Times article Mridul Wadhwa placed on 'leave' in May.

[Mollyollydolly]

Well they kept that quiet.

Archive version of The Times article below.

"The chief executive of a rape crisis support centre has been put on leave pending an investigation into its “Kafkaesque” treatment of staff.

Mridul Wadhwa, a man who identifies as a woman, was sent home in May by the board of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) after being identified as the “invisible hand” behind a “heresy hunt” designed to force out Roz Adams, a counsellor with gender-critical views.

The outcry over Wadhwa’s behaviour intensified following the sentencing this week of Cameron Downing, a coercive and manipulative male sex offender, who identified as non-binary and claimed to have received extensive support from ERCC."

archive.ph/y5f2L#selection-2217.0-2225.235

I'll be sending that article to my recently-elected Labour MP who thinks that there should be single-sex facilities for women, but also thinks that the process to get a GRC should be simplified, and doesn't see the conflict. MR is clearly on the wrong side of the law here, as are the people who employed him, because he doesn't have a GRC. But according to the EHRC guidance it would have been OK if he'd had a GRC, and under Labour's proposals, all that would be needed for him to get one would be the word of one sympathetic doctor. Basic safeguarding needs to be restored, and it's not compatible with making it easier to get a GRC.

Thanks for posting this op. Maybe sending this article will be the final final peak for my DH. I've still not convinced him that it this is a feature not a bug. He just doesn't get it yet. He's not shutting me up now (as in changing the subject which he used to do when I initially peaked and was so outraged I needed to vent) he now does listen but as a man can he ever really get it? How much of a deep, evil betrayal this is of women? I'm not sure. But I'm sending it to him anyway. Another example of what this really means.

Absolutely this. The ones who gave evidence at the ET were shocking, utterly captured and unaware of the basics of trauma-informed care for women.

True, though, isn't it.

My dh gets it as much as a man can. I hope yours listens this time. We have a dd, which helps.

Why hasn't he resigned yet? If he cared about vulnerable women, why wouldn't he do that to protect the charity and the vulnerable women it serves? Instead there's no one doing a crucial job and he's getting paid from charity funds to do fuck all apart from continue to damage the reputation and status of the charity. Whilst he says on, many will refuse to donate to the organisation. It smacks of wanting to take ERCC down with him.

@INeedAPensieve mine took a while but now he gets it so much I wish he'd shut up about it!

Yours sounds as if he's on his way.

My DP is the same. Two years ago told me I was obsessed, transphobic and wrong. He is slowly seeing what I see but still suffers from male privilege and still doesn’t really see what the problem is at times. He now has a granddaughter. We shall see if he gradually changes his views.

He was born in India and can't get a British GRC unless he has an Indian one first, and in India for a man to get a GRC he must have his bits snipped. So no I really don't think he will be rushing out to get 1

He is I do think he is getting it. He listens to the rest of politics and reads Reddit and seems still to trust the BBC and Guardian though and will sometimes make it sound as if I'm being unhinged. I tried to tell him about the entitlement of Alastair Campbell but he just shrugged. However this stuff is so serious surely, surely he must get it now???

It's interesting isn't it? I peaked really quickly (I find it a sort of amusing anecdote that what peaked me was a BBC article about young lesbians being forced to have sex with men claiming they were women as well as finding out why Hadley Freeman who I loved reading had really left the guardian). So the two news outlets that are totally captured (BBC and Guardian) which i read daily as a lefty woman were the ones that peaked me! They'd be raging! Haha. Anyway, my DH is taking his time but I think he is getting there. It is taking a while. I didn't take very long. That's the difference I think. The immediate danger and impact to vulnerable women and to me as a woman was obvious so I peaked quickly. His male centred brain isn't getting there as fast.

I really hope mridul is sacked soon it's an awful situation.

"The EHRC recently clarified/confirmed that it would be legal to exclude an applicant who asserts an opposite sex gender identity but doesn’t have a GRC from a job role to which single sex exemption/ exceptions apply."

But isn't this still the root of the larger problem? That there's still this legal fiction of the GRC, which gives the bearer entry to (the opposite) single-sex spaces, even though it's their gender NOT THEIR SEX that has been recognised as having changed?

Requiring a GRC is better than not/self-ID, but it's still a ludicrous legal loophole that can be - and is - exploited left, right and centre.

My DP only said last night that he appreciated me educating him on this so early on and that I was away ahead of the curve. He gets it. But he is a goodun.

I think trial by media is far worse than handling things confidentially.

Ah, that's good to know. And enlightening.

Thank you.

I'm not sure I believe that, because it would be discrimination if he was a British citizen.

Is the issue to do with residency and passport holding rather than GRC?

Ha, mine too. Can I send him to yours to chew the ear off your DH?!

Yes. Enquiry.

He isn't a British citizen he still has his Indian passport, he did a long woa is me article about it a few years ago, I'm sure that he could get a British 1 if he was a citizen though I'm not sure how that would work as a British gender panel can't order India to issue him a new birth certificate when he doesn't qualify under their rules

He wouldn't need to use a birth certificate for much if he had a British Passport though. Especially if you have a British driving licence.

I think this about priorities. The priority isn't about a GRC ultimately.

You can't woe is me, if ultimately 'being a woman's is that crucial to who you are.

Yes, the root of all this is the question of whether any males, whatever their “special” circumstances, should be given access to women and girls in a state of undress.

There are many men, it seems, who are energetically and vehemently in favour of the answer to that question being i) yes, and ii) yes, without any restrictions whatsoever.

What I’m wondering is who holds a board of trustees to account?

This should be the charity commission (not sure what it is called in Scotland) and the funders, and if not held to account by Rape Crisis Scotland there are serious grounds for cancelling their membership of the federation which is meant to imply any federated group is competent and professional.

However, at the time of MW appointment, not only did some of us contact the Scottish Charity commission but also funders. None of whom took any notice what so ever. And I dont think this is because they have all been transed but many funders and charity overseers just do not relate to, bother to understand or respect women.

Not foregtting the other group that claims to represent women's services in the charity sector in Scotland (sorry again name doesnt come to mind) at a large meeting all applauded a woman being thrown out to the meeting for daring to challenge Nicola Sturgeon about sex being biological etc.. (The SNP had stipulated that groups in receipt of funding should be trans inclusive.)

So when the whole climate created by those with power is one that not only just doesn't listen to women but also derides them it is quite clear that those promoting the trans agenda think they can not be challenged.

I suspect MW is waiting for the internal review (which ERCC failed to tell anyone about) before seeing what next step to take.

And has a strong case that all along, not only those who carried out the employment procedure and those directly working with MW were fully aware of his status as a TW and that it did not and does not meet and legal criteria in the UK.

And if fired, would probably be able to claim compensation because the employers allowed if not encouraged the direction he took as the lead employee in the organisation.

https://www.oscr.org.uk/
Scottish Charity Regulator