The wrathful extremes
The Daily Mail takes a cold hard look at the career of Mridul Wadhwa…while still, very unfortunately, using the deceptive pronouns. I realize that use is compelled in some way, but it needs to stop. It weakens any reporting on the subject that does it.
It was a post which was expressly advertised as being for women only but, three years ago this month, a biological male was installed in it. It required a compassionate figure to lead a charity providing a ‘safe space’ to help rape victims get through the worst experience of their lives.
The successful candidate was bullish and strident. Mridul Wadhwa labelled rape victims bigots and transphobes if they doubted whether a man identifying as a woman should run a centre helping women recover from male violence.
As for any members of staff who harboured such notions, Ms Wadhwa is on record as saying: ‘Fire them.’
All this was known within months of the 46-year-old taking up the post of CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). What was not fully understood until much more recently was the wrathful extremes to which
shewould go to ridherworkplace of those who did not shareherviews on gender politics.A damning employment tribunal judgment this week made that crystal clear. Here was a biological male working in a women-only space who, according to the tribunal, was on a mission to ‘cleanse the organisation of those who did not follow
herbeliefs’.
We knew he was bad but he was worse than we knew.
Yet the eight-day hearing earlier this year presented a chilling reality. A government-funded charity was doling out doctrine where it once offered comfort.
Simply, people were being asked to accept that politics –
MsWadhwa’s politics – took precedence over a woman’s rape ordeal.
A man’s fantasies about himself matter more than a woman’s needs after being raped.
It’s not much different than all the protections men have put in place to protect other men from the consequences of their fantasies about women that lead to abuse or rape. It’s always about him, never about her. That’s one reason it’s so important NOT to call a
TiFTIM ‘her’. I don’t need to say this for anyone here; we’re always discussing it. But it really does dull the message, especially for people who don’t know whether “trans woman” refers to men thinking they’re women, or women thinking they’re men. I struggled with that for some time, and my husband has just grasped it clearly, in spite of all the conversations we have had. It’s challenging, and deliberately designed to be that way. A word like ‘trans woman’ is deliberately obfuscatory for the uninitiated.The compelled speech thing has got to be one of the reasons Genderism’s been so successful, no matter what linguists may say about Orwell’s being wrong.
Why is it so believable when I edit it thusly:
Pretty sure you meant “TiM” there.
Ironically “transwoman” (one word) is the only word I’m sure of because transwoman = man is so straightforward and traditional. Every other iteration seems more obfuscatory than the next, but that’s what “queering” language is all about.
Thanks, Nullius. I did mean TiM.
He is legally permitted to apply for ‘woman-only’ things thanks to some backwards laws which create a legal instrument called a gender recognition certificate. But he failed to even clear that low bar: he did not have that document. Even in a system that permits such cheating, he cheats the system.