World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122599265#Comment_122599265

Just an important correction there. Scientific American is not a "journal" as you claim. You do not submit reports and papers to it for peer review like an actual journal. It is not their place to "accept" or "reject" papers. But to interpret them - through their own opinions and biases - for a lay public.

It is in fact a "popular science" magazine that is essentially just opinion pieces and articles ABOUT science for the lay public. And since Laura Helmuth took the helm has certainly started publicising more and more progressive ideology stances such as articles not about science but about the historic racism of household names in science from EO WIlson to Charles Darwin and even comically enough Mendel!

They have had articles lamenting the "White patriarchal past" of the field of mathematics and about Health Care workers calling for a support of Palestine as well as an article promoting religious treatments for mental illness titled "Psychiatry needs to get right with God" and an article titled "Trans Girls belong on girls sports teams".

Not to mention an article claiming "The racist roots of fighting obesity".

They even took the time to write an article against expanding DEI to JEDI as an acronym because apparently the Jedi from the movies are inappropriate due to being “prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic light sabers, gaslighting by means of ‘Jedi mind tricks,’ etc.).”

So no - this magazine is not a science journal at all. It never has been. But it seems even less so now a days.

Birneybau

Ouch

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122599517#Comment_122599517

They can't dismiss Prof Cass' credentials, report or the fact she has finally shouted "the Emperor is start bollock naked" so they are going after everything they can try to diminish the methodology - one I found amusing was "she hasn't included any studies involving non-binary children" - because she's a scientist and that is an ideological position.

Lads, the gig is up - the scales are starting to be removed from the eyes of those who previously would not see. Adults can do whatever they want but kids should be left alone without being put on a path to sterilisation and other harmful effects. I was and remain a massive tomboy - it's sad to think this might not even be a thing any more the way this is going.

Oh and the BMA is a trade union, nothing more - it's like taking the IFUT's word on the future of AI in education although the BMA have been seriously captured ideologically.

Birneybau

I'm eagerly awaiting SIPTU's opinion on the matter

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600335#Comment_122600335

Ah be fair now, they're still solving the war in Ukraine and discussing the global impact of Putin…!!! ;)

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122599517#Comment_122599517

Yes I was going to point this out too: it is no longer (and has not been for decades) a scientific publication where scientists post studies for peer review.

It is a science popularising magazine, where journalists write articles to explain science stories to the wider public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

Sadly, as you say, as in so much of publishing these days, its editorial board seems to have been captured by activists so that the "science" is often merely an adjunct to their ideologies.

It's certainly not the sort of journal @Shoog is thinking of in a comment like this:

If the Cass report were submitted to a journal such as scientific America it would likely have been rejected for failures in methodology.

The Cass report - nor any study - would not be submitted to a journal like Scientific American for evaluation of its methodology: there's a complete misunderstanding of the whole system of peer review going on with that claim!

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600419#Comment_122600419

The Cass report could not be published as a scientific review paper (a paper reviewing all papers in a field to asses the weight of evidence overall) because it doesn't meet rigorous standards of impartiality and methodology - you should be concerned about that but obviously these are not qualities which are important to you.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600434#Comment_122600434

It wasn't posted as a scientific review because it was a government-commissioned report, not a research review. And if it had been research of that nature, it would not have been sent to the Scientific American for possible publication because that is not what the Scientific American does.

You clearly have no clue about how science research works and are just parroting propaganda.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600467#Comment_122600467

I am a scientist by training so get over yourself.

A scientific review should meet scientific standards of methodology - cass doesn't.

Answer this does the Cass report claim to be a review of the scientific evidence for transgender treatment - because that is the claim been made on this thread.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600434#Comment_122600434

It wasn't a scientific review paper, it was a Government commissioned report into healthcare.

You have absolutely zero clue how scientific papers work - Prof Cass poked a stick at a belief system you hold dear and I understand this might be hard but sure the Turin Shroud was shown to be a 14th century fake and I still say prayers and go to Mass - you can have your beliefs, it just means kids will no longer be fast tracked to harmful medical pathways.

You are still free to believe in your ideology, no one will stop that. It's just not "science".

