Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

Right so know I understand why you post as you do. You’re entitled to believe that, but you’re wrong and sadly, your belief is
allowing harm to happen to natal women.
I differentiate. Those transwomen who wish to live the ‘quiet lives’ you mention are not the problem.
Those who use their claim to be a woman to harm natal women are the problem. Until you can understand and and accept that, then you are part of the problem not the solution.
By saying that (all) those who say they are transwomen are women, you are supporting the rights of those who wish to erode the rights of natal women, remove their rights to safe places and safe treatment, women’s places in the world of work and natal women and girl’s right to compete against natal women and girls.
Feminism is how you see it. I see you as having reactionary and unacceptable beliefs. You don’t.
It’s quite horrifying that someone who I presume is a natal woman demonstrates views which show so little regard for the rights and lives of natal women. But maybe my presumption is wrong and you have a very personal reason for putting transwomen first. I don’t need to know, but I can’t help wondering.

Do you think that transwomen are female? The word 'woman' has become a negotiable concept these days.

You've not been keeping up Mollygo or perhaps you came late to the party. I've always said transwomen are women. They are entitled to use the pronoun "she". Most are feminists (although a few are reactionary and have unacceptable beliefs). Most simply live quiet lives.

Still on your diversion and missing the point trisher?
Chance for you to answer a yes/no question. I showed you how to do it.
Do you believe transwomen are women?

Peasblossom had the manager refused to serve the women purely because they were women the 2010 act might apply but presumably there were other women in the pub who were not asked to leave so that wouldn't apply. If the manager felt she was being disrespected or other bar staff were being so treated they had a perfect right to refuse service. The trans account says the women were first told there was a 2 hour limit on space, but refused to move. I think it is fair to ask why they insisted on staying somewhere they were obviously unwelcome. It certainly couldn't have been to have a peaceful and happy night out.

Back to Mridul. It seems from various links that Mridul omitted to mention being a transwoman at interview. The panel didn't ask and Mridul didn't offer! One particular old tweet by Mridul states

“No I didn’t. No one asked and I didn’t say. If I was asked I would say. Besides the version of checking out if someone is a woman or not is looking in their pants, is something that your friends out here are promotion. Women’s organisations don’t do that. They don’t have to”.

And during an interview,

“It was pretty clear to me that I was the only transwoman in the women’s aid movement, and I wasn’t even sure whether I would have been hired if they had known that I was trans”.

How interesting. Did the interview panel genuinely not realise Mridul was trans?And is omitting such vital information for such a senior role the behaviour of an honourable person? Omitting such a relevant fact is misleading to say the least. I would expect that the panel would be expecting to interview a biological woman, something they were perfectly entitled to ask for due to the nature of the organisation. And once appointed and with the passage of time and the fervour around self ID in Scotland, backing down would become impossible for the organisation.

Whatever the history and future of this particular individual, it is a direct result of the mantra “Transwomen are women”.

The Eqality Act 2010 makes the position of a pub landlord or anyone else providing a service perfectly clear.

For those who want to read it.

Or you can rely on the Morning Advertiser, if you prefer.

Sigh.

minority, not monitory, obviously!

No-one has a right to be served, but if the reason that a licensee has for not serving you is that you belong to a protected monitory they would be breaking the law. So if, someone goes into a pub and is drunk and disorderly, the bar staff can refuse to serve them. Similarly if someone comes in who the staff know have a long-standing feud with someone else in the bar, and there is likely to be trouble, again they can refuse to serve them. If the evicted customer went to court there is a very good chance that the judge would find in the bar staff's favour.

If the customer was black, or a traveller, or a transperson and that was the only reason the staff did not want to serve them, however, they still have no 'right' to be served, but the judge would very probably find that the bar staff were being discriminatory and in breach of the law.

Either way, it seems that this diversion into equality law has moved us away from the point we were discussing, which was the question of whether women's rights should be secondary to men's and whether women should have the right to decide who can touch them intimately, and to be given the necessary decision for this to be an informed choice.

Peasblossom

The landlords decision must be based on fact and the actions not on prejudice.

Suggest you recheck.

Did you read any of the links Peasblossom It's based on a common law right. If the police had had any concept that the law was being wrongly applied they would have allowed the women to stay. They didn't. Any member of staff, any licensee can refuse to serve anyone.
The landlord, licensee or staff member does not have to give a reason.
It's a common conception that you have a right to be served. You don't, no one has.

Maybe if gender only referred to your role in producing babies and not get involved in every single aspect of life then maybe things would be a lot more peaceful.

