His reputation for reporting the truth
What a horrible man.
“These facts” he says. What facts?
Wadhwa has dedicated the last 14 years of her professional life to supporting women who are victims of sexual violence. But for the last three years, she’s faced torrential abuse including unfounded smears that she’s a sexual predator and numerous threats of violence – all because she is trans.
But Wadwha of course is a man, so referring to him with “her” and “she” has nothing to do with facts.
The Times has run seven stories about Wadhwa since May last year, often based on complaints from small groups opposed to trans rights…
No, not opposed to the rights of trans people. Opposed to the displacement of women by men who call themselves women. Men don’t have any right to do that; doing that is not a right.
Horrible man.
Seconded.
Not “because she’s trans”, but because of what he’s done and is doing.
Fuckin’ ‘ell.
You’d think Ramsay would have to provide some evidence of being able to discern the truth before claiming to have any kind of reputation for reporting it. But then I guess you’d also have to know what the truth was if you were going to conceal it, as he does here.
“Transness” as both smokescreen and shield. It is used to cover up the fact that Wadhwa is a man, and it’s supposed to protect him from any accountability for his actions.
“Sexual predator” nearly always pops up as well, which isn’t a requirement for excluding men from women’s spaces.