims. Being in the press saying certain women are xyz essentially not welcome. Rape crisis is for victims of rape. Indicating that they care about the politics/ views of the rape victim is appalling.

Rape crisis knew there would be controversy, media interest, and that mw would publicly focus on trans issues and had issues with some types of women.

And so they did it.

Why FGS? Why court all this?