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600493#Comment_122600493

And have you sent many of your articles to the Scientific American for consideration? 🤣

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600582#Comment_122600582

Is Cass review claiming to be a systematic review of the scientific basis of transgender treatment of children ? Simple question.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600604#Comment_122600604

I haven't said anything of the sort though. If someone else has, ask them about it.

But why don't you answer first why you said that Scientific American would refuse it due to methodology, when that's not what the SA does in the first place? Especially now you're claiming to be a scientist: I thought you just didn't know, but now you make it seem like you were deliberately misleading posters whom you thought wouldn't know?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600616#Comment_122600616

Journal of repute. You imagine you have some sort of gotcha moment.

CatFromHue

"What is a systematic review?

A systematic review is a high-level overview of primary research on a particular research question that tries to identify, select, synthesize and appraise all high quality research evidence relevant to that question in order to answer it"

What exactly is the issue with the methodology?

You keep putting out vague statements about it's flaws and expect detailed answers but you never say what the flaws are.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600648#Comment_122600648

They changed the assessmentcriteria mid review, they excluded experts in the field from making submissions or been asked to participate. There was bias in that selection process whch favoured non expert bodies who held an anti-trans stance. These are just a few.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600619#Comment_122600619

I've no idea what your point is here. You made a misleading claim about the Cass report based on inaccuracies about what the Scientific American does in respect of scientific publications. That doesn't disminish or dismiss the value of the SA in what it actually does. It's you, not the SA, that is at issue here.

CatFromHue

How did they change the assessment criteria mid review?

Cass met many many groups and people. Some you specifically would argue are "anti trans" but by that criteria she also met many who would be "pro trans".

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600242#Comment_122600242

because she's a scientist and that is an ideological position.

I hate to be ‘that guy’ Squirrels but Hillary Cass, whatever else she is, is not a scientist. I don’t need to dismiss her credentials as I have no interest in her as a person, it’s her work I’m focused on, and as part of her work, just another thing to note that’s been posted in the last few posts - it was not a government-commissioned review. The review was commissioned by the NHS, independently of whomever was in Government at the time, in order to determine policy in relation to the provision of transgender healthcare services.

The BMA btw weren’t relegated to merely being a trade union overnight as a consequence of their rejection of the findings of the Cass Review - they were always a trade union and a professional body for doctors in the UK, who have significant influence in Government policy in relation to the provision of healthcare in the UK. That’s why the one doctor who is also a member of the BMA council claimed that the medical profession is under threat as a consequence of the BMA rejecting the findings of Cass. If they were merely a trade union and not an influential authoritative body in the practice of medicine in the UK - even less people than already do would give a fig for their opinion as it would mean nothing. So elevating the opinions of one of their members because it agrees with theirs, while dismissing the BMA itself, is nothing new.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600493#Comment_122600493

I am a scientist by training so get over yourself.

On this occasion, I have no issue with being ‘that guy’ in pointing out that being a scientist by training means nothing, literally nothing. I was willing to overlook your presentation of an article in a popular science magazine (on their own, it’s authors are transgender studies graduates - political scientists, and that’s being kind, but one is the parent of a transgender child, and I can’t remember what the other author’s credits were but I couldn’t be arsed reading the article again, it was painful enough the first time). All you’re doing, and you should be acutely aware of it (though understandably not self-aware enough to realise you’re doing it) - is making an argument from authority.

It’s precisely because the quality of evidence in transgender healthcare is so abysmal that the NHS commissioned the review, and while I do have criticisms of the review, in my view it wasn’t rigorous enough to justify its recommendations - the recommendations simply couldn’t be deduced from the evidence presented in the review, it was as though the recommendations could have been made without the review. I wasn’t surprised to see the critique hadn’t been published in Nature magazine either, it’s a British publication, but it’s a tad more interesting than the bog roll standard articles published in Scientific American:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

Lads, the gig is up - the scales are starting to be removed from the eyes of those who previously would not see.

