Talk:Mridul Wadhwa

"Harassment" section

The section on "harassment" seems excessively long in proportion to the other sections of the article, it conflates harassment with criticism, and one claim, that Kellie-Jay Keen "made a series of unfounded and unevidenced accusations about Wadhwa and her work", is sourced to an OpenDemocracy article in which this statement itself is unevidenced, and "Kellie-Jay Keen" is misspelled. Given that an employment tribunal has recently endorsed some of the criticisms against Wadhwa, it's clear that not all criticism is harassment. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please set out in detail your suggestions for changes to this section. I am knocking off for the evening, so I won’t reply until at least tomorrow midday, but there may be other editors who wish to comment on this. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed already and there is a consensus for the current state.[1][2][3]

You wrote the article conflates harassment with criticism. The article says 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 the section is about opposition to her role as CEO because she's trans - that's harassment, not criticism. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Little Professor, please self-revert this[4] edit - the claim is unexceptional and supported by the body. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The very fact that there is this discussion indicates that the claim is controversial, not unexceptional, and therefore per WP:BLP should be removed if unsourced. The previous discussions linked do not suggest there is consensus for the current weighting given the the section in the body. There are several issues with the sourcing used in the body, which needs to be addressed too.

Please do not edit-war over this. Little Professor (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Then the second paragraph of the section starts with Articles criticising Wadhwa were published on the websites, so it does seem to be treating criticism as an instance of harassment. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The source says The website Wings Over Scotland attacked her appointment. The Christian Institute website ran a series of articles about her, and the US-based Christian Today and Life Site News picked them up.[5]

It also states By August 2021, thousands of tweets had been sent with the hashtag #AskRapeCrisisScotland as so-called ‘gender critical’ activists denounced the charity for hiring Wadhwa, often repeating myths promoted by these websites and videos

And, even if you think websites publishing articles about how awful it is she got a job since she's transgender is somehow "criticism" and not "harassment", the article lays out clear, inarguable, instances of harassment: ERCC has shown openDemocracy 55 pages of emails it received at the time, with senders’ details redacted. Almost all misgender Wadhwa and many accuse her baselessly of predatory behaviour. Some are racist. The letters include numerous threats of vigilante violence. One seems to call for a genocide of trans women. Another chillingly presents the board with a choice of sacking Wadhwa, or seeing transphobes “take matters into their own hands”. - is that "criticism"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A tribunal has found the leadership of the ERCC to be worthy of the works of Kafka, so certainly there is some valid non-harassing criticism. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this person was subject to a harassment campaign and anybody has ever made a valid criticism of this person are mutually exclusive statements - they are not. A harassment campaign, which RS stated was a harassment campaign, that contained many instances of inarguable harassment, is not "criticism" because a tribunal later found this person was in the wrong about something else.

Yes or no - was Mridul Wadhwa the subject of harassment or not? Not Was everything harassment?, I am asking was she subject to harassment? Per WP:RS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe harassment did happen in this case. That doesn't mean that everything an activist might term "harassment" actually is, but certainly some of what was said does fit the label. (The same is true for some of what has been aimed at J. K. Rowling, Kathleen Stock, and other gender critical people.) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, why doesn't Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter have a "harassment" section? It was harassed by trans activists, who pinned a dead rat to their door and painted graffiti on their wall. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a suitable source for this, you should add it to that article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Have any of the events mentioned here resulted in a finding in a court of law, tribunal or similar of anyone breaking laws on harassment? If so perhaps the section should be edited to emphasize those. If not, the tone of the section seems problematic. Happypoems (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion October 2024

@Sweet6970, you removed mention of harassment from the lead[6] - per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY the lead should reflect the body, which mentions the harassment. You said repetitious, undue, based on a vague comment in the source; edit summary incorrect – text was added as well as a source but every part of that was wrong

