Reports Roz Adams successful in her action against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

[LargeSquareRock]

https://x.com/journalismseen/status/1792305714595012730?s=46&t=f8U9xaap9RM6pcBCdpsFIA

Excellent news and looking forward to seeing the judgement.

No but if you don’t admit to recognising sex you are going to be at odds with those who do recognise it and say it is important.

A ''Reefer'' as Dad used to call them.
Krafty vaporiser is the only way to go these days!

Edit: Great news about the Rape Crisis centre.. Women ought to be allowed to choose a female {XX} counsellor if they have been raped.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-rape-centre-boss-carried-32848117

Oh wow, the judgement is absolutely excoriating.

Have been entirely unproductive for a morning reading it, but MW surely has to resign after this.

Just reported in the headlines on Radio 4 WATO that ERCC were wrong and MW conducted a heresy hunt!

Mridul Wadhwa, who identifies as a woman despite being born a man,

Ooof, that's quite the headline.

Mridul Wadhwa, who identifies as a woman despite being a man would be correct in the headline

BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo

Indeed. I like gender gentile though if I must be labelled.

But probably won't.

One of the characteristics of this movement is a complete lack of empathy with anyone else's feelings or needs. It's the same reason why males who want to be women have no shame in beating female people in sports.

In their head, MW is the victim.

Just watched 1 o'clock news on BBC1.

Not a dickie bird.

One might almost believe the the BBC is a captured institution.

Congratulations to Roz! What a brilliantly clear and damning outcome - I hope it helps a lot with the general overtoppling of this unscientific policymaking.

Extreme trans activism makes no distinction between sex and GI. If you ID as a woman your sex is also female. It doesn’t make any logical sense but that’s what they say.

Yes but the fact it doesn't make logical sense is important and is what so often trips them up.

Why on Earth would MW want rape victims to "reframe their trauma" if MW really thought TW are 100% women and there's no such thing as sex, only men and women as defined by saying so? If MW and other adherents to GI consider a TW to be a woman, then they wouldn't be smearing Roz as a TERF and bigot. They'd simply be wondering why she is mistaking a woman for a man. The fact that this is all about trans, and the concept of "trans exclusion" being invoked when someone thinks that biological sex matters, shows that MW understands that MW is a TW, and that to be a TW you have to be male.

Sarah Phillimore has been doing a good breakdown of the many, many salient points, on Twitter:

https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1792486901741449462

(Eg)
These men are a current and active threat to the rule of law, democracy and the safety of women.

Something that is on my mind regarding both this case and the upcoming one on Brighton.

Roz won this case in part because she was discriminated against for holding gender critical views. But the action that she took was to suggest an email wording regarding the sex/gender of a non-binary colleague to reassure a (presumably also gender critical) service user that her counselor was not male. And that seems entirely reasonable even if you are not gender critical - to understand that someone who uses your service may have different beliefs from you or to use words in a way that is different to you, and to adapt your response so that it is understandable by them.

I think this may be in some ways why the judgement is referring to the "extreme" nature of the gender ideology at ERC: because it does not admit the validity of an alternative viewpoint. If a service user has religious/ideological dietary restrictions and is asking about whether they can eat refreshments provided at a therapy group, it would be obtuse (and maybe verging on harassment) for an employee to tell them to "Eat whatever you like" or that "None of the food is poisoned." But the ERC suggested reply to the service user that "We don't employ men" is dismissive and obtuse in the same way - because it refuses to tolerate that idea the service user may be using a different frame of reference / belief system for their question.

I think the problem is that gender identity is not part of trans thinking in its original form. The lobbyists for the GRA and their intellectual heirs consider that their acquired gender/legal sex is and always has been their true biological sex, and that the medical evidence for this lies in their body-incongruent gender identity (in the strict child development sense only). They wanted to be able to "correct" their original birth registration as was possible before the April Ashley case. The GRA is transphobic by creating the GRC and GRR instead. 🙄

Most normal people (you, me, and the Tribunal) instead think of trans people as claiming a gender identity which is sex-incongruent. They're entitled to legal protection, but sometimes their sex still matters. Roz Adams seems to think this. Her 'transphobia' lies in treating gender identity and sex as two separate things, instead of everybody having only one thing - acquired gender/legal sex - that need ever be considered.

The extremism criticized by the Tribunal is mainstream TRA thinking, but it's previously been obscured by a lot of fluffy 'born in the wrong body' language, which is why it's taken them by surprise.

Also, they were bullies.

Finally appeared on the BBC News website

Rape centre worker wins tribunal over gender-critical beliefs www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo

Spot on.

These particular men who take from women what belongs to women must surely have very high levels of narcissistic personality traits. The chance they will reflect and change their behaviour is zero. MW has got h* way now and has one less TERF in h* organisation.

Well good news for all of us! Must be a huge relief to Roz Adams.

I wonder what the implications are for the Sussex Survivors Network discrimination case which is (still!) chugging very slowly towards the courts. This is about discrimantaion against a client (not a staff member) and Roz Adams case doesn't set a precedent (not an appeal case) but her tribunal seemed very clear that clients have the right to know what sex they're dealing with and to have their preferences respected. (There's a crowdfunder for anyone interested, try googling Sussex Survivors Network Sarah Summers)

So I'm very curious on what grounds Sussex plan to defend themselves now!

Wading in...
I think that the Tribunal meant that this version of gender identity theory is extreme.

There are other versions - for example the belief espoused by Hilary Cass - that we all have a sense of being female/male which may be congruent or incongruent with our physical body. That's one (wrong IMO but) relatively harmless version. Being gnc is a possible reason for the incongruence but no social transition, medical or surgical pathway is advised except in very extreme circumstances. GI theory is a good name for this belief and this might pass the WORIADS test, IMO.

However, there is an authoritarian version which asserts that gender identity is always more important than sex, that everyone has a gendered soul and must believe that they have a gendered soul (except for the people who are allowed to be gender fluid etc), TWAW, TMAM and no dissent is tolerated, trans privileges trump women's human rights. This is the dominant version. This is the extreme version and Sloejelly is absolutely correct that this extreme version, which amounts to an ideology, is the version being pushed in schools and our national institutions and which attracts the dangerous personality types. This does not pass the WORIADS test. And absolutely, Prevent should be involved.
Edited to bold Sloejelly.

It is indeed a great result. Further, just imagine how much it cost ERC to defend their own stupidity, taking away much needed resources from female rape survivors. They deserve to go bankrupt.

Me too. It gets to the point. Everybody can understand what that means without convoluted explanations. And it doesn't use the word "gender" which I am starting to hate with a passion.

GI is analogous to a religious belief, the parallels are very obvious. A particularly intolerant religion too.

"if you want to follow the law to its boring detail"?????

So according to him if a law is "boring" it does not have to be followed? How stupid is this man? He says out loud that his feelings, including his "boredom", take presence over the law of the land (he is highly disingenuous in saying that though, it is nothing to do with boredom and he knows it).

MW is not stupid. But MW is massively arrogant and entitled and has been enabled by a lot of people - mostly women - who should know better.