Be surprised what can be achieved in medicine nowadays Squirrels, should that ever be an issue for people who would not see because they can’t see… with their eyes at least 😳

Mr James has not regained sight in that eye, but researchers are hopeful he might eventually be able to see out of it again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33nx82y8rjo#

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600648#Comment_122600648

Well, some of us can see the problem here - "all high quality research evidence" - there was precious little high quality research and nothing supporting the affirmative model of care. Now, if the various treatment centres had been even slightly scientific regarding record keeping, then those records could have formed a body of evidence (not necessarily one supporting their care model though).

Shoog

"Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs [systematic reviews] reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.”

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

i could go on all day suppling evidence of the inadequacy of the Cass Report from actual exprts in the field , but you have all made up your mind that it's the gold standard because it confirms your already well established biases that treatment of transgender children with gender affirming therapies is just wrong.

CatFromHue

You haven't given us an example yet, you've just given us someone's opinion.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600709#Comment_122600709

Hillary Cass, whatever else she is, is not a scientist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Cass

I mean, I know they say that medicine is an art and not a science, but TBF there is some crossover, especially for experts who have carried out scientific research in their own medical field - and I think it's very clear that Hilary Cass fulfills that requirement.

There's a selected list (not exhaustive) of her publications - and not a one in the Scientific American, LOL - at the end of that wiki article.

Second:

the recommendations simply couldn’t be deduced from the evidence presented in the review,

That's not how it works though: her recommendations were that, for instance, treatments such as puberty blockers have no solid research basis for use in gender dysphoria (and yes, we all knew that already, but activists have made it necessary to prove this step by step) and therefore should no longer be given as though they were the gold standard treatment, but rather an experimental treatment to be compared with other treatments.

That's not going too far based on insufficient evidence - it's exactly the opposite. It's the basic prudent approach that should have been in place years ago. Because the evidence is insufficient.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600793#Comment_122600793

One of the authors of that Yale critique perjured herself regarding her relevant experience. I've referenced Jesse Singal's critique of their critique in another post. It's worth a look if you're at all interested in fair and balanced commentary.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600832#Comment_122600832

I mean, I know they say that medicine is an art and not a science, but TBF there is some crossover, especially for experts who have carried out scientific research in their own medical field - and I think it's very clear that Hilary Cass fulfills that requirement.

It’s not clear though, which is the point, because no matter what they say, it does not turn Hillary Cass into something she is not.

(now that’s irony 😂)

There's a selected list (not exhaustive) of her publications - and not a one in the Scientific American, LOL - at the end of that wiki article.

“The NHS Experience: The Snakes and Ladders Guide for Parents and Professionals”? 😁

I’ll give you one just as good, though it may cause you to wonder what the fcuk do I be reading 😂

In 1546, the Malleus Maleficarum established that sexual relationships between demons and humans were an essential belief for Christians. But its authors considered also the possibility that demons provoked a false pregnancy in some women, filling their belly with air due to certain herbs they made them drink in beverages during the Sabbaths; at the time of giving birth to the child, a big quantity of air escaped from the woman's vagina. The false pregnancy was later explained by medicine. [citation needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Christian_demonology

I’m guessing the [citation needed] refers to the belief, and not to the fact that it was later explained by medicine. I’d hope that’s what it refers to anyway or there’s someone somewhere has some explaining to do 😂

That's not how it works though

That’s exactly how recommendations based on a review of current evidence are supposed to work. What you’re referring to as a recommendation was just one of the findings, but nobody needed a 400 page review of current evidence to determine that much - not only is there not sufficient evidence of their efficacy, the evidence there is, is of such poor quality that it’s a perfectly reasonable recommendation for the NHS to dial it back and design clinical trials to gather evidence from the UK population for themselves, in order to determine future policies.

The US are far more gung-ho, not just in regards to the provision of transgender healthcare services, but if you’ve got the money, someone’s got the snake oil… medicine. PP for example pivoted their business model into the provision of hormones, catering for a different clientele than their traditional clientele:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our-services/gender-affirming-care

I’m not sure that explains how their funding increased under the Trump Administration, seems unlikely given the numbers involved, but rather than put PP out of business as was intended, their business is in rude health:

https://archive.ph/jhKuM

Yet another example of… y’know 😬

Shoog

More critique from Ireland of the Cass report and its methodology;

https://sway.cloud.microsoft/pFNJFRo9BM6LChR0?ref=Link&loc=play

Cass basically took a well established methodology for systematic scientific reviews and butchered it by imposing her own methodology. Not only that but she did not apply her self defined methodology to all of the 6 systematic reviews carried out in the report. She systematically excluded many studies simply on her subjective yardstick. She also purposefully excluded anyone with experience of the services or experts in the field she was reviewing. She met with multiple bodies who take an overtly anti-trans position, whilst refusing to meet with any bodies representing Trans interests.