• "repetitious" doesn't apply as it's not mentioned in the lead
• undue doesn't work per LEADFOLLOWSBODY
• "based on a vague comment in the source" is false, the two sources say But for the last three years, she’s faced torrential abuse including unfounded smears that she’s a sexual predator and numerous threats of violence – all because she is trans.[7] and She has faced consistent harassment from anti-trans groups who opposed her appointment, including hate speech on social media and baseless accusations. The abuse became so severe that, in 2022, the ERCC was forced into a lockdown after staff consulted with security experts.[8]
• "edit summary incorrect - text was added as well as a source" is false as my edit summary was Added mention of harassment back to lead with sources.[9]

Please self revert. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

1) There was already mention of harassment - your addition was repetitious.

2) ‘Lead follows body’ - See (1)

3) There is already a large section on Harassment.

4) Your edit summary said: Added source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I made a mistake because I saw the diff on mobile, I thought you'd removed the mention of harassment from the lead not the body. Sorry about that, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. Regarding Special:Diff/1249738106 (an edit to the body), I think it's good to explicitly state that some of the harassment was motivated by opposition to her appointment, and the provided source substantiates that. I'm not sure I like the wording though, I feel it could be better woven into the text. Special:Diff/1249585947, which added the harassment to the lead, remains in place, and that is good so. If anything, it could maybe get a few more words, considering the amount of content on this topic within the body. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I do support keeping the additional source/ explicit statement in the body. I'm not sure how to cover it better in the lead but am very open to suggestions! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What exact alteration to the wording do you suggest? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infobox

The infobox for this article is uninformative and dubious. It says that Wadhwa is known for Women's rights, trans rights, and anti-domestic violence activism but she is actually famous for her comments in the ‘Guilty Feminist podcast’, and for being criticised in the Roz Adams tribunal case. I feel it would be somewhat pointed and perhaps unbalanced to say this in the Infobox. So I propose deleting the Infobox entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree slightly, she was famous enough to be part of a harassment campaign before either of those 2 events happened so to say that she is famous for those is a bit weird. However I do agree that "known for" probably isn't the most accurate and probably could do with a review. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with deletion for the reasons mentioned. Happypoems (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this, she was notably receiving harassment before the guilty feminist podcast or Adams case. She has spent her career in Women's rights, trans rights, and anti-domestic violence activism - just because some people have been very mad about that doesn't mean it's not what she's known for. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That the comments in the Guilty Feminist podcast, and the Roz Adams case, are only 2 events in her career, are the reason that I do not think that these should be in the infobox as what she is ‘known for’. But in practice, as I said, these are what she is currently famous for. The ‘pageviews’ function shows a massive spike when the Roz Adams case was reported. And as I said, the infobox is uninformative. I think it does not serves any purpose, and should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removal of the infobox, at least for now. It presents basically the same info as the very short lead, and presenting the same info side-by-side is unhelpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally against deletion of infoboxes, as they often serve as a neat and tidy summary of vital info. This one, though, doesn't have much in it at present; can it be improved? Is there a free-licenced picture, are there some reliably sourced facts like birthdate/place, etc.? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Companies House has Wadhwa's date of birth as February 1978 if that's any help? Zeno27 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information. However, I don’t think it is enough to justify keeping the infobox. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, it looks like there is not support for retention of the infobox, so I am deleting it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

2005

Article describes Mridul Wadhwa as: "born in India in 1978. She lived in Pune until 30, where she ran a successful business with her husband, then emigrated to the United Kingdom, where she earned a master's degree in education from the University of Edinburgh in 2005.

If she was born in 1978 and "lived in Pune until 30", then when did she move to the UK? The unreferenced: She permanently moved to Scotland in 2009 does not answer. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

For Women Scotland

@Sweet6970: As I said in my edit summary, I think that For Women Scotland belonging to the TERF movement is quite important context in that sentence. Including it makes source criticism a bit easier for the reader. As for the WP:CLAIM part, I don't care that much one way or the other, though I wonder whether both having it be "said" and not including anything about the organization's leanings could obscure the fact that this is an organization with (as far as I know) no credentials to be interpreting the law. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: This is an extremely contentious article. Please proceed by discussion, rather than reverting.

