Mridul Wadwha and the thought police

[IamSarah]

Great article in Spiked Online about Mridul Wadwha's latest shenanigans:

www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/01/the-thought-police-are-here/

To briefly summarise:

• Mridul was born male

• Mridul is legally male with no GRC

• Mridul is the CEO of Edinburgh Rape crisis

• Mridul claims women who want female only rape crisis services are bigoted and should 'reframe their trauma'

• The CEO of a domestic violence charity Nicola Murray stopped referring women to Mridul's rape crisis service due to Mridul's misogyny

• Mridul reported Nicola Murray to the police for committing a hate crime

• The police actually visited Nicola Murray to question her thinking

Would a person who cares for women insist on being the counsellor in this situation?

When my daughter was 14 she was raped by 4 men in scotland, where JK lives. When we specified the need for a female counsellor our agencies thought it was ok for a self ID Twoman with no GRC to counsel her as TWAW. Do you think maybe JK knows more than you do #AskDanielRadcliffe

There are images of Kalli without a severed head I believe. The choice was deliberate and threatening. No I think it is inappropriate to post it in this way.

Kali is almost always pictured with a severed head in Hindu iconography. Why should she sanitise her religion and culture because it upsets you?

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

Are you hoping to bill us for this comparative religion course? Because I didn't sign anything and I'm not paying.

@Helleofabore

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

No more needs to be said. I think we just post this over and over again.

Indeed.

@barleybadminton

Tell us barley do you think that Mridul Wadhwa has cares for women?

I think she cares for all women, including trans women. She wouldn't have lasted five minutes in the sector if she didn't.

I think she probably does care about victims of sexual violence, but it seems to me that her care is uneven. I don't believe that she truly cares for women she regards as bigots. To me, that is a very substantial problem with her holding the position she does (I would say the same of anyone if they were making political points about victims/survivors, btw).

I also suspect she may care more about trans issues. Which is fine in theory (she has every right to be passionate about that), but represents a conflict of interest in practice.

What do you think, @barleybadminton ?

Isn't the key point that MW is a known liar, MW lied to get the job?

Well barley in Scotland you don’t get funding unless you are trans inclusive
That’s how it works in Scotland

Sorry for us women in Scotland who have no place to go but hey you crack on barley.

Not caring about us women in Scotland

MW left SNP as the whips supported the amendment that woman in Scotland after they have been raped or sexually assaulted to have a female forensic officer examine them

You crack on barley not caring about women in Scotland

Crack on. We women in Scotland see you and we see MW

I think she probably does care about victims of sexual violence, but it seems to me that her care is uneven. I don't believe that she truly cares for women she regards as bigots. To me, that is a very substantial problem with her holding the position she does (I would say the same of anyone if they were making political points about victims/survivors, btw).

I doubt she cares very much at all about the people who have spent the last two years bombarding her with abuse on social media, or pwho invent lies about her such as those claiming she complained to the police about Nicola Murray or those who think they have the right to castigate her for using sacred iconography from her religion and culture.

I would imagine in her work she is very different. It's common when doing that kind of work to have to work with people who hold prejudices, whether based race, religion, sexuality or transgender status. And they will be challenged, that is normal in the sector because you cannot have users whose prejudices make the space unsafe for others. But that doesn't mean you don't care about them - far from it. I've worked with long term rough sleepers covered in BNP tattoos, and I cared about them, and talked to them about it, and made clear what was acceptable on the project and what wasn't and actually over time sometimes they modified their views.

I would hope that if someone genuinely felt too traumatised to work with a trans counsellor Mridul would find a way to facilitate that - I doubt she does much face to face work in her current role anyway. But she runs a trans inclusive project, if people were making derogatory remarks about transpeople then it is her duty to address that.

I also suspect she may care more about trans issues. Which is fine in theory (she has every right to be passionate about that), but represents a conflict of interest in practice.

I don't accept it represents a conflict of interest as it happens. But she worked in the sector for nearly 15 years without anyone even knowing she was trans so that suggests she is more motivated by supporting survivors of sexual violence than cheer-leading for trans rights.

@barleybadminton

I think she probably does care about victims of sexual violence, but it seems to me that her care is uneven. I don't believe that she truly cares for women she regards as bigots. To me, that is a very substantial problem with her holding the position she does (I would say the same of anyone if they were making political points about victims/survivors, btw).

I doubt she cares very much at all about the people who have spent the last two years bombarding her with abuse on social media, or pwho invent lies about her such as those claiming she complained to the police about Nicola Murray or those who think they have the right to castigate her for using sacred iconography from her religion and culture.

I would imagine in her work she is very different. It's common when doing that kind of work to have to work with people who hold prejudices, whether based race, religion, sexuality or transgender status. And they will be challenged, that is normal in the sector because you cannot have users whose prejudices make the space unsafe for others. But that doesn't mean you don't care about them - far from it. I've worked with long term rough sleepers covered in BNP tattoos, and I cared about them, and talked to them about it, and made clear what was acceptable on the project and what wasn't and actually over time sometimes they modified their views.

