Minister for Equalities invites Mridul Wadhwa to meeting to discuss LGBT+ hate crime

[Arran2024]

https://x.com/oliviabaileymp/status/2032154723512430645?s=20

The meeting features several trans women. Wadhwa famously applied for a job reserved for women at the Edinburgh rape crisis centre, told women who weren't happy with men in their support groups to "reframe their trauma" and was forced out after an investigation.

Perhaps, I know this is a long shot, but perhaps Wadhwa (if you say his name twice it sounds like a sad trombone) was there to discuss hate crimes committed by the TQ+? He must be something of an expert. He could have brought his folder.

I think they only see people through the lens of particular 'identities'. So, 'Woman' becomes an identity rather than a living and breathing human reality.
Someone is only 'a woman' when having that particular identity gets them attention, sympathy or privileges. And you are only black if you are consciously being 'Black', and you are only gay when you are performing/advertising 'gayness'.

Belcher was there too wasn’t he?

Did the man down the corner get identified?

Did this minister genuinely believe that she had balanced male and female representation in this meeting?

Or did she think that LGBT+ hate was mostly just about men?

Yes to Belcher. Didnt recognise anyone else.

Do you honestly think the Ministers do their own invites?

it’s civil servants you need to share your ire at.

BP is GC btw.

Well. In fairness, there for the straight able bodied not yet old ones at least. The old, disabled and gay ones are not quite as binned off as women and gay/disabled children are, but it's close.

Wtf does that man know about LGB people? The only thing that will be of any interest to him is the T and only then the ones who are men. LGB people as usual merely the mirror on which he projects himself.

Labour really need to go.

I read somewhere someone said he is from an org called Galop, which actually looks relevant https://www.galop.org.uk/

This may be a deflection from the original topic of the thread, but who are the billionaires supporting anti-trans activities that Mridul refers to in his Instagram profile? Couldn't they be persuaded to pop in here and dispense a packet of Tunnocks, perhaps?

That’s clearly him, I was just going to post.

The 'billionaires' probably means JK Rowling, just sounds more impressive if you pretend she's part of a small squad, and 'supporting anti-trans activities' probably means her philanthropy in providing accessible resources to women that man doesn't care about and doesn't want them to have, such as a refuge, and enabling women to stand up to men's wrongdoing in law and to have their legal rights and justice.

Ah, yes of course. I was imagining a cabal of Gates, Schwab, Soros, Buffet et al. supporting GC activism worldwide. But it's our very own J.K. Rowling.

Oh no, even GALOP, which used to be so grass-roots & front-line in supporting lesbians and gays, is now T as well😒

I don't want to give the impression that trans people don't deserve to be supported if they are the victims of abuse or attack, they deserve the same support as anyone else. But why from lesbian and gay groups?

The trans community seems to have a lot of energy, why don't they divert some of it into setting up their own support groups, which would have the advantage of being specific to the needs of trans people?

"BP is GC btw".

Do you mean Bridget Phillipson? So is she just incapable of instructing the trans captured civil servants from publishing the EHRC guidelines to the SC judgement because the men determined to access girls and women undressing are unhappy about them?
Or have they just tied her up in a cupboard and gone on leave (for nearly a year)?

I think cuckooing all feminist and LGB groups has been key to the TRAs’ success globally.

Yes. Along with relentlessly targeting every organisation and group that works with children - especially vulnerable children.
Never forget that looked after children in the care of the state were one of the first groups targeted in the UK. Not just the individual isolated & vulnerable children, but their foster carers, social workers and staff in children's homes.

I am sure what he does is relevant.

However, the question is, were female people ie. lesbians and female bisexual people and female transgender people adequately represented at that table, and represented by female people?

Still a thing unfortunately. My daughter is lesbian and is in court next month after being harassed on a train last week after the guy saw her kissing her female date before boarding. He repeatedly told her he was going to 'punch her in the fanny' and spat on her. Luckily the female train conductor intervened and arranged for the BTP to wait for him at the next major station.

I do not however think that Trans should be lumped in with LGB. She has had numerous men in dresses claiming to be lesbians on gay dating sites asking for a date and throwing a wobbler when she says no because she's an actual lesbian.

So you are saying that ministers do not have the ultimate authority over who sits in on meetings such as this? That they simply rubber stamp significant decisions such as this?

I am sure that these ministers will be happy that they are simply figure heads and have no authority.

That’s awful, your poor daughter @Holdmeclosertinydancer2018

Women are now back to being one of the most vulnerable due to men infiltrating our spaces.

There were about 980 or so comments - I read through the first few pages.

The vast majority of the comments were well reasoned, sensible commentary pointing out facts and trying to understand what the government thought that they were doing.

Many of the comments were from the old fashioned LGB voices asking why they were not represented.

I did not see any comments that were abusive or expletive filled

Just facts and logic

I did not see any comments in support of the junior minister's meeting

That's awful - shows just how much the "queer bashing" mentality still exists

That is appalling, your poor DD.

Cuckooing is a good term for it; it's never a movement that believes in building anything of its own, just colonisation of whatever might serve, and no conscience in the slightest about what is done to the service or resource appropriated, or the users it was meant for, or destroying it in the course of making use of it. Stonewall is the classic example.

Very early on in all this someone referred to this activism approach using the word 'parasite' and the political activist movement went berserk. With hindsight, that really touched a nerve for very obvious reason.