‘TERF’ is a derogatory term – please do not use it in discussions – this does not help to maintain a civil atmosphere.

For Women Scotland is linked in the article, so I do not see any need for commenting on the nature of this organisation. ‘The Ferret’ is not a well known publication, and I do not think it is appropriate to include in our article their comments on this organisation.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You made a change – I disagreed – I reverted. That is normal editing procedure. Else your manual reverts of YFNS's additions would also be considered disruptive. Also, you calling me out on this is a bit ironic when you immediately reverted my revert back.

TERF is an abbreviation for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a widely-used term. That many consider that a bad thing to be, is not my problem.

The Ferret is not the only source calling FWS TERFs, see the article on them for example. Also, I'm not sure how relevant your assessment of how "well known" The Ferret is is; they seem to have high editorial standards, and were the subject of at least one academic study (doi:10.1177/1464884917733587). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

When editors ask you to be civil it's polite to do so, especially in a CTOP where heated exchanges are best avoided. This is not the place to relitigate which words are derogatory or not, again. In the UK it is a word you would not get away with using in the workplace. Please try and stick to NPOV in article text. Void if removed (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The normal procedure would be that when a change is challenged by reversion, the next step would be to start a discussion on the Talk page, rather than to revert the revert.

I repeat: ‘TERF’ is a derogatory term, as stated in our article. TERF (acronym) the term is now considered a pejorative, derogatory or disparaging.

The Ferret is such an obscure publication that I considered deleting the material altogether.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's just the term TERF the feels wrong, how about using anti-trans. That term is used on the For Women Scotland page and doesn't have the same outcry about it. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The Herald partnering with the award-winning journalism platform The Ferret. [10]

The National partnering with the award-winning investigative journalism co-operative, the fantastic journalists whom they've already long partnered with. Clearly, in Scotland, The Ferret is far from an "obscure publication", and considered quite reliable (Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS). [11] -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 1:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. However, it is still not a sufficiently notable publication that we should be using their view of For Women Scotland in wikivoice. And it is unnecessary, since, as I said, anyone interested in the nature of the organisation can use the link. And ‘anti-trans’ is also a disputed term, which is not used in wikivoice in the article on that organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And on balance WP:RS don't use such terms. The BBC consistently simply refers to them as a "group", The Times a "campaign group". These are fine, neutral descriptors. Void if removed (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've included that in the article. I think some brief description is better than nothing. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s OK by me. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of resignation

@Sweet6970, you removed text from the section Mridul Wadhwa#Resignation from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre that said The review found 93 percent of survivors felt hopeful about their future after their time with the ERCC. It noted 2 instances of survivors avoiding the ERCC as a result of their policies, neither of whom had used the service; one chose not to use their services due to fears of their assigned staff members assigned gender at birth and one chose not to use the service after her request that they be seen by a cisgender woman was granted [12]

The justification you provided was irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is MW, however, you kept text that states 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. Among the failures cited was not clarifying the birth sex of every staff member, and requiring survivors to request if they wanted to be seen by a cisgender staff member specifically

Why do you consider only negative findings about the ERCC relevant to Wadhwa? I ask that you self-revert per WP:NPOV. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

YFNS, being neutral does not mean that every negative statement is balanced by a positive one. The circumstances surrounding MW’s resignation are that she was severely criticised in an employment tribunal case, and by the review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland. It is these things which are relevant to our article. You added material which is irrelevant to MW, who is the subject of this article. That is why I deleted it. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the material that was removed was from the review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland. Why is it solely criticism from that review that is due in this article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Luna, your question starts from the wrong place. The point to consider is: is that information relevant to this article on MW? The material says nothing about MW, so it should not be in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it is relevant. The sources about Wadhwa's resignation both cover both the positive and negative findings of the report. Including only the negative parts would give our readers the false impression that the report was wholly negative towards the ERCC under Wadhwa, which is false. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, it is not relevant, because it is not about MW. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

