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

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

Twist twist twist.

In 2013, there was little expectation that a women requesting a female doctor could have a transitioned male doctor presented in reply to that request. Sex and gender was used interchangeably because people didn’t know that this could potentially happen.

So that is another misleading statement there.

But yes, there is a shortage of female medical examiners. The Scottish government needs to do something about it. Rather than scare traumatised women by announcing publicly there is a shortage and they should just suck up their trauma.

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?

thread from Glosswitch

One of the reasons I know I get so angry about men policing women's speech is because I grew up trying so hard to "crack the code" of avoiding violence. My teenage diaries are full of this obsession with "getting it right next time". >

When I look now, I can see there was never any "right answer". Perfectly sane behaviour could be deemed crazy one day, normal the next. The instability and changing rules were kind of the point, but I still felt such a failure for not finding the magic key. >

I see echoes of this in the way women twist their phrases, rephrase, concede parts of language, politely ask to keep hold of others, but no, the rules always change - because the central rule is, you will always end up in the wrong. >

The dogwhistle, red flag, look-what-you-made-me-do language is just whatever you say. It becomes that because it's you saying it.

twitter.com/glosswitch/status/1489965873003745282?t=TP87m-XMj6s4UBzACLhW6A&s=19

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.

Are you claming Sandy Brindley is not a woman? Why do your views represent womanhood and not hers?

In 2013, there was little expectation that a women requesting a female doctor could have a transitioned male doctor presented in reply to that request. Sex and gender was used interchangeably because people didn’t know that this could potentially happen.

This. It is legislators' job in the drafting stage to take account of changes in language and to attempt to predict and avoid potential issues with statutory interpretation.

@barleybadminton

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.

Are you claming Sandy Brindley is not a woman? Why do your views represent womanhood and not hers?

Thank you for demonstrating to us all why it is so essential that legislation be drafted carefully, with an eye to people misunderstanding, deliberately or otherwise.

@Goatsaregreat

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

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

Indeed. Dogwhistles available here: www.adulthumanfemale.store/product-page/dog-whistle

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

If it made no difference, why did anyone object to an amendment which simply clarified the fact that women should have the right to a same sex medical examiner after having been raped? TRA are constantly saying that nobody is saying that sex and gender identity are the same, so what was the problem with this amendment?

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.

I completely agree. No woman should ever feel pressured to accept a male HCP. However that HCP presents, no matter his 'inner feelings'. If a woman requests a female, she should be able to have a female, for whatever reasons she has; she shouldn't have to explain or justify her feelings.

She should also be confident that when a role is clearly marked as 'female only' and open only to females that the person who is given that role will be female. So she doesn't attend a service she has been told is female only, only to be confronted by a male.

Again; we have single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for a reason.

Thank you PurgatoryOfPotholes for the Glosswitch link. Parts of this thread demonstrate precisely what she's talking about.

@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?

Just quoting so more can see this

another Glosswitch thread

How should women talk about competing rights, female bodies, legitimate concerns, male violence etc. now that all of these phrases are deemed "dogwhistles" for whatever personal prejudices 'progressive' men are busy priding themselves on swallowing down?

They'd listen to us, obviously, if we had legitimate concerns. It's just that when we use the phrase "legitimate concerns" it's a red flag that we don't have any legitimate concerns.

It's the next level of the "talk about women's rights without mentioning the word 'woman'" game. You're allowed to talk politics as long as you don't use any of the vocabulary you require. Mime is also not permitted.

If you scour the twitter histories of 99% of men doing this policing, you'll find derogatory words to describe trans women, which they'll dismiss as something "everyone" was doing 10 years ago (no, we weren't). Yet now they're judging women for phrases like "female bodied".

twitter.com/glosswitch/status/1489959320787771398?t=XF9_miUNmRZpZVnyxB_xLg&s=19

So, what now? Mridul's partner is part of Sarco? Who get funding from the government to run refuges in Lanarkshire, as long as they accept male people? Which is why the single sex refuges in Lanarkshire shut down.

Gosh.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/mridrul-wadha-sacro-and-the-14-million

It's the next level of the "talk about women's rights without mentioning the word 'woman'" game. You're allowed to talk politics as long as you don't use any of the vocabulary you require. Mime is also not permitted.

Maybe we could try interpretative dance? Or is that verboten too?

Perhaps if we all repeat it until it is answered?

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?

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.

Er! I doubt ‘everyone’ believed this person was female. And we have people who did indeed ‘know’ the truth. ‘ But she worked in the sector for nearly 15 years without anyone even knowing she was trans ‘ is yet another false statement.

suggests she is more motivated by supporting survivors of sexual violence than cheer-leading for trans rights.

Listening to their recollection of their time as ‘Louise’, plus the statement on MN from a person who actually was counseled by this person who told us they spent a large portion of the time on their phone and not actually paying attention to the woman they were counselling, I would suggest you are wrong.

I mean, yes, some (maybe much) of their time previously was spent in ‘training’ and ‘managing’ roles too. But if your early life revolves around the power you feel over women you are supposed to be helping, I’d suggest this doesn’t change.‘Louise’ is very central to this person’s character.

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.

And what would have been the point of a poorly worded law being passed, without the discussion on how that loose language could have negative impacts on the people it was supposed to be helping?

Besides, it also made sure the message was that greater focus needed to be applied by that government to get more female medical examiners. Not pass a law expediently that moves the focus from the government’s need to provide a patient focused service.

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.

And this is where poster’s own political agenda and prejudice becomes clear. A poster who has had a long habit of denigrating and demonising women for fighting to maintain strong safeguarding protections and who are discussing the real and negative impacts of conflicts of rights for transitioned males with the rights for women.