Its hard to conclude that she didnt have a very clear idea if what she wanted the conclusions of the report to be - and systematcally shaped the process to achieve them.

CatFromHue

A lot of the claims in that document would be contested, some others are blinded by their bias. The review was meant to be independent for example.

By your reasoning Cass met anti trans groups, this is just your reasoning, and also pro trans groups.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122601615#Comment_122601615

No, sorry literally not a clue what you're trying to get across here.

Hilary Cass has published many research papers, and you think a quote from the Big Book of Spells somehow makes that not true?

Could you just explain in actual words why you think Hilary Cass is not a scientist?

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122601758#Comment_122601758

I wasn't particularly impressed by the list of academic signatories, here's a sample.

1. Naoise Murphy, Lecturer in English, Maynooth University, Maynooth
2. Gerry Kearns, Professor of Geography, Maynooth University, Maynooth
3. William O'Reilly, Senior Administrator, TU Dublin, Dublin
4. Victoria Sánchez Muñoz, PhD student, University of Galway, Galway
5. Mercedes Carbayo Abengozar, Lecturer in Spanish, Maynooth, Maynooth
6. Jennifer Schweppe, Professor of Law , European Centre for the Study of Hate, University of Limerick, Limerick
7. Dermot Barry , Technical Officer , Munster Technological University , Cork
8. Niamh Duggan, Student, ATU Sligo, Cork
9. Aoife Lynch, Marketing Officer, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast

It's a wonder they didn't get the campus janitor to sign it.

I am grateful though for being made aware of the 'expert' Dr Chris Noone of Galway Uni. I've always wanted the names of the experts. Looking at his academic research it's not surprising he does seem have some rather odd interests. (PDF) Understanding how gay men construct good chemsex participation using critical discursive psychology.pdf (researchgate.net) . Fascinating.

Now that he has been brought to my attention (well I actually came across this weeks ago) I will be keeping an eye on him, because if he is proven to be wrong I don't think he should get away with it professionally unscathed. Not the only one either.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122602370#Comment_122602370

She’s a Physician, not a scientist, with an extensive background in paediatric medicine. It’s right at there at the top like:

I think I may have misunderstood your reference to the bottom of the article, in that I was looking at the bottom of her bibliography of published works, and thought there was something in the reference to the NHS Experience. I was offered an experience like that once, the Girlfriend Experience. I felt quite awkward having to explain why I wasn’t interested in what she was selling 😒

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122602421#Comment_122602421

She's a physician who does research. Unless you think that means psychotherapy or homeopathy or something, that's scientific research. IMO she's better qualified as a scientist than someone who's done a BSc and went straight into management or other unrelated domain.

What exactly is your definition of a scientist?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122602469#Comment_122602469

Plenty of physicians do research, it doesn’t make them scientists though? And no, I’m not making any reference to psychotherapy or homeopathy or any of the rest of that nonsense. I gave you a pretty straightforward answer as to why I don’t think of Hilary Cass as a scientist, so I’m not sure as to what more you’re hoping to get out of that.

Sure, I understand in your opinion she’s better qualified as a scientist than someone who’s done a BSc and went straight into management or other unrelated domain, I did myself, and while some people employed in the private sector refer to themselves as Data Scientists, I’ve never given a shìt as I think titles are pretentious, and it’s what one can actually do that matters, not whether I have to remember their title.