So you would be ok with removing the text YFNS cited in their 2nd paragraph as well then. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. So I propose deleting the text 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. Among the failures cited was not clarifying the birth sex of every staff member, and requiring survivors to request if they wanted to be seen by a cisgender staff member specifically., and adding The board of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre said the “time was right for a change of leadership… We are committed to delivering excellence while taking on board the recommendations from the independent review to ensure we place survivors voices at the heart of our strategy”. This is in the PinkNews source of 13 September 2024. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That would completely take away all context for why she was resigned and just leave vague quotes that don't specify what the review found.

The text should reflect the findings of the review that resulted in her losing her job. The more relevant parts of the PinkNews article are:

• The report said the ERCC failed service users by not clarifying the birth sex of every staff member. It noted two instances where survivors chose not to use the centre’s services as a result of its policies.
• It also found that 93 per cent of survivors felt hopeful about the future at the end of their time with the ERCC, with one saying they “walked into the last session with confidence”, adding: “I was not just surviving any more, and I will forever be indebted to my therapist for that.
• The two specific instances that were noted in the review included a survivor who chose not to use the ERCC over fears of their staff member’s assigned gender at birth. Another reportedly said they had asked to be seen by a cisgender woman, and that, while the ERCC assured them their needs would be met, they weren’t confident about the organisation’s service.

I do support removing 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. Among the failures cited was not clarifying the birth sex of every staff member, and requiring survivors to request if they wanted to be seen by a cisgender staff member specifically. but don't support your text, but rather something descriptive like The review said the ERCC failed its users by not clarifying the assigned gender at birth of every staff member. It found 93% of survivors felt hopeful about their future after the time with the ERCC and noted 2 instances of people choosing not to use the services as a result of their trans-inclusive policies. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

to YFNS :1) The text you are proposing to have in the article is about Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, not about MW.

2) You are excluding the point that the Centre had not protected women-only spaces. So your version does not give an accurate impression of what went on. It looks like you are just using the PinkNews source, and ignoring the other sources. PinkNews is a biased source, and should be treated with care; the BBC should generally be preferred. Both the BBC sources refer to the failure to provide women only spaces, and the BBC source of 13 September 2024 includes : The charity has paused new referrals to the centre and said it was "extremely concerned" that women-only spaces had not been provided for 16 months.

3) The text I was proposing to add is necessary, because it actually refers to the need for a ‘change in leadership’, and ties the review to the resignation of MW.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Both are about the review into the ERCC when she presided over it, the resignation was due to the review

2.1) "protecting women-only spaces" is a vague euphemism that doesn't mean anything to people outside the UK

• A) Calling spaces exclusively for cisgender women that deliberately exclude trans ones "women-only" falls afoul of MOS:GID - we are under no obligation to agree with the UK that "women" doesn't include "trans women"
• B) Per the sources, people could request cisgender staff, AKA "women-only spaces", so the issue was not they weren't provided at all, it's that they weren't the default

2.2) Both BBC articles also note the review found the center had continued to deliver high quality services to many

3) The statement from the ERCC board says Mridul Wadhwa and the Board have decided that the time is right for a change of leadership in at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). Mridul has stood down from her role as CEO of ERCC.[13] It did not say the board decided it, it says Wadhwa and the board did.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

1) The only references to the review should be those which are relevant to the resignation.

2.1) A)i) YFNS, since you have provided a link to MOS:GID, you will be aware that this guideline does not say anything about whether ‘women’ includes ‘transwomen’, as it is about the treatment of inf about individuals. Your comment is misleading, to put it mildly.

