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.

Thanks ArabellaScott

"commissioned by Zero Tolerance"

You know what is coming now, before I even post it . . .

About us
Zero Tolerance is a Scottish charity working to end men’s violence against women by tackling its root cause: gender inequality.

We began in 1992 with a ground breaking and radical Edinburgh-based poster campaign. The campaign successfully brought the issue of violence against women out from behind closed doors and into public consciousness by asserting that violence against women is never acceptable.
https://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/about/

(Zero Tolerance Position Statements - only two, the second one is about Abortion, but top billing goes to men:)

Position statements

Inclusion and respect of trans women
It is our position that trans and non-binary rights are integral to, and contribute to, feminism. Scotland’s violence against women services provide trans inclusive services and trans inclusion plans have been in place since 2012.

This inclusive approach has not given rise to any concern or challenges. Rather, trans women have added to our movements through their support, voluntary work and as staff members. You can find out more about our stance on our blog.

Violence against women, homophobia and transphobia are all rooted in misogyny. We are committed to working with partner LGBTQI+ organisations to end this inequality, discrimination and violence.
https://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/vaw-position-statements/

Our response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on adding the characteristic of Sex into hate crime legislation
Posted on October 7 2025

We are disappointed with the proposal to add sex as a characteristic to existing hate crime legislation.

The Scottish Government committed to implementing the recommendations of the Independent Working Group on Misogyny, published in ‘Misogyny: A Human Rights Issue’, for a standalone Misogyny Bill. Adding the characteristic of Sex into hate crime legislation is an ineffective response to rising misogyny and fails to protect and ensure the rights of women and girls.

Reasons for a standalone Misogyny Bill

• A Misogyny Bill better protects women as a majority group, as opposed to hate crime legislation, which is designed to protect minorities
• A Misogyny Bill better recognises the complexity and nuance of misogyny, which is not only portrayed by acts of hate but also of prejudice and inequality
• A Misogyny Bill will better protect the rights of trans women who experience misogyny and transphobia at the same time
• A Misogyny Bill recognises that the issue of misogyny is not gender neutral - women experience misogyny because we are women. The approach outlined by the government does not recognise this.

Misogyny is on the rise in Scotland.

We call on the Scottish Government to heed the evidence which has been laid out by equalities organisations since 2018, and bring a Misogyny Bill to Parliament.

Read our full consultation response.

https://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/news/news-events/our-response-to-the-scottish-governments-consultation-on-adding-the-characteristic-of-sex-/

Our staff

(No photos, just "female avatars". No indication whether any of these staff are actually male.)
https://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/about-staff/

Our funders

We are grateful to the following organisations who fund our work and allow us to challenging violence against women.

We receive funding for our core work from the Scottish Government Equally Safe (Violence Against Women and Girls) Fund.
https://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/about-funders/

This weird idea that transwomen experience misogyny really pisses me off and makes no sense at all unless you’re a fervent twaw believer. Nobody who’s going to be violent or abusive towards transwomen does so because they think they’re a woman, quite the opposite.
Ffs, is there nothing they won’t appropriate?

quite the opposite

Exactly. The idea it’s misogyny is ludicrous in the extreme and completely counter-factual.

While they can do experience discrimination and hostility, it is not because they are women but because the person who is hostile knows they are not the woman they’re pretending to be.

🎯 exactly!!

This man hates women.

Applying for and taking a role in a rape crisis centre for women and then telling the victims of male sexual violence to "reframe their trauma" is disgusting beyond belief.

How any woman gives this man with a woman fetish the time of day is beyond me.

There are sadly many, many women who are falling over themselves to affirm men who openly display their fetish..

Found an archive of the first few pages of comments from the deleted tweet.
The image is long and thin but will hopefully be readable if zoomed in

Have you got a link to the archive? The image is blurred when zoomed in.

Why why why do they do this though? It absolutely makes no sense!
Fear? Woke points? Courting approval from TRAs?
What's in it for WOMEN to be so sucky uppy??
(Not a real phrase I know but I'm so fed up with this s*e and I'm tired 🤬)

It is a local archive of the webpage so no web link unfortunately
Will try as .gif otherwise will have to break up into smaller parts

Some or all of those things.

We are disappointed with the proposal to add sex as a characteristic to existing hate crime legislation.

