What problem?
Here’s an interesting bit from the tribunal. (It’s tricky reading the live tweets, because of course they have to be done at speed so a lot is left out and some is scrambled, but it’s worth the effort.)
KM is Katy McTernan, a member of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s senior management.
“What problem?”
Really. Really. A man was “the best candidate” to head a rape crisis centre. REALLY???
That second “rape crisis centres” must be a mistake, and should be something like “trans activism” or campaigning or something along those lines. Anyway…”that’s not what was happening”? Oh really? Why else would a man apply for that job?
Wadwha was appointed head of a rape crisis centre because he’s a woman, not because he’s a trans woman. But of course he’s not a woman, so that can’t be why. What KM means is that he was appointed to make the point that he “is a woman”…at the expense of all the women the rape crisis centre is there to help. He damn well was appointed because he’s a trans woman, because there is absolutely no other reason for him to have been appointed. It was and is a calculated deliberate “fuck you” to women for the sake of “trans inclusion.”
Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
If MW were a man who acknowledges being male, he would never have been appointed head of the ERCC.
I think it’s in theory possible that a man could lead such an organization. But they advertised for a woman. A man who insists he’s “really” a woman, and who puts the needs of men like himself ahead of the needs of women in the operation of the organization, is far worse than a man who acknowledges the difference between men and women, and who tries to fill the management role appropriately. The man-who-claims-to-be-a-woman is already known to desire to breach women’s boundaries.
So it seems to me it’s much worse having a man-who-claims-to-be-a-woman in charge than to have a man in charge, in a situation like this.
I too think it’s in theory possible that a man could lead such an organization, but the reasons not to hire a man for that aren’t so much about how impossible it is as about how undesirable it is. (Not saying you disagree. Just thinking aloud about why it outrages me so much.)
The equivalent might be putting a white person in charge of an anti-lynching organization.
It’s all part of a plan, right? Wasn’t that part of the point of putting TiMs in women’s prisons as a trial balloon, that they could just do it while nobody was looking, and because it was only imprisoned women being victimized, nobody woul notice and nobody would care? These are the fruits of “NO DEBATE!”
There should be an investigation into the authorities who made these decisions and implemented them. Somebody has to be held to account. Wadwa didn’t waltz in on his own; he was chosen and placed there with malice aforethought. Women are not safe while these individuals still have power to make these decisions and perform these sick experiments in social engineering.
It’s not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
This sequence of answers is quite something:
No
Not specifically
No
I don’t know
What problem?
I don’t know
I don’t know
I don’t agree
Knows nothing, but has an opinion nonetheless.