What exactly is my definition of a scientist? Someone who actually works in one of the scientific disciplines, whether it’s as an academic researcher or employment in the private or public sector. And then there is that crossover you mentioned earlier between a physician and and a scientist, which couldn’t be clearer:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician-scientist

I get that the idea of referring to Hilary Cass as a scientist is a means to elevate her status, but as we’ve seen already in the discussion - merely claiming to be a scientist or having some sort of background in science doesn’t actually mean anything. It doesn’t make anyone a better scientist, and there are plenty who if they actually had brains they’d be dangerous, but there’s nothing diminutive or disingenuous about recognising Hilary Cass has both the experience and the ability to lead the review in the way she led the research team. That she’s a Physician is neither here nor there - her work speaks for itself without the unnecessary “gravitas” of referring to her as a scientist.

Large bottle small glass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122602409#Comment_122602409

"It's a wonder they didn't get the campus janitor to sign it."

😁

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122602409#Comment_122602409

After Cass's review came out The Journal.ie decided to both sides it with a piece from Paul Moran of the National Gender Service and also a piece from Noone.

Opinion: Trans young people have nowhere to turn, and the Cass Report has made it worse (thejournal.ie)

From the second paragraph there's problems

"Imagine then being the parent of a young person who is trans, as many people around the country are — including an author of this article — and knowing that “one in five trans people across Europe reported being physically or sexually attacked”."

No one knows for those who go through gender dysphoria as a child or teenager that will then persist into adulthood. Noone seems to think differently.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122603365#Comment_122603365

No one knows for those who go through gender dysphoria as a child or teenager that will then persist into adulthood. Noone seems to think differently.

Well the hope of treatment is that it wouldn’t? That’s why they’re making the point about 3 year waiting list -

How long will I have to wait before my initial assessment?​

We are currently seeing people referred between three and three and a half years ago. This is longer than we would like and we are working to reduce the waiting times. Waiting times are subject to change and can get better or worse. 

This does not mean you have to wait to start exploring and expressing your gender. For more information on social and legal transition see the “While You Wait” and “Supports” section.

https://nationalgenderserviceireland.com/waiting-times-2/

I know what you’re saying, and they address your point further down the article by demonstrating what they mean by the provision of transgender healthcare -

The Cass Report speaks about being trans as if it is a disorder. This is counter to the ICD-11 guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization in 2019 which moved away from the practice of pathologising trans people and moved issues of gender identity from the chapter on mental and behavioural disorders into the chapter on conditions (as opposed to diseases or disorders) related to sexual health, to reflect “current knowledge that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill-health, and that classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma”.

They’re not solely referring to gender dysphoria (or as it’s now defined), gender incongruence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9286744/

They’re distinguishing between transgender as an identity, and the distress caused by experiencing gender incongruence which is what healthcare services are intended to address. CAMHS is a disaster, but that’s kinda what’s being touted similar to the recommendations of the Cass Review of having more localised hubs offering holistic support services (which haven’t worked out well for patients availing of NHS healthcare services already, but y’know - definition of insanity, etc), so how well they can work in Ireland really is anyone’s guess, and no one, or Noone at any rate, can possibly predict how these hubs will actually work in practice. The hope is that they will operate smoothly, but if parents wish to avail of the services, they really will have to bet their children’s lives on it.

That’s why the article starts that way, but the link goes to the Pew Research Centre survey of parents in the US, would’ve been more helpful if they’d provided information from any of the many sources in Ireland, and the second link to the stat on attacks on people who are transgender across Europe is broken (it’s only been a few months 😖), but the figures are fudgy anyway. It’s a rhetorical device in any case much like the ‘appalling vista’ scenarios that have been proffered at various times throughout this discussion. The originator of that term was some baby:

As Master of the Rolls he threw out a civil action by the Birmingham Six against West Midlands Police in 1980 and remarked that to accept their case that police officers had lied about their confessions and beaten them would have opened up ``an appalling vista''.

When the Guildford Four's convictions were overturned in 1989, he said they were probably guilty of murder anyway. He subsequently apologised.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/appalling-vista-judge-dies-at-100/26155585.html

The wheels really come off the wagon well down into the article though:

Two thirds of the country voted for bodily autonomy in 2018, and that is all that trans people are asking for. Consider another parallel with the stories we heard during the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment — it is not possible to stop people from transitioning, so what is happening now is that we are just denying people from accessing safe and effective healthcare.

