Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

I suppose it comes down to where you set your moral compass.

Or whether there has been pressure put on them not to ‘hoof her out’?

Most employers would take a dim view of someone lying and getting away with it, if only because they won’t have a leg to stand on when someone else does it and claims unfair dismissal on grounds of precedent.

They didn’t ask Ian Huntley if he would murder children when they gave him a job as caretaker.
Just because her employers do not see her as at fault doesn’t make. It right that she lied. You obviously know you do not have to be asked something in order to lie.

So you're equating someone that is trying to do good with a child murderer? That is a new low.

If it was seen as a lie, she would have been hoofed out by now. Clearly her employers don't see her as at fault.

His employers are in a Catch 22: if they fire him for deliberately withholding relevant information, they face litigation and the risk of being accused of transphobia - and I have no doubt whatsoever that that's what he'd do. As they're a charity that relies solely on government support and charitable donations (some of which was given by JK Rowling; yep, the same JKR that they accuse of being transphobic), they're not in any financial position to cover the resultant litigation costs and so would seek to avoid that, and the trans backlash.
So, they have no choice but to smile grimly and pretend that they're fine with it and support him all the way.

The ERC Facebook page has some very interesting comments regarding him.
Let us know when he's resigned
CEO should be sacked immediately for gross misconduct
Is this page satire? If it is, it's sick. If it's not, that bloke should be sacked
It shows that there are actually more comments but they don't seem to be visible now. Wonder why?
ERC have actually posted about the "media spreading misinformation that leads to mistrust", which is ironic when their CEO deliberately mislead them by applying for a job that specifically stated was for a woman.

The forwomen.scot Facebook page has some excellent refs to independent sources regarding ERC, the erasure of women, Stonewall and the trans debate. Worth a look, especially for the comments and feedback regarding MW.

GagaJo

So you're equating someone that is trying to do good with a child murderer? That is a new low.

No. I’m saying that your “they didn’t ask him” is a pathetic excuse. You don’t have to be asked something before you lie.

Mollygo

GagaJo

So you're equating someone that is trying to do good with a child murderer? That is a new low.

No. I’m saying that your “they didn’t ask him” is a pathetic excuse. You don’t have to be asked something before you lie.

It’s called lying by omission.

So you all assume that had MW revealed she was a transwoman at the interview she wouldn't have got the job. You have no evidence for this. It's based purely on your own biased beliefs so self evident in your comments and your insistence on misgendering MW.

You've posted a lot about how transwomen shouldn't be in women's spaces and I have said that legally they can be exempt from those spaces. What is evident from MW's case is that either they already knew she was a transwoman (and she has been active in the field, has apparently associated with at least one trustee, so must have some local standing) or they considered she was a woman and it didn't occur to them to question this.
One of the things that happened during apartheid in S Africa is that people who were of mixed race but could pass as white did so because being black meant you were treated badly. So perhaps if you stopped being so judgemental, accepted the gender they wish to be called, stopped regarding them as any sort of a threat (the rights of over 33million women are going to be eroded by approximately 300,000 transwomen!!!) and just let them be they would simply become people who celebrate their own existance and be more open about their history.

There is no evidence that he would have got the job. He obviously thought he wouldn’t get the job or he would have admitted it at interview. Lying by omission, thanks Lincslass.
You obviously lying by omission is okay so that tells me a lot.

Sorry, that was addressed to trisher and I pressed post instead of preview.
Trisher, you obviously think lying by omission is okay if it gets you something you want, so that tells me a lot about you.

Mollygo A transwoman believes she is a woman. So how is it lying? Many of you have posted how you don't believe transwomen are women and I accept you are entitled to those beliefs, so MW who has a woman's passport from India is entiitled to believe she is a woman. So actually it isn't even a question of lying by omission it's simply that your beliefs conflict with hers.
It's all irrelevant anyway. There isn't one poster on this thread who has proved either that MW can't do the job or that there was another candidate with better or equal qualifications and experience.

It’s still lying by omission. If you can’t see that then there’s not much more to be said. I don’t have to prove whether there was anyone better qualified to do the job. I wasn’t at the interview.
I didn’t know he had applied for a job that was ring fenced for women. That meant straight away that there were other people better qualified for the job.

trisher, whereas others on this thread obviously share some of my concerns, we do not always speak as one, which is exactly as it should be. We are not a 'gang' with some sort of manifesto, but individual posters on a discussion board.

Speaking for myself, whereas I don't think that it is possible to change sex, I have no issue with people changing gender, but if that means calling men 'women' then it's a question of semantics, which is one of the major problems I have with the whole situation. I will happily call transwomen 'she', and include them in the vast majority of women's activities, but I still maintain that they are not female.

I would prefer it if we had a new vocabulary, or if we stuck to calling transwomen 'transwomen', however, as I do not believe that people can change sex, and I do think that we are on very dangerous ground if the word 'woman' has no fixed meaning and we become subsumed into a 'non-men' category.

I don't see why transpeople should have a problem with that - if someone has gone to all the trouble involved in changing their lifestyle etc to transition, surely being known as a transperson won't be an issue, on the rare occasions it comes up.

As women, we (on the whole) accept that there are things that we do (and don't do) because of our gender, just as men do. They are relatively few, but they are there. If transpeople accepted that as such there were things that they should not do - largely including situations where women are in vulnerable situations - and respected that, there would be far less resistance to them.