2.1 A)ii) Regarding the expression ‘women-only spaces’ – this is not a ‘vague euphemism’, it is normal language in the real world. But if you think that this may be unclear or ambiguous, then I invite you to propose an alternative wording from the Guardian [14], which goes into more detail than the BBC, and includes: The report said under Wadhwa’s leadership the centre had lacked focus on its core requirements and that “there were no protected women-only spaces available through ERCC unless they were specifically requested”. It added: “Putting women in the position of having to discuss whether the service they receive will be provided by someone who was born and continues to identify as female has caused damage and does not amount to the provision of protected ‘women-only’ spaces.”

2.1B) According to the Guardian the centre “did not provide dedicated women-only spaces, as required by the national service standards, while declaring to [us] that they were adhering to the standards”. So your statement on that point is not supported by the sources.

2.2 This is about the Centre, not about MW.

3) OK, I agree we should add that the decision that Wadhwa should leave was made by Wadhwa as well as the board. We will have to add the Board’s statement as a source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Yes, but that includes the positives the review found

2.1) A.i) We're not going to misgender people turned away by this policy. We can put "women-only" in quotes and explain this means cis women only

2.1) A.ii) See above, it's normal in the U.K. in discussions of excluding trans people but not globally. A good summary of that would be the report said under Wadhwas's leadership the center did not provide women-only spaces, ie for cisgender women only, except on request and stated this caused damage and did not amount to providing protected "women-only spaces" - The guardian puts "women-only" in quotes and explains this refers to someone who was born and continues to identify as female - ie cisgender women

2.1) B) That statement is supported by the guardian quote you just added. It was also supported by PinkNews. Both highlight the issue the report found was people had to request cisgender-only services instead of them being the default.

2.2) You can't have it both ways - the sources say the Review looked at the ERCC under Wadhwa and found good and bad things. We include both, or neither, but not privilege one over the other.

3) No issue with that, but it should be summary style not a long quote. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

1) I still disagree on this point – for instance, the Guardian’s detailed report does not mention any positives – but it looks like I am in a minority on this point.

2.1)Ai) You have misinterpreted MOS:GENDERID – but there is an alternative, as discussed under 2.1)Aii) below.

2.1)Aii) Thankyou for providing a suggested wording. The Guardian does not use the word ‘cisgender’, presumably because that word is not well known to the general public, and for the same reason I would not use it in our article. So I would explain this in our article. My proposed wording would be slightly different from yours: The report said that under Wadhwas's leadership the centre did not provide women-only spaces, (i.e. spaces restricted to those who are born and continue to identify as female), except on request and stated this caused damage and did not amount to providing protected "women-only spaces".

This is a bit long-winded but I think it is necessary if our readers are to understand the point. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can gloss women-only spaces as cis-women-only spaces in Wikivoice, as that would imply only cis wonen are women, which does not reflect RS; see Trans woman. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to this discussion and get at the crux of #2, this quote from a much more experienced user who has already directed this to Sweet6970 does it best:

"Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP)"

- Raladic [Original Remark]

This situation is that of an article containing a section stemming from a controversy, and therefore this article should give a neutral summary of that controversy. Even if the segment balancing the POV is not relevant to the subject of the article, it is entirely relevant to the section. I would frankly be appalled to go to various pages which have sections like these and only prevent the assertion of the initial source without balancing it out. An example of this in action would be if James W. Forsyth mentioned only the U.S. Army's account of the Massacre at Wounded Knee. This may be a hyperbolic example, but it gets to the core of the issue that:

a.) This edit is a disservice to the reader.

b.) This constitutes WP:CPOV to only present the claims when there is sufficient cause to balance it out with other sources.

c.) This, as well as the failure to qualify 'women-only' in this context as trans-exclusionary, serve only as a WP:SOAPBOX for transphobic beliefs. As a refrain, Wikipedia has a higher standard than this. Relm (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Relmcheatham: This is a discussion about the wording of this article. I cannot extract from your post any suggestions on any edit that may improve this article. Please clarify. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to the notion of using wikivoice to use 'Women-only' in this context without clarifying that this is meant in a trans exclusionary way. Additionally I touched on the portion balancing the POV being removed and why I am criticizing that edit. Relm (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed update to resignation