That’s not what two thirds of the country voted for, and the only justification for claiming that children are being denied transgender healthcare is because previously children were referred from Crumlin to the Tavistock clinic in the UK, gone now obviously, took their ball and went home, so the children* started picking fights amongst themselves:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hse-use-of-controversial-tavistock-gender-clinic-needs-an-external-review/a615683078.html

*adults, obviously, but you wouldn’t be able to tell from their behaviour.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122600493#Comment_122600493

The CASS review met scientific standards of methodology. See the page below for details of the systematic review and other research undertaken

https://cass.independent-review.uk/research/

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122603183#Comment_122603183

They should have - it might have brought at least a modicum of common sense to it!!!

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122573616#Comment_122573616

In light of the severe criticism in the report by Rape Crisis Scotland, Mridul Wadhwa has finally "stepped down" as CEO from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2edeyzz0xmo.amp

A bit late though, when RCS has actually had to stop referring rape victims to ERCC because their practices were so poor:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o

"Acting unprofessionally" includes actively organising a witchhunt against a member of staff for daring to ask that a rape victim who asked for a female counsellor could be given a female counsellor and falsely assuring RCS that rape victims would be granted such a request.

There's a lot more to it all than that of course, and the people who appointed Mridul Wadhwa should also have questions to answer. The whole board should probably have to step down, as well as Sandy Brindley, the CEO of RCS who has been complicit in enabling Wadhwa, who, let's remember, called rape victims "bigots" for asking for a female counsellor, and said they should expect to be challenged about their bigotry.

So much for the counselling that victims could expect from ERCC - their priority was re-educating the victims, not helping them overcome their trauma. And Sandy Brindley defended Mridul Wadhwa until it became impossible to continue overriding women's protests.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611864#Comment_122611864

There's a lot more to it all than that of course

There really is, and while much of it started before Wadhwa was appointed to the CEO position of ERCC, it was because of the way they mishandled the issue of one of their employees expressing their philosophical beliefs in the workplace:

The tribunal heard that when Ms Adams joined Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre as a counselling and support worker around February 2021, she was supportive of trans people and "excited" by its trans inclusion policy.

In the months that followed, she began to feel there were issues around the way gender issues were dealt with by the organisation and described the atmosphere as "eggshelly".

…

Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.

Some people who do not consider themselves to have a solely male or female gender identity describe themselves as non-binary.

The tribunal found that the support worker in question had changed their name to one that “sounded and appeared to be male”.

Management drafted a response clarifying that the centre did not employ men, but advised against divulging any further details due to staff privacy.

Ms Adams responded in June 2022 saying that the issue appeared to be a “minefield”.

The following month, she was invited to an investigation meeting regarding “potentially transphobic” views. A disciplinary process was later launched.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo

That “eggshelly” atmosphere for other employees of ERCC was created by Adams who describes herself as a “sex realist” (I don’t ask what that entails, I don’t care, frankly - people are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish, they’re not entitled to create a hostile atmosphere in the workplace, basic employment law):

Adams, who describes herself as a “sex realist”, had questioned whether it was fair and appropriate for the centre to insist that its clients could not specify that they only wanted support from biological women.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/20/edinburgh-crisis-worker-wins-tribunal-over-gender-critical-views

It was that the disciplinary process was invoked and how it was carried out by the Management at ERCC is why they were found to be liable for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal.

What’s actually interesting about Wadha’s comments (and it was unquestionably, undoubtedly a monumentally stupid comment), is that it came back to haunt them - it required that they examine their own prejudices:

In an interview on the Guilty Feminist podcast, Wadhwa stated:

So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that ... the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

Wadhwa's comments were criticized, including by  For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor. JK Rowling stated that Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support centre which does not hire or serve trans women. Wadhwa said her words were taken out context.

