World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

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

Who do you imagine the ‘us’ is referring to in that context? It’s definitely not Wadhwa making it all about Wadhwa. You only have to think back to the previous page or two where you presented a study which identified certain characteristics were demonstrated to be more prevalent among survivors of rape and sexual abuse.

Neither services for men, nor services for women are impacting upon each other. The problem with ERCC is that they didn’t adhere to national standards in Scotland and upon being presented with service users who expressed a preference for the sex of the counsellors assigned to their case, instead of referring those service users to more appropriate service providers within the Rape Crisis Scotland network, they provided a service that was inappropriate for services users needs. That wasn’t the case with the employee in question who is, as some people would refer to them - a biological woman.

Service providers in Scotland are not limited to service providers for women only, and the organisation founded by JK operates outside of the regulations of that network, in the private sector, as opposed to the charity sector, which provides appropriate services for all service users in accordance with their preferences and needs:

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/blog/supporting-lgbtq-survivors/

By "he" do you mean a male rape victim?

I think if a male rape victim wants a male counsellor, that's fair enough. The question is who should provide one. As you say the fact that his rapist was probably male makes a difference, but OTOH he may well feel that a woman can't understand the specific humiliation for a man of being raped, so it's still possible. I wouldn't say that makes him bigoted, which is what Wadhwa felt no shame in saying about female rape victims. And not only that raped women were "bigoted", but that they were "relatively privileged" compared to "migrant trans women of colour", ie Wadhwa 🙄, and that they should expect to be challenged about their bigotry as part of the counselling process. Like, WTAF??

Anyway. As I understand it, in the past, male rape victims were transferred to male rape crisis centres generally run by gay organisations. I guess for a heterosexual male that might not be ideal. Or is that homophobia?

And to be blunt, if enough male counsellors aren't available, or of the "wrong" sexuality, that really isn't the fault of the female-run rape crisis centres. As Wadhwa said, those were set up by women with whatever funds they could get - not much at the time. So if there's an unmet need for male-run rape centres, then men should set those up, instead of taking over female-run ones.

Employers are entitled to employ whomever they wish, in accordance with laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate. ERCC as an employer or service provider has never sought to give anyone the impression that they operate or provide services only for women:

Established in 1978, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) provides a specialist support, information and advocacy service for women, non-binary people, members of the trans community and young people aged 12 and over in Edinburgh, East and Midlothian who have experienced recent or historic sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation. We also work in schools and with young people across Edinburgh and the Lothians, and strategically with multi-agency partners, towards preventing sexual violence.

https://goodmoves.org/vacancy/a4s3z00000SfD4HAAV/convener-of-the-board

Well yes except they weren't "bad organisational decisions" in the usual meaning of such expressions.

They really were bad organisational decisions by the Board of Management of the ERCC. Wadhwa was hired because it was thought they were a suitable candidate for the position of CEO, or Adams as a support worker. Wadhwa wasn’t targeted because they were shìt at their job, they were targeted because they are transgender, and they were targeted in previous employment long before they were ever hired by ERCC. Their bad decisions as a Board is what led to the independent investigation of the of the organisation:

The chief executive of a sexual assault support service has stood down after a review found it failed to protect women-only spaces.

Mridul Wadhwa – a trans woman – resigned after a Rape Crisis Scotland report found she failed to behave professionally while head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

The investigation, carried out by an independent consultant, also found Ms Wadhwa “did not understand the limits of her authority” and the needs of survivors were not prioritised.

In a statement, the ERCC board said it was implementing recommendations from the review, but felt the “time was right for a change of leadership”.

I’d suggest that statement is putting it mildly, and that’s being kind.

EDIT: Susan may wish to correct the acronym in that tweet.

I'm failing to comprehend the point you are trying to make 😑

Agree with the point but Wolf is a mentalist and not somebody I'd use to emphasise a point.

The allegation was not that male counsellors were incompetent. They might have been the best counsellors there, in absolute terms.

The issue was that some women and girls who had been abused and raped had a trauma response that meant they were in fight-or-flight mode every time they were in close contact with males, and that women in that situation would not be able to benefit from counselling by a male, however gifted and even kind and empathetic he was.