Based on the discussion above, here is a new proposed wording: In September 2024, Wadhwa resigned from the ERCC following a review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland which said 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 said the centre had provided "women-only" spaces, defined as "provided by someone who was born and continues to identify as female" (ie cisgender women), only on request and this did "not amount to the provision of protected ‘women-only’ spaces". The review found 93 percent of survivors felt hopeful about their future after their time with the ERCC. It noted 2 instances of survivors avoiding the ERCC as a result of their policies: one chose not to use their services due to fears of their assigned staff members assigned gender at birth and one chose not to use the service after her request that they be seen by a cisgender woman was granted.

@Sweet6970, @Maddy from Celeste, @Relmcheatham, @LunaHasArrived - what're your thoughts on this? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Relm (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

to YFNS : 1) What happened to this caused damage, which was in your original proposed wording?

2) Are you proposing that the existing wording had not put survivors first, and had not followed national service standards should no longer be included? If so, I object.

3) In order to avoid confusing readers, I think that only should be before ‘provided’ rather than before ‘on request’.

4) The PinkNews source says: Another reportedly said they had asked to be seen by a cisgender woman, and that, while the ERCC assured them their needs would be met, they weren’t confident about the organisation’s service. This is not the same as your wording:one chose not to use the service after her request that they be seen by a cisgender woman was granted. In fact, I can’t work out exactly what the PinkNews statement actually means.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1-2) we can put those back in

3) no issue with that

4) The original review says In July 2024, another woman contacted the reviewer and asked to speak about her experience. She had been in contact with ERCC and wanted to be clear that support would be provided by someone who was biologically female. The gender identity/gender affirmative approach she felt was adopted by Rape Crisis Scotland and ERCC did not provide such assurance.[15] - PinkNews seems to be working with the limited information in the review. My paraphrase covers that: 1) she reached out asking to be seen by a cis woman, 2) per all sources those kinds of requests were granted, 3) she chose not to use ERCC anyways. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

to YFNS: I’m glad we are in agreement on 1-3. But I don’t understand your comment (4). The text you have quoted does not say that her request to be supported by a biological woman was, or would have been, granted. I think the only definite thing that we can say about this is one chose not to use the service. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Almost every source, and the review itself, note that "cis women only" spaces were provided on request, just not by default. True or false? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't support the statement that this specific person's request was granted with the fact that in general, such requests were granted. That's WP:SYNTH. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I don't think going straight to the primary sources is a good idea as PinkNews says the request was granted. I'd just wanted to note that so far no sources, primary or secondary, have denied that such requests were granted so Sweet6970 questioning if Pinknews is right about this doesn't make sense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording – one chose not to use the service after her request that they be seen by a cisgender woman was granted is correct but somewhat confusing, as it may be read as implying a causal relationship. I propose:

It noted 2 instances of survivors avoiding the ERCC as a result of their policies: one chose not to use their services due to fears of their assigned staff member's assigned gender at birth, and one chose not to use the service, though they were assured they could request to see a cisgender woman.

The though here may be seen as editorializing, but I think it is supported by PinkNews' use of the synonymous "while X, Y" construction. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not ‘questioning if Pinknews is right about this’. As I said previously I can’t work out exactly what the PinkNews statement actually means. ‘the ERCC assured them their needs would be met' is vague, and might mean that ERCC thought that their needs would be met by having a counsellor who was a trans woman. I don’t think we should be assuming what they meant, particularly as the primary source is also obscure on this point. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Another reportedly said they had asked to be seen by a cisgender woman, and that, while the ERCC assured them their needs would be met, they weren’t confident about the organisation’s service.

PinkNews. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)