Even in its proper context, it was still a monumentally stupid statement. There’s no question that Wadha given their background, education and extensive experience in the sector, is qualified for the CEO position, but their behaviour as CEO was rightly found by the subsequent investigation into the organisation that followed, to have failed to set professional standards of behaviour:

In September 2024, Wadhwa resigned after a review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland found that she "did not understand the limits on her role's authority, when to refer decisions to trustees and failed to set professional standards of behaviour". The review found that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had not protected women-only spaces, had not put survivors first, and had not followed national service standards.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridul_Wadhwa

It’s no different than the standards expected of doctors in employment - that they too are not entitled to refer to service users however they wish, or tell prospective service users that they ‘should expect to be challenged on their prejudices’, that doing so could see them becoming the subject of disciplinary action by their employer which would not amount to unlawful discrimination:

https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/eat-dismisses-appeal-christian-doctor-transgender-pronoun-discrimination-claim

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612834#Comment_122612834

That's not really comparable, Jack: this is not an employee who wanted to refer to or treat a transgender service user as their natal sex: she simply wanted to be allowed to assign a female rape counsellor to a female rape victim who had made that request.

That's nothing like a doctor who might refer to a black or gay service user in terms offensive to that person.

The point about her being "sex realist" is that this appears to be the reason for what the report called a "heresy hunt" against her to get her out. Not because she did anything that was against the rules.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612834#Comment_122612834

or tell prospective service users that they ‘should expect to be challenged on their prejudices’, that doing so could see them becoming the subject of disciplinary action by their employer which would not amount to unlawful discrimination:

And you've got this the wrong way around too: the person who wanted to "challenge the service users on their prejudice" was Mridul Wadhwa, not Roz Adams.

Wadhwa said that rape victims "can be bigots too" (ie by asking to have a female rape counsellor they were showing their bigotry against males) and that they should expect to be challenged on that. She said that they needed to "reframe their trauma" by learning to be around men.

Somehow I'm not convinced that the most effective way to do that is to put a traumatised woman in a room with a man and tell her to suck it up.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613047#Comment_122613047

Not quite volchista, I don’t know what underlying assumptions you’re making, but in this particular case Adams wanted to know how to respond to a service users question about the support worker they had been assigned who identified themselves as non-binary:

This escalated when one of the counsellors, AB, began to identify as non-binary, accompanied with a name change to a traditionally male-sounding name. Adams and her colleagues asked for guidance about how to answer service users who wanted to know if AB was male. They were told to tell rape victims requesting female-only care that ERCC does not employ men.

Then the situation Adams warned of arose: a service user who had been assigned AB as a counsellor emailed requesting to know whether AB was a man or a woman. The Tribunal concluded that Adams was right to view this as a request for information about the biological sex of AB, not about gender identity and that she had been put in a difficult position by the refusal of her Line Manager to give her clear instructions on what was obviously always going to be a difficult situation. She forwarded the email to her manager, copying in AB and asking for guidance:

Hi Kim and [AB] I am not sure how you would want me to respond to this? Can I get some guidance? My experience is there are many different ways trans people would prefer to address this question that feel right and respectful to them whilst still answering the concerns of the SU. My instinct is to say

Hi Thanks for asking. [AB] is a woman at birth who now identifies as non binary.

https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/#

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-roz-adams-belief-discrimination/

Service users are simply not entitled to that information about a particular support worker. There’s good reason (many good reasons actually) why support workers will use pseudonyms (in Ireland it’s common for them to use the Irish version of their name on social media), to make it considerably more difficult for service users who… how shall I put this… wish to engage in a more personal and intimate relationship with their counsellor or support worker or therapist, as opposed to maintaining professional boundaries.

Service users are absolutely entitled to express a preference, as many as they wish, the more the better, in order that the service provider can make an informed decision as to whether they can provide the services appropriate for the user, or refer them to another service provider. That action would have been in accordance with national standards in Scotland (pretty much the same here too), but Management at ERCC apparently guided by Wadhwa as their CEO, demonstrated that they were not following national standards (the standards are helpfully published on their website):

https://www.ercc.scot/national-standards-2/

For context:

https://www.drcc.ie/services/counselling-therapy/faqs/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613324#Comment_122613324

I really don’t. Wadhwa as CEO and an employee of ERCC is subject to, and protected by, the same employment laws which apply to everyone equally. Like the doctor, Wadhwa chose to resign. Neither of them were sacked.