‘Cheap shot’, ‘Own the trans’, ‘row against trans people’. Derisory language from a derisory poster. Like other words the poster uses against women posting on a feminist board- ‘prude’, ‘pearl clutcher’, ‘anti-trans’ and I could keep listing them. But, a poster who is heavily invested in shaming women who have disagreed with them.

A poster heavily invested in demonising women who have said that transitioned males are not women.

No! A feminist MP who recognised the negative impact of such ambiguity within that legislation and sought to strengthen the legislation, to make it stronger in the intention to provide women a medical examiner suiting THEIR needs.

If this creates issues for trans people, are you saying that pro-women = anti-trans? Something that extreme trans activists have been denying for so long.

I understand why Rape Crisis Scotland objected to it,

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?

although personally since it makes no difference I'd have paid it no heed and not given them the row they wanted.

So, barely would have steadfastly ignored the long term negative implications of the legislation because…. why? Women and girls aren’t worth clarity? Or women and girls deserve to have their needs ignored for the sake of ‘not saying the quiet big out loud’?

That a woman or girl in the future can be presented with someone of the same ‘gender’ as them after requesting an examiner of the same sex is bad enough. That is gaslighting. Then in their traumatised state, they do not understand that they actually have the right to say ‘no’ and insist a female medical examiner be found, seems to be something some posters want to allow to happen.

The clear language now means if a female is requested, that is what is expected.

Why would any poster not want that? Why would any poster have not have paid that clarity ‘heed’? And why would any poster frame correcting ambiguity in legislation in such negative light, since it supposedly made ‘no difference’? Progress?

It is extremely helpful to have the dishonesty of what happened with the clause in the bill so clearly demonstrated here.

Trans people are generally clear that sex and gender are not the same thing (this varies, but let’s suppose for a moment that is the dominant view). Gender identity can override your sex to the extent that it becomes more important, therefore trans women are women, trans men are men.

Women also believe that sex and gender are not the same thing. However, we (feminists) don’t believe that gender overrides sex, and that we need to continue to clarify that in public life, sex based language is important to protect and uphold womens rights.

Johann Lamont attempted to make sure that this distinction which we all supposedly agree on was clarified in law, but WAIT! No, it’s a transphobic dog whistle, it’s a cheap shot, it’s manufactured to piss off trans people.

You have to be kidding if you think this sort of disingenuous bait-and-switch convinces people of the moral rectitude of the cause.

So once again, we are back to: what sort of person believes that a shaking and traumatised woman on the worst day of her life should be denied the right to a medical examiner of her own sex, when that person is the ceo of a rape crisis centre?

It is pertinent to point out that most rapes and sexual assaults aren't violent attacks committed by strangers.

Most perpetrators are known to the victim, they are often related. Often the victim has been groomed and manipulated by the perpetrator over a number of years. Often the victim has no sense of her own boundaries, and she has no idea how to assert her boundaries.

Reporting rape and sexual assault is awful. It's frightening, overwhelming and traumatic. I know because I've done it.

Bearing all this in mind:

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?

And more importantly, what kind of mind makes the woman or girl even have to ask?

Why is a female examiner not offered by default so she doesn't have to be examined by the embodiment of her abuser?

I doubt ‘everyone’ believed this person was female.

We had a woman on mumsnet who had worked with MW in the belief MW was female. This poster was hurt, betrayed and appalled to find out MW was male.

Given that the role MW was working in was reserved for a female this was a reasonable assumption to make.

Well said Sophocles and 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?

Indeed.

Grim. Really grim.

So many powerful posts in the early hours. This is where the anti-women posters who come on here to smear women with their allegations of transphobic dog whistles and similar have some uses.
They enable women to clearly articulate the inherent misogyny that's evident in comments like this and to highlight the toxic undercurrent of distaste for women fighting for safeguards for women and children.

I'll quote from a member of the Survivors Reference Group who were involved in the consultation of the Bill -

“So I say this, with the utmost respect to all. When a female is sexually assaulted and seeks refuge at self referral, I will not stand for gender to be the priority. We must assume that a female survivor of a male attack would want to see a female examiner….If we need to be specific about seeing someone of the same sex on first contact after an attack you better believe that’s the fucking priority.“

I view anyone who believes that a rape survivor shouldn't be allowed to request (and that's what it was about - just the right to request, not demand) a female examiner to be absolutely beneath contempt.

I will never vote for the Scottish Greens, who voted en masse against the amendment, or any other MSP who put ideology above the needs of rape survivors.

I watched the amendment being debated live on the Scottish Parliament channel. Some of the speeches by MSP's who were against the amendment were an absolute disgrace. Nonsense like 'haven't liked the tone of the debate' was used as reasoning to block rape survivors from requesting who can examine them after being traumatised.

If there are not enough female medical examiners, then the Scottish Government need to train and hire more. But then, apparently the Occupational Requirement can just be ignored (as it was in MW's case) - that's why that situation is so galling. Women in Scotland are being let down so badly.

So many good posts here.

On the specific point of not enough female medical examiners - maybe this should be another thread, but I genuinely don't know if a medical examiner has to be a qualified doctor. So many medical functions are now carried out by other HCPs - nurses who've had specialist training in certain areas like prescribing, assorted specialists who assist with operations and rehab, for example. Paramedics are highly skilled at what they do too. Does this job need to be done by a qualified doctor? Would it be possible to train other HCPs to do it? I feel this should be a priority.

That would surely make it easier to ensure that a survivor of sexual assault can be examined by a person of the sex they feel comfortable with, which will usually be female.

Things have got very bad if we see these women as bigots for having an automatic trauma response to the idea of having a male person carry out an intimate examination in the immediate aftermath of an attack. If we went back ten years and told people this day would come, we'd be laughed at for fearmongering.