That's the really relevant bit. Any mention of misogyny becoming an offense has always been ridden and controlled in Scotland in particular by trans activism. Firstly because it would embed (again) in law that there is a sex based definition of women: see the above. The wangling about how it's the same for men is just window dressing around this central concern.

Secondly, because it would give women a means to complain about and have protection against the way that trans activism treats women - which obviously is unhelpful to the activism. Hence the determination from the start that any 'misogyny' legalities would principally be all about men who identify as women, and work in their interests. When this was being considered by the SNP it was immediately put in the charge of activists and not allowed near any women-centric thinking.

It has been clear from the start of all this ever being mentioned, that the main outcome of a misogyny offense in this way would end up being yet another a stick for trans activism to beat women with. Largely a means to take legal action against women for saying that men are not women.

Maybe this will work

Page 2

Legible thanks.

Sonia Sodha has written about the meeting:

https://soniasodha.substack.com/p/how-is-the-government-so-useless

'The evidence is mounting that while Starmer talks a good game on defending women’s spaces, services and sport, ministers are not committed to the hard graft of ensuring the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court is upheld by employers and businesses. This is the government trying to keep gender-critical women onside, while not taking on the party activists and union funders who continue to back the sexist idea that men should be able to identify into female-only services. It is cynical and insulting.

Some might argue that this is only one area of women’s rights, and that the government’s poor record here is outweighed by positive developments in other areas. It is true that some of the government’s proposals to tackle male violence against women and girls are sound, such as its plans to provide rape victims with dedicated legal support during the criminal process. But having a clear view on what a woman is, and being prepared to defend single-sex spaces against entryism from men who demand admittance, is not some optional add-on to a women’s rights policy. It is a fundamental test of whether a government understands why there’s a need for single-sex spaces in the first place. A test this government has failed.

And there are worrying signs that ministers sometimes see women’s rights not as an end in itself, but as a means to achieve cover for doing other, unpopular things. Thus justice secretary David Lammy is disingenuously using speedier justice for female sexual assault victims as an argument for drastically cutting back access to jury trial, despite analysis suggesting that any impacts would at best be marginal.'

Olivia Bailey seems to have remembered which sex does the bulk of the childcare

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/sponsored_discussions/5502971-minister-for-children-and-families-olivia-bailey-wants-to-hear-from-you

Who is the person in the orange polo neck jumper please?
I don't recognise them?
MW stands out
And the fragrant "Helen"

''The evidence is mounting that while Starmer talks a good game on defending women’s spaces, services and sport,'

Starmer makes all kinds of noises. I've given up listening. I look at actual actions. In terms of giving a flying toss for women, disabled people, the elderly or children with SEND, I see actions that are downright appalling and say exactly what he thinks of them.

It's somewhat like believing that identifying as Labour 'passes'.

I personally couldn't care less if he's invited to discuss 'LGBT+ hate crime'. I do have an issue with him being appointed to run a women's refuge and shaming survivors who were traumatised by men like him.

I do care because after what came out at the tribunal I would expect slinking away in shame not turning up to discuss LGBT+ hate crime' or anything else.

Well I personally think that just shows how much of a farce the whole thing is. Sad that legitimate LGB issues are lumped in with it though.

Exactly.

But it isn't the showing up but who thought it a good idea to invite him?

What does that say about their standards.

Do they not remember the court case.

Its now clear that even when shown legally to be in the wrong, Labour will ignore the illegality of a man like this, and make out they are important enough to be part of their (Labour's) way of working.

Setting priorities.

I suppose there are two ways it could have happened.

The more likely is, someone (could have been a spad, could have been a civil servant) said "we're inviting stakeholder groups, Gendered Intelligence are fairly prominent, let's ask them to send someone" and GI sent Wadhwa.

The less likely (but not impossible) is, Bridget and Olivia have a spad who's fanatical and/or stupid enough to specifically want Wadhwa.

I think the first is much more likely, but then you have to wonder, when they saw Wadhwa's name on the list, why an alarm bell didn't go off. Why they were so complacent they actually tweeted a photo of the meeting. Each Secretary of State has a media spad who's supposed to look out for possible landmines like ministers posing for photos with extremely controversial figures.

Then again, we've got a government where Peter Mandelson got appointed to the most important ambassadorship and nobody seems to have noticed that he was a bit dodgy.

I think it must have been a fortuitous coincidence that the meeting was the day after the Good Law Project pro trans concert at Wembley!