Talk:Mridul Wadhwa

Suggested New Section

( I don't have 500 edits on my account) - in the light of recent events I took it upon myself to craft a new section for this page which I believe should be quite high up the page:

Roz Adams Case

Background

In a highly publicized legal case, Roz Adams, a former employee of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, filed a claim for constructive dismissal against the organization. Adams argued that the hostile work environment under the leadership of Mridul Wadhwa, who strongly advocated for transgender inclusion, forced her to resign. Adams held gender-critical beliefs, which she felt were not respected and led to her being marginalized within the organization.

Tribunal Findings

The employment tribunal found in favor of Roz Adams, ruling that she had been constructively dismissed. The tribunal highlighted that Adams faced discrimination due to her gender-critical views, which clashed with Wadhwa's staunchly pro-transgender stance. The findings revealed that the aggressive pursuit of Wadhwa's ideological beliefs created a divisive atmosphere, negatively impacting both staff and service users.

Impact on Service Provision

Critics of Wadhwa argue that the focus on ideological purity over practical support led to a decline in the quality of care provided to rape survivors. Testimonies during the tribunal suggested that some women felt alienated and unsupported due to the center's policies under Wadhwa's leadership. This aspect of the case has fueled broader discussions about the balance between inclusivity and the specific needs of vulnerable populations in crisis services.

Public Reaction and Calls for Resignation

The outcome of the tribunal and the details revealed during the case prompted widespread calls for Mridul Wadhwa's resignation. Many stakeholders, including former service users and members of the public, expressed concern that Wadhwa's ideological beliefs were prioritized over the essential mission of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Despite this, Wadhwa has remained in her position, defending the inclusivity measures and emphasising the importance of supporting all survivors of sexual violence.

Suggested additional section ends.

Suggested update to intro paragraphs, given the importance of this case.

"Mridul Wadhwa was born in India in 1978. She lived in Pune until she was 30, where she ran a successful business with her husband, then emigrated to the United Kingdom, earning a master's degree in education from the University of Edinburgh in 2005. She permanently moved to Scotland in 2009. Wadhwa became involved in women's rights activism in Scotland as a student and has focused on giving voice to women from marginalized backgrounds, including migrant and racialized women. She is a trans woman.

Wadhwa's tenure as Chief Executive Officer of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has been marked by controversy. A legal case involving former employee Roz Adams, who won a claim of constructive dismissal, highlighted issues of ideological extremism and discrimination against gender-critical beliefs. Critics argue that Wadhwa's policies have excluded some service users, negatively impacting the care provided to rape survivors. "

Thank you for drafting this. However, I feel it is unsuitable for this article. Your draft goes into too much detail about the tribunal case, whereas this article is about Wadhwa. Also, every statement made on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by a source, and these should normally be secondary sources e.g. reports in reputable news publications. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what Sweet6970 said... Something of this sort would be more fitting in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre article, though it might still be too long and detailed for that. And certainly sources are necessary. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent updates to this page concerning the condemnation of Mridul, her control and actions at th ERCC and the ERCC itself

Very important, seismic legal outcome regarding Mridul and the ERCC, This case outcome and the details behind it urgently needs adding to this article but as it is protected, most of us cannot - https://archive.ph/ZCsFI and https://freespeechunion.org/victory-for-worker-in-rape-centre-gender-row/ . Specific quotes from the tribunal should be included on this page, for example Mridul Wadhwa and other members of the senior management team were engaged in what the Tribunal described as “a heresy hunt”. The belief that sex is real and that it might be important in a rape crisis centre was deemed by ERCC to be transphobic. The Tribunal concluded that Mridul Wadha had an agenda to “cleanse the organisation” of those who did not adhere to an institutional view which was “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory”. It concluded that “there is absolutely no need for a Rape Crisis Centre to be seen to take such a stance”.

Agreed. The role of the then CEO, Maggie Chapman MSP, should also be mentioned. Zeno27 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zeno27: :Thank you for providing the archive Times source. I am drafting something to add to this article. I have also just heard about this on Radio 4, where Wadhwa was mentioned. I cannot yet find anything on the BBC website, but I will keep a lookout for this. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC will not include a proper account of the case, they are institutionally biased and rarely able to give a clear report on any news that contains information about transgender people. I would urge you to consider different news sources, or at least others to compliment the BBC article, such as https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-condemned-gender-critical-worker-pzj35f0fj

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13437863/Rape-centre-boss-heresy-hunt-female-employee-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/edinburgh-rape-crisis-gender-row-employment-tribunal-the-three-key-findings-in-damning-report/ar-BB1mIcgk

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/12712792/sex-realist-worker-gender-edinburgh-rape-crisis/ 82.10.58.36 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now added inf on the tribunal case to the article, and a BBC reference. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used the Times source as well as the BBC source. These are both high quality sources. Please note that the Daily Mail is deprecated on Wikipedia, because it is unreliable on facts. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't want to listen to voices from all sides of politics would we, much better if we just listen to people we agree with. After all, words are violence.

Regardless - given Mridul's significant agenda to "Cleanse the organisation" of anyone who did not subscribe to opinions “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory - the information on Mridul's page should be much clearer, much firmer, and much further up the page. This is *the* career defining moment of their career and the thing they will be remembered for. 82.10.58.36 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have some specific suggestion for a change to the wording I have added on this matter? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it protected and who gets to edit it? Zeno27 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the protection log [1], the page was protected because of violations of the biographies of living persons policy. See WP:BLP. Admins and other editors who are extended-confirmed are able to edit the article. See WP:XCON. I see that an IP has requested that the protection be lifted, and that this request has been refused. [2] Sweet6970 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing status for such articles is granted to anybody with a sufficient number of edits and a sufficient number of days since creating their account, a fairly lenient criterion that lets in all sorts of editors of all sorts of opinions, just not relative newbies. It's not a tiny cabal, anyway. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms coming out of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

Are going to need somewhere to go and just undoing peoples edits won;t help anything. There were many things that came up last week and many that will come up next week, quite likely Mridul's resignation over them. So get ready perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsugaku-San (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So context is the renaming of the Guilty Feminist podcast comments section to "Criticisms" by Tetsugaku-San, and the reversion of it by myself. Now I reverted this because criticism sections are inherently non-neutral in biographies of living people. Best practice in this content area is to naturally weave this sort of content into either more descriptive sections, or into contextually appropriate existing sections.

So get ready perhaps? Within the article itself, the short answer to this question is no. We don't write content speculatively based on what may happen in the future. We write content about what has happened in the past. We don't know what will happen in the coming week, or the weeks to come. Now if something happens we can look at adding a new section or subsection, as contextually appropriate based on what reliable sources state at that time. For example, if as you've suggested she might resign from her position at the ERCC, then we could add a new section with a neutral title like "Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre resignation", with the exact title and content depending on the context for her resignation and the sourcing available if it happens. But we do not need to pre-emptively need to rename any existing sections based on hypotheticals.

With regards to the last few days, as far as I can tell only one reliable source has published anything about the Wadhwa, an opinion column in the Scotsman. Opinion articles cannot be used for assertions of fact per policy. Maybe that will change over the next week, however we need to take great care when considering adding content based on sourcing, as both The Times and Herald have been noted by other reliable sources as perpetrating harassment against Wadhwa.