I would hope that if someone genuinely felt too traumatised to work with a trans counsellor Mridul would find a way to facilitate that - I doubt she does much face to face work in her current role anyway. But she runs a trans inclusive project, if people were making derogatory remarks about transpeople then it is her duty to address that.

I also suspect she may care more about trans issues. Which is fine in theory (she has every right to be passionate about that), but represents a conflict of interest in practice.

I don't accept it represents a conflict of interest as it happens. But she worked in the sector for nearly 15 years without anyone even knowing she was trans so that suggests she is more motivated by supporting survivors of sexual violence than cheer-leading for trans rights.

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

Gotta ignore that barley person

So talking shite

I would hope that if someone genuinely felt too traumatised to work with a trans counsellor Mridul would find a way to facilitate that - I doubt she does much face to face work in her current role anyway. But she runs a trans inclusive project, if people were making derogatory remarks about transpeople then it is her duty to address that.

Obviously this person has not in the past facilitated female only provision for traumatised victims. They have also spoken ouragainst women having the right to have a same sex medical examiner after rape. So why do you think that this person is a suitable CEO for a rape crisis centre role which was supposed to be restricted to a female only applicant.

And how can MW deny women wanting a female examiner when they have been raped or sexually assaulted

You never answered that barley ?

if people were making derogatory remarks about transpeople then it is her duty to address that.

''Derogatory remarks'' like ''I'd rather discuss my trauma with a biological woman, please'', and ''I'd rather a biological woman examines me, please'' after being raped by a man?

What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

That's not what that row was about as I'm sure you know. It happened because a gender critical MP hijacked the bill in an attempt to insert a transphobic dogwhistle. As the head of Rape Crisis Scotland explains:

Johann Lamont MSP has this week lodged an amendment to the bill, to change the reference from “gender” to “sex”. It is not clear what she is trying to achieve with this – some commentators see this as a development which would exclude trans women doctors from carrying out forensic examinations.

If this is the intent of the amendment, it will not achieve this. No concerns about the use of the term gender were raised when the original bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2013; the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Replacing one word with another will have no impact on the availability of female doctors.

The real issue

The amendment misses the point – the key issue facing women in Scotland accessing forensic examinations is not trans women carrying out these examinations. As far as we know there are no trans examiners in Scotland.

The real issue is that in four out of ten examinations women face being examined by a male doctor. If they request a female doctor, they may be told that this is possible but will involve a considerable delay. Most women are so desperate to wash that they then agree to the exam being done by a male doctor. This is unjust and unfair.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/forensic-medical-services-bill-important-step-forward-treatment-rape-survivors-scotland-gender-row-misses-point-sandy-brindley-3061543

Say what.

See my question up there

What do you think

The amendment went through

Don’t just cut and paste stuff

Omg why on a Saturday night when Scotland won the rugby 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🙌🏽🙌🏽🔥

Am I speaking to a person who gives no fucks about women in Scotland

As said before crack on barley.

Round and round the mulberry bush we go!

If the amendment would make no difference, then why the passionate opposition? We know there is a shortage of female doctors. We know women are pressured by circumstances into having a male examiner.

We want women to have the legal right to request one. What kind of mind can deny that right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?

I would hope that if someone genuinely felt too traumatised to work with a trans counsellor Mridul would find a way to facilitate that

Have you seen anywhere any evidence that it is whether or not someone is trans or not that is causing issues?

And even then, you'd have to have an agreed definition of 'trans', gender etc, to be able to establish that.

Under current information from stonewall etc, most people on here are trans, so it's unlikely it's "being trans" that is a problem.

As well you know, because you've been told repeatedly, yet you dishonestly pretend you haven't.

Greetin faced wean. See you

BINGO
Using the word sex instead of gender is a transphobic dogwhistle

Honestly barley - you really are the gift that keeps on giving

You should be ashamed of yourself @barleybadminton. You clearly have no idea what the amendment was about if you're reducing it to a 'transphobic dogwhistle'.

@Goatsaregreat

BINGO Using the word sex instead of gender is a transphobic dogwhistle

Honestly barley - you really are the gift that keeps on giving

Yes that's how some people perceived it. It was unnecessary, it neither changed the law or the bill and didn't address the fundamental problem of the lack of female examiners. It was a cheap shot by a gender critical SNP to turn a crucial bill into an excuse to own the trans which ended up shifting the debate away from the real problem and turning into yet another row about trans people. I understand why Rape Crisis Scotland objected to it, although personally since it makes no difference I'd have paid it no heed and not given them the row they wanted.

But it's untrue that Rape Crisis opposed this amendment because they wanted to force rape survivors to have to use a trans examiner - they opposed the bill being hijacked to make a cheap shot at trans people.

@Goatsaregreat

BINGO Using the word sex instead of gender is a transphobic dogwhistle

Honestly barley - you really are the gift that keeps on giving

I believe the issue is that when women find language to articulate what we want despite the barriers, it is inconvenient. Therefore it will be deemed offensive.

It's not what we say that's the problem. The problem is that it's us expressing disagreement.

Glosswitch had a great thread on that today.

Women not being entitled to request a female examiner is also a fundamental problem.

What kind of mind can deny the right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?