Missing the point again.
Diverting the discussion.
Repetition of things that we already know or picked up quickly.
Next strategy trisher?

The landlords decision must be based on fact and the actions not on prejudice.

Suggest you recheck.

Not a lot it would seem. Missing the point again.

I didn't start this Doodledog It is of no particular interest to me what the gender of a pub manger is, or indeed why a group of women were asked to leave but refused to do so until the police were called. Some seem to think it is of significance in their perceived view that men are taking over the world by dressing as women. As men are already in charge it seems all a bit unnecessary to me. But what do I know?

peasbblossom I suggest you "check it out" there are a number of publications offering advice to publicans and all agree- here's another one www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2018/05/18/Legal-Q-A-refusing-entry-and-police-on-the-premises
And the historic rulings involved licensinglaws.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-21st-century-right-of-refusal/

How have we ended up discussing an event in a bar, instead of the issue of whether women's rights should be secondary to men's, and the idea that women should give up the rights to decide who can touch them intimately and enter what were previously safe spaces?

Could we have been diverted by any chance?

Trans supporting media says the women were wearing transphobic t-shirts and distributing transphobic literature.

That has been strenuously denied by the women; they were not wearing any logo emblazoned t shirts that night and no literature was left, by them, anywhere in the pub. The barman is currently "taking a few days off" whilst cctv is checked and enquiries made..

No, trisher, you’re diverting the topic apu and refusing to accept that the erosion of women’s rights is an increasing concern because it doesn’t suit your version of feminism and possibly, (I have no proof of this other than what I read about in your posts), because you actually don’t believe it’s happening and that transwomen’s rights are more important.

You are totally wrong trisher. Totally.

Legally landlords cannot refuse entry or service based on
Race, sex, gender, religious beliefs.

Suggest you check your facts before posting rubbish.

If he ejected them for behaviour towards staff or customers he was right. If he ejected them for expressing opinions amongst themselves or simply because they were female in a way that he didn’t like he has committed an offence.

Please look it up and admit that you are wrong in your assertion that pub landlords can refuse without valid reason.

I'm looking at both sides of the story and adopting a reasonable attitude Mollygo. It's what feminists do. They don't judge immediately, they look at all sides, they try to resolve conflict. I know it isn't popular on GN but I think it is a much more hopeful strategy that condemnation and blaming, division and conflict which are characteristics of how men resolve things. The biggest, loudest and most agressive triumphs. It is sad to see women buying in to this philosophy.

Keep diverting trisher. I know you love it.

There seem to be conflicting stories about what actually happened in the pub. Mainstream media seems to take the view that these were women just wanting a drink, Trans supporting media says the women were wearing transphobic t-shirts and distributing transphobic literature. As the manager is well known as transgender you have to wonder what was happening, and why if they were asked to leave the women insisted on staying until the police were called? Had they just left of course it wouldn't have made the papers.
medium.com/@notCursedE/doctors-bar-in-edinburgh-mobbed-by-transphobes-3b4c92f19ce9
for balance
www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7591119/trans-edinburgh-bar-boss-cops-terfs/

Doodledog

trisher

Chewbacca the licensee's right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason has always existed. Are you suggesting that because these are women the law should be different for them?

I think everyone has pointed out that no, we do not think that a landlord has to (or should have to) serve anyone. In fact, it has been said that this is a good thing, and anyone 'bad-mouthing' transexual customers should be evicted.

That is not what is being discussed, however. It is the vilification of anyone who disagrees with the idea that men can simply call themselves woman and become female to which people are objecting, along with the hate speech (and violence) that so often accompanies that vilification.

Yes, you were clear, and your point is accurate. Nobody disagreed with it, though, so there is no need to keep repeating it. We all knew already, or got it the first time.

It's a simple question Mollygo the licensee has always had the right to refuse to serve anyone, should women somehow be exempt from that?

I'll answer your simple question trisher; I know you often struggle with them, so here goes..... a licensee has the absolute right to refuse to serve anyone in his bar. However, if the barman (and it was a man in this case) is an employee of a chain of pubs who pride themselves on their inclusivity for all, he's probably not done his career much good. In addition, the barman then goes to social media to crudely insult natal women and confirm that the reason he threw their customers out was because he simply didn't agree with their opinions, not because of their behaviour. He's confirmed his bigotry very publicly. So who is the suppressed, discriminated against person here?

You must be quite pleased; another rabbit hole for you to run down and deflect from the salient issue of men, saying that they're women, taking away the rights and privacy of natural women. You're welcome!