The other question, more specifically about Mridul Wadhwa's approach to this question, was that in terms of effective counselling, the very worst way for counsellors to react to this trauma would be to call such women and girls "bigots" and to "challenge" them on their "prejudice". That is not a client-centred approach, and is neither empathetic nor effective. IOW Wadhwa was showing themselves to be a terrible counsellor by that reaction.

Being male was not a disqualifying criterion. The point is that employers, in this case ERCC, are not restricted to applying the Genuine Occupational Requirement provision.

I’m not missing what is definitely a problem for you and the people who share your views, and I can understand why you’re presenting the circumstances as a person being targeted for not being university-educated when the position applied for requires that you have a degree. Being disqualified from consideration because one doesn’t meet the educational criteria required of the role is not the same thing - because being university-educated or not, is not a protected characteristic.

It’s why charity organisations will often parachute in a candidate from the private sector for the position of CEO though they may not possess a relevant academic qualification in social care - they possess the relevant qualifications, education and experience in industry and in business to fulfil the role of CEO, and generally speaking they know not to go beyond the authority of their position. There are exceptions - Wadhwa is just one, of many.

Adams was not fired, she chose to resign:

Allegations of misconduct were upheld, but no action was taken. Ms Adams then chose to resign.

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

That is not a client-centred approach, and is neither empathetic nor effective. IOW Wadhwa was showing themselves to be a terrible counsellor by that reaction.

I’m now wondering to be honest - do you feel the same way about counsellors, therapists and advocates who favour what they call Gender Exploratory Therapy?

https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/gender-exploratory-therapy-trans-kids-what-is-it.html

At least EMDR only amounts to harmless, pseudoscientific nonsense:

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

I don't know enough about either of those two approaches to have an opinion TBH. I do know something about trauma therapy though, though not EMDR, although what I understand of it is that by giving the person undergoing therapy a "task" to carry out at the same time as they discuss their trauma (ie keep their mind on moving their eyes in a certain pattern or a certain speed etc) this may allow them not to be overwhelmed by the memories of the trauma.

Which sounds quite plausible to me.

That’s fair enough, to be honest I figured you would know much more than I do about trauma therapy and all that entails anyway. I’ll be the first to admit that what I know could be written on the back of a postage stamp, with room for paragraphs and double spacing.

Don't forget you're talking about people who may be having uncontrollable flashbacks and even hallucinations due to trauma, so anything that enables the person to take back control over their mind/brain and redirect it to "reality" seems well worth trying to me.

And if it doesn't work for someone, well so what?

I’m acutely aware volchista, it just doesn’t seem appropriate to explain how I know, if you catch my drift? Recently I ended a phone conversation with a sleep clinic by telling the receptionist instead of the usual “thank you, goodbye”, I gave a rather chirpy “Sleep well”, before realising how incredibly inappropriate that was, that’s kinda the level you’re working with, it wasn’t intentional, I’ve had insomnia since childhood, and rohypnol’s side-effects are pretty trippy 😒

I’m going to assume on good faith basis we’re probably on the same level in terms of interpreting your ‘anything’ as anything within reason, which would exclude say for example the idiot across the hallway already regretting not closing the door to his office, being pointed at by a woman and three counsellors being told “I’ll talk to him”, so they all disappear upstairs while they decide what to do because it goes completely against the reams of lever-arch file filled policy documents and gigabytes of digital copies of those same policy documents, leaving the woman on her own in the room, staring at the wall, so she decides to take the initiative in spite of my attempts to reassure her that I am not the person to talk to (I just want to be left alone to eat my donuts and coffee).

She had some things she needed to get off her chest, and though I was incredibly uncomfortable and it was completely inappropriate, I figured it was more necessary for her to get some shìt off her chest than it was for me to finish my donuts and coffee. I really didn’t appreciate her reading me like a book, but she explained that she felt the women present were judging her. I figured it best not to attempt to correct her assumptions. If it doesn’t work, it leaves the person (I detest the language used in the industry to refer to people, whether it’s ‘clients’, or ‘service users’ or whatever else) in a much worse position than before.