It’s no different than the standards expected of doctors in employment - that they too are not entitled to refer to service users however they wish, or tell prospective service users that they ‘should expect to be challenged on their prejudices’, that doing so could see them becoming the subject of disciplinary action by their employer which would not amount to unlawful discrimination.

It’s Wadhwa’s prejudices I was referring to, not Adams “sex realist” beliefs.

Candlel

It’s incredible that a rape crisis center employed a man in a job advertised as being for a woman. And that after they employed him, he then went in to attack raped women who, naturally, wanted female counsellors. He attacked the raped women by saying they were bigots, for wanting only females to deal with them.

Hamsterchops

Wadhwa? Didn't hear that accusation against him before, you sure about that 🤔

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614478#Comment_122614478

Can't you read? Wadwha attacked raped women, or women who had been raped. Its not that hard to understand. That's all you got from the most recent posts? Really?

As a person who experienced domestic abuse and violence as a young child, to this day, more than 30 years later, certain things related to the circumstances of that 'trigger' me, for want of a better word, and I feel scared and panicky. I can't imagine how horrific it would have been for women who were the recent victims of rape or sexual assault to specifically ask for a female counselor and be gaslighted and shamed into accepting a male. I'm sorry but women's trauma isn't your opportunity to cosplay and 'reeducate' , you absolute weirdo (that guy, not you). Good on jk Rowling for putting her own money down to set up a refuge for women only. Anyone who has been through it knows how essential that is.

Hamsterchops

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614529#Comment_122614529

Apologies, I misread the post before mine.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614478#Comment_122614478

LOL I presume the poster meant attacked them verbally. Wadhwa called rape victims "bigots" for asking to be assigned a female counsellor and said they had to expect to be challenged on their prejudices on a "Guilty Feminist" podcast, among other places. Here's some of the transcript with a link to the audio:

https://forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

And see how Wadhwa makes it all about Wadhwa, who is of course the real victim here. Rape victims being "

But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices, because how can you heal from trauma and build a new relationship with your trauma, because you can’t forget, and you can’t go back to life before traumatic incident or traumatic incidents. And some of us never, ever had a life before traumatic incidents. But if you have to reframe your trauma, I think it is important as part of that reframing, having a more positive relationship with it, where it becomes a story that empowers you and allows you to go and do other more beautiful things with your life, you also have to rethink your relationship with prejudice. 

I'd call that an attack, in the circumstances. It's not as though they're posting on a discussion forum after all - they're looking for appropriate counselling after trauma.

Interestingly I notice that even after Wadhwa's departure, ERCC is still refusing to guarantee that abused women can access female-only spaces

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1834496155977142573

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614230#Comment_122614230

It’s not at all unusual for rape crisis centres to employ men. it is unusual for CEOs of rape crisis centres to come out with monumentally stupid statements referring to prospective service users, regardless of their sex or their preference for the sex of the counsellors assigned to their case:

But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

It’s also unusual for a member of staff to imagine it is even remotely appropriate or acceptable to seek the advice of their employer in doxxing another member of staff by disclosing their personal, private and confidential information to either service users or members of the public requesting that information by email, as though it wouldn’t occur to them that the email was received from the service users husband pretending to be the service user. Adams is beneath contempt, that their personal beliefs cause them to imagine it’s entirely appropriate to put another person at risk, though I don’t imagine that belief is necessarily attributable to their “sex realist” beliefs - it appears more predicated on their casual relationship with reality.

Makes me wonder how they deal with male rape victims. I'm assuming they also provide services to both and that there are specific women only times.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614605#Comment_122614605

Well there are two points about that: one is that, funnily enough Wadhwa of all people makes a big thing of how it was women who set up the domestic violence and rape crisis centres because there was nothing available for them at the time. If male victims' need for services is now adversely impacting on female rape victims, maybe men should consider doing the same?

Second, it is perfectly possible to provide services for male rape victims in their own groups, and in mixed groups as you suggest - as long as women are not bullied or shamed into attending mixed counselling groups.

But the problem in the ERCC wasn't just that service users were not allowed to request single sex therapy groups, it was that rape victims were deemed bigots in need of re education for asking to have a female counsellor. IOW for not wanting to describe painful details of their abuse to a man.