I honestly think that a few years ago transpeople were making huge strides in getting accepted by all but the sort of people who object to anyone who doesn't conform to rigid societal norms, but Stonewall and the TRA movement have set the cause back years with their refusal to engage with any discussion. Shouting 'TWAW' and calling anyone who doesn't agree ill-informed bigots is not reasoned debate, and it's not surprising when it is met with resistance.

There are legitimate reasons why many women are uneasy with the idea of the concept of 'woman' being unilaterally hijacked, and coming to mean 'someone who does not identify as a man'. Many of us on this (and other threads passim) have outlined these reasons since what feels like the dawn of time, but we are abused for our viewpoints - on this very thread GagaJo has explicitly stated that she does not see gender-critical feminists as equals, for instance.

As regards the lying thing - I will ask yet again - why do you think that 'the whole truth' is included in the oath that people swear in court, if not to mitigate against people using 'they didn't ask that' as a reason for not giving obviously relevant information?

I accept your point that MW may have believed she is female, but I absolutely do not accept that someone in her position is unaware of the controversial nature of that belief, and as such I feel strongly that withholding that information was done knowingly and deliberately. It's not as though she didn't mention her favourite book because nobody asked about it - the job was advertised as being for female applicants only.

And yes, Mollygo's last point about the onus not being on any of us to prove that none of the other interviewees was better qualified is spot on.

Can you prove that there was no better candidate?

I don't think gender critical feminists are feminists. I think they are bigotted individuals with tendencies to transphobia. You only have to look at the way MW is constantly misgendered on this thread to realise that.
There have been some interesting posts by supporters of trans people but the way anyone who raises a question or actually posts something real with evidence is attacked and jumped on shows why people won't post.
Many women may be worried but as I said how can the rights of any of 33+million be changed by 300,000 or less?
As for engaging in discussion well I fully understand why.they won't I can see scant evidence on this thread that it changes the views of those who continue to misgender, refuse to accept her experience or consider that MW may have a valuable role to play in combatting violence against women. It's not worth discussing things with bigots, no matter what they pretend they are.

Why should I prove there was no better candidate, more experienced people than me decided MW was best. If you want to challenge that decision do so with evidence of a better candidate. If you can't do that accept the decision of those who actually met them.

I am gender critical
I am a feminist
I am not a bigot

Dear God.

Sorry that wasnt in response to you fanny. Cross posting does cause problems sometimes .

I am not a bigot either, though if I disagree with trisher, she thinks it gives her the right to say that. Feminism obviously has different meanings for some people.
Trisher. Your argument about large numbers is quite frightening. Does that mean you believe if a wrong is done or harm caused only to a small number, then it is OK for that to happen?
Erosion of natal women’s rights is insidiously happening and, a bit like climate change, there will be no way to turn back the clock.
Acquiring rights to do something you’ve not previously been able to do is positive. Acquiring those rights at the expense of the existing rights of others is negative. Lying by omission to get something is wrong.
If MW genuinely wants to represent women then his speech and actions regarding vulnerable women should reflect those of your quoted “33million+” women who support women’s rights and not those of the man he really is.

Galaxy

Dear God.

Well, now we have it.

This has been clear from the start. You trisher think that we are 'bigoted individuals with tendencies to transphobia', and GagaJo doesn't see us as equals. We already knew that you doesn't see us as 'true' feminists, as only your own beliefs can be named as such, regardless of their internalised misogyny.

After spending so long trying to engage with Gaga's rather foolish posts, with their barked orders and subsequent refusal to engage, and your own DARVO attempts, people have started to point out when you are doing these things, and make it more difficult for you to do so. As a result, your 'arguments' crumble, and your own bigoted attitudes have been exposed.

You so rarely respond to posts about the views of others (eg my post above) where we take the time to put our point of view, that debate is impossible. I don't expect you to change your mind, but is there nothing in what any of us is saying that is worthy of a response that doesn't wander illogically off into SA under Apartheid, Nazi Germany or divert us into other emotive and unconnected areas?

I do not identify as a bigot, or a transphobe, and I most certainly do not identify as being unequal to GagaJo.

Galaxy

Sorry that wasnt in response to you fanny. Cross posting does cause problems sometimes .

That’s okay Galaxy
I understood

All's well that ends well then.

Given that none of us are directly affected by this, I really don't know why some on here get so get so riled up about it.

trisher

So you all assume that had MW revealed she was a transwoman at the interview she wouldn't have got the job. You have no evidence for this. It's based purely on your own biased beliefs so self evident in your comments and your insistence on misgendering MW.

You've posted a lot about how transwomen shouldn't be in women's spaces and I have said that legally they can be exempt from those spaces. What is evident from MW's case is that either they already knew she was a transwoman (and she has been active in the field, has apparently associated with at least one trustee, so must have some local standing) or they considered she was a woman and it didn't occur to them to question this.
One of the things that happened during apartheid in S Africa is that people who were of mixed race but could pass as white did so because being black meant you were treated badly. So perhaps if you stopped being so judgemental, accepted the gender they wish to be called, stopped regarding them as any sort of a threat (the rights of over 33million women are going to be eroded by approximately 300,000 transwomen!!!) and just let them be they would simply become people who celebrate their own existance and be more open about their history.

I agree with all of this. If you discriminate against someone, you have expect that they will bypass the discrimination if they can.

If MW had revealed the transgendering in the interview , it could have led to some very interesting and constructive discussions with the interviewers about what unique attributes and experiences that could bring to the job, and whether they were ones which the interviewers thought would bring a positive contribution. The position might or might not then have gone to MW, but the discussion would have been in the open, and have taken place before the decision was made.