In any case, I don't see the connection with a counsellor having their wish to be validated in a particular gender prioritised over the needs of the person being counselled.

It isn’t that a counsellor wished to have their gender validated or prioritised over the needs of the person being counselled, it’s that an employee sought to invalidate the policies of her employer that she disagreed with, using another employee and service users as a proxy for the implications of their “sex realist” beliefs. Whatever else is or isn’t covered in their policies, I’m pretty certain that maintaining confidentiality of service users and staff is covered in the Employee Handbook such that it wouldn’t even occur to an employee to violate the privacy of either service users or employees by seeking guidance from management on how to doxx them under the pretence of addressing questions from service users and the general public about that employee specifically. Whether they are a biological woman or not, or non-binary or whatever else, it does not justify violating their privacy and their right to a safe working environment by another employee in order to promote themselves and their “sex realist” beliefs. That’s what Adams should have been disciplined for, not the shìtshow that came about as a result of the Board of Management demonstrating their commitment to incompetence.

Ok but this is about who is suitable to be running a rape counselling centre. Not whether lesbians are perfect people (I don’t think anyone is saying that)

The point is you WOULD be regarded as a bigot by a thankfully vanishing minority

Cass's methodology has been widely criticised by experts in the field and by general scientists who understand how to do systematic reviews. Cass fairly much disagrees with all the main bodies who deal with gender dymorphism in every area.

She doesn't represent some gold standard in the field and will in retrospect be seen as damaging to many gender dymorphic patients.

If there is follow through on expanding services then that will be the only really good thing that comes out of her review. If that expansion results in more attempts to talk people out of gender dymorphism as seems likely given Cass's focus, then she will have done a huge amount of damage to vulnerable children. This is the feeling been expressed by real experts in the field.

Best practice always has been to discover underlying causes of gender dymorphism and that is why of the many referrals to the Tavistick clinic only a tiny proportion every receive a medical (is drug or surgical) intervention.

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.

But this wasn't true, was it? Because Mridul Wadhwa, for one, is male and has no GRC which is required in Scottish law for someone to be considered legally female.

Secondly, Roz Adams was basically witch-hunted out of ERCC for daring to ask this sort of question in the first place. And that was not just done by Mridul Wadhwa, but by a number of women including several higher up, such as Sandy Brindley. And condoned by Nicola Sturgeon.

But this wasn't true, was it? Because Mridul Wadhwa, for one, is male and has no GRC which is required in Scottish law for someone to be considered legally female. 

It was true from the point of view of the Management of the organisation. Roz knew this too long before she sent an email to management cc’ing the counsellor in question, when she went walkies with the Chief Operating Officer back when she had just joined the organisation:

Adams had at first welcomed the centre’s trans-inclusive policies, the tribunal heard. However, in December 2020, the rape centre worker went for a walk with Maggie Chapman, Green MSP for North East Scotland, who was then the chief operating officer for ERCC.

The judgment stated: “This was the first time that [Adams] heard what she described … as the ‘mantra’ that ‘trans women are women’.

“She felt concerned that there was no real definition or clarification associated with this statement. She felt it was odd.

“Once she started work she felt it became more and more apparent that there were issues regarding the way that gender issues were dealt with in the organisation … She described things around the issue as being ‘eggshelly’.”

The panel heard that a particular issue for Adams, referred to as the claimant, was what to say to service users who wanted to be sure that they would be seen by someone who was biologically a woman.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24332247.dismissed-rape-centre-worker-wins-tribunal-case-gender-beliefs/


The intake interview and subsequent matching with a counsellor who fits the users preferences is all that is required there. It’s not the issue Adams was making it out to be. It’s not as though Adams couldn’t have been aware of the circumstances involved:

Wadhwa began receiving abuse in 2019, while working as the director of the Forth Valley rape crisis centre in Stirling. The abuse intensified after she announced her candidacy as an SNP MSP in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, and intensified again after her appointment as director of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). The abuse received at the ERCC included hate speech on social media and on phone calls, letters and emails containing baseless accusations of predatory behaviour, racist commentary, and threats of vigilante violence. Nearly all comments intentionally misgendered Wadhwa.

Articles criticising Wadhwa were published on the websites of Wings Over Scotland and The Christian Institute, with the series of articles by The Christian Institute amplified by the United States-based Christian Today and Life Site News. YouTuber Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull released a video which, according to OpenDemocracy, "made a series of unfounded and unevidenced accusations about Wadhwa and her work". Referring to Graham Linehan, OpenDemocracy said "the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address".

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

Secondly, Roz Adams was basically witch-hunted out of ERCC for daring to ask this sort of question in the first place. And that was not just done by Mridul Wadhwa, but by a number of women including several higher up, such as Sandy Brindley. And condoned by Nicola Sturgeon.

Yes she was, there’s no disputing that as that’s exactly what happened, which is why Adams won her case for constructive dismissal. The reason I pointed out that she wasn’t fired, that she resigned, is because that’s the only way she could have pursued a case for constructive dismissal. Hell of a difference between being fired, and being constructively dismissed. The EAT and the subsequent independent investigation commissioned by RCS didn’t seek to establish whether it was appropriate for the organisation to employ Wadhwa either.

I think the poster you responded to claimed that Cass is not a scientist, but the last time I looked, doctors received a thorough training in various branches of science. On top of that, Wikipedia calls Medicine a "health science":

Medicine is an applied science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease.

There seems to be some sort of an agenda here, and truth appears to me to be a casualty.

But nobody in this discussion at least has said anything to imply that Cass is a ‘random GP’ in the first instance? If it’s been said somewhere else, then that person is quite likely attempting to discredit Cass, whereas making the point that she is not a scientist, but is rather a Physician, is not in any way attempting to discredit Cass. Even if there were any doubt as to whether or not she is a Physician or a scientist, the letters after her name would offer a clue, as opposed to claiming that the inclusion of Medicine in Health Sciences (an academic area of expertise) indicates Cass is to be regarded or recognised as a scientist.

Frankly it’s a bit of a head-scratcher to refer to Cass as a scientist, which is something I might understand if the person referring to her as a scientist either isn’t familiar with her background, or imagines that she is merely a glorified GP (they’re actually a lot more fun - they’re not consultants, they just charge consultants rates), but they’re not nearly as fun as this particular plane passenger:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/07/passenger-with-phd-ripped-for-insisting-airline-call-her-doctor/

I wouldn’t want to be on that plane experiencing a cardiac event and someone asking is there a doctor on board; someone with the requisite knowledge to administer emergency first-aid will do, regardless of their title or career choice 😁

You don’t clarify whether the story I linked to was irrelevant to the discussion because it’s irrelevant, or simply because you found it annoying on the basis that you’re someone who refuses to refer to your doctor as “Dr.” I don’t see why, but that’s between yourself and your doctor.

The reason the story I linked is relevant is because it relates to how there are people who do actually prefer to be referred to by their title (whether informed by magical thinking or otherwise), and that’s why for some people it was important that Cass be recognised as a scientist - because in their minds qualifications as a scientist are more important than qualifications as a doctor in the role of chair of an independent review into gender identity services for children and young people. Such an over-evaluation, or an evaluation that one role carries more weight than another in that context is an attempt to lend authority to their position. In reality, Cass was always eminently qualified anyway for the role - based not just upon her qualifications, but also her experience in paediatric medicine, her consultant experience and her management experience in GOSH and Evelina Children’s Hospitals.

Essentially - anyone attempting to discredit her or question her suitability for the role of chair of the independent review, could take a running jump.

As far as the links you provide bear relevance to the discussion, well I did waste an hour listening to the podcast, which was less informative than an ICA meeting in that most of it was comprised of their negative experiences of the public education system in the US, which is relevant in the sense that that’s where WPATH are based I guess, an organisation which promotes the idea of social transition in public life for children who are transgender. The whole point of the podcast is that its audience, apart from supporting their cause, were meant to find everything they described, disturbing. So it’s no surprise that you did find their description of the evolution in focus of the ACLU, disturbing. Anyone who is actually familiar with the evolution in focus of the ACLU might still find it disturbing too, but it’s been evolving since the evolution of the Civil Rights movement in the US, even 10 years ago when the ACLU published this article which gives the history of their involvement in advocacy on behalf of people who are transgender:

https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-advocacy-behalf-transgender-people

As far as the relevance of the article published by Sex Matters is concerned, well they too, like the ACLU, are a political advocacy organisation, and the value of their opinion as regards the correspondence between Cass and the NHS is limited, even more so when they would engage in promoting the magical thinking contained in the letter written by Cass where she states that she has not attempted to validate the accounts she received, but hopes that the themes contained in accounts that amount to hearsay and conjecture (given the lack of evidence), would be considered helpful to the NHS as it embarks on the review of adult services. I sense a theme, a theme, as Andrew Klavan says, is starting to, arise (under other circumstances I’d recommend his video reacting to the phenomenon of ‘speed cleaning’, but here I’d struggle to make it relevant).

The theme I’m referring to in this particular circumstance, is that of magical thinking. Magical thinking in itself, as I’m certain you’re acutely aware, is not limited to the concept of Evidence-based Medicine (need to be careful how one spells that, I almost spelled it ‘Evidence-biased Medicine’, would’ve given a completely different impression), and in the example of Cass’ letter to the NHS, the only thing that’s evident is that Cass, much like Wadhwa earlier, does not understand the limits of her authority. But at least one positive point that can be made about Cass is that there is no evidence she relies on being referred to by her proper title in the practice of her profession, unlike some people who imagine a title puts their opinions above question or criticism. There are far better known examples in society of the kind of people who both engage in magical thinking, and who demand to be referred to by their proper title:

https://youtu.be/rggspuTEir8?si=WzngLa8IJfLZzcWr

The phenomenon is by no means new, unique, or limited to people who prefer when they are addressed in the third person, to be referred to by their preferred personal pronouns.

Qualifications indicate a bit more than someone has passed some exams - they’re a good indicator of many things. One of those things is that the person possesses the requisite relevant knowledge to be able to fulfil the requirements of the role assigned to them, in order to achieve a desired outcome. While Cass is eminently and unquestionably qualified to chair a review into the gender identity services for children and young people, whether or not she did a good job, is an evaluation which can only be considered on completion of the task.

There’s considerable disagreement as to whether it is actually the case that Cass performed the task correctly, but from the point of her employer, the NHS, who commissioned her to chair the review, she did - Cass provided the NHS with the outcomes they desired. On completion of the task she was assigned, she sought to further engage with the NHS review of adult services, and while her efforts were acknowledged, she was reminded in the most diplomatic language that she was now surplus to requirements. Essentially, she had done the job that was required of her, and now her services are no longer required. She was under no obligation whatsoever, moral, professional or otherwise, to attempt to influence the review process in which her participation was not requested.

You’ve seen comments to the effect of “Cass review criticised”, and I’d agree, there isn’t much substance to the comments, no more than there’s any substance to Cass’ comments outlined in her correspondence with the NHS. Does it occur to you that critics of the review too have a moral, ethical or professional obligation to do so? There’s no substance to the comments other than reporting that some group or other doesn’t like the conclusions, but have you taken it upon yourself to investigate why those groups don’t like the conclusions? I have, and there are a whole variety of reasons, some with greater legitimacy than others, some with none, like Cass’ correspondence with the NHS in which she makes claims while failing to provide supporting evidence for her claims. It’s not the first time she does this, it’s also a feature of the review:

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2362304#d1e510

It’s the primary reason why I said earlier in the thread, upon reading the review, that it was only useful as bog roll, and even then only in a pinch (one isn’t required to be an engineer to appreciate the difficulty in flushing 80gsm paper round the U-bend, though granted the issue presents differently for Americans with their vacuum toilet system). I digress…

Sex Matters, or rather - it does for people who believe that sex matters, and in that respect the organisation unironically does not engage on any level whatsoever with science or fact. They remain an advocacy group whose most notable achievement to date has been to have what they refer to as ‘gender-critical beliefs’ recognised as a protected characteristic in employment law in the UK. To put that achievement in some sort of context - Ethical Veganism is a protected characteristic in UK employment law:

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/vegans-protected-by-the-equality-act-what-does-it-mean-for-employers

Sex Matters, as an organisation, though they do have scientists on their Board, don’t appear to make much use of them:

https://sex-matters.org/about-us/board/

How likely they are ever to contribute anything meaningful to science or scientific research or the advancement of science as an academic endeavour, is anyone’s guess really. One of the wonderful characteristics of science is that it is not subject only to the whims of a few scientists who regard themselves as being an authority on any particular subject matter:

https://www.cell.com/news-do/cell-sex-gender-focus-issue

Science, just like law, just the ACLU, evolves and adapts in order not just to survive, but to thrive, in spite of the attempts of some people to hold it back because they dislike where it’s going. Organisations like Sex Matters, by virtue of imagining that sex is the only characteristic that should matter to everyone, will continue to remain on the periphery of society, unironically an outlier in that context. If at some point they realise that their beliefs are not universal, there’s a chance they may evolve beyond the limits they have imposed upon themselves.

Regarding the link, and specifically the ton of shìt coming down on her head, it can’t have escaped your attention that has a tendency to happen when there is an attempt by some people to deprive another group of people of their liberty, or in this particular circumstance, their right to an education free of discrimination. In Maud’s case it happens when she makes stupid remarks about other people who don’t share her opinion that they should be deprived of their liberty and their rights which are recognised not just in the laws of New York State, but in Federal law. Maud has a rather curious habit of relying on the protection of the First Amendment when it suits her purposes, and weaponising the First Amendment against anyone whom she determines disagrees with her political beliefs, in the hopes that they will experience a ton of shìt coming down on their heads:

Maron, who recently said in a private chat that transgender children don’t exist, faced a barrage of criticism Wednesday night at the District 2 CEC meeting for her participation in the Thursday panel.

She doubled down on her decision Thursday night, accusing her critics of being “illiberal” and shying away from arguments. She singled out one young woman who recently challenged her stance on transgender children.

“She identified herself as a proud queer woman,” Maron recalled. “Which I think means she’s a straight girl without a boyfriend.” A parent at Thursday’s event subsequently challenged Maron on the comment, calling it “unnecessary and spiteful.”

https://www.chalkbeat.org/newyork/2024/01/19/protests-at-moms-for-liberty-new-york-city-visit/

https://www.the74million.org/article/as-nyc-removes-two-parents-from-ed-councils-free-speech-violations-charged/

As regards your experiences of the differences and similarities there are between the public education system in the US (Oregon specifically) and Ireland, it really does come down to personal preferences and personal circumstances. I am aware of teachers in Ireland who engage in that sort of over-familiarity with their students that they encourage their students to contact them outside of school hours (one of the things I dislike about the Educate Together philosophy is the idea that they encourage children to refer to teachers by their first name), but one of the good things about education both in Oregon and Ireland, is that schools are not permitted to treat students less favourably on the basis that they are transgender:

https://www.basicrights.org/news/victory-for-oregons-transgender-students

Being able to use the bathroom of their preference is a basic right which supports every child’s right to an education, no different than their equal participation in sports is supportive of their right to an education. If a child is prone to leaving skid marks, then that’s a toilet training issue that their parents need to address, not something which should be the responsibility of the teacher whose only authority is by virtue of the fact that they are recognised in law as acting in loco parentis, and certainly not the responsibility of the local parents council, some of whose members do not understand the limits of their authority in that passing resolutions to recommend policies which seek to limit the rights of others, does not mean that those people in higher positions of authority are required to take their recommendations seriously, no more than the NHS are required to take Cass’ correspondence seriously when she doesn’t understand the limits of her authority which are not overcome by either her qualifications, her experience or indeed her attempts to relate the purported experiences of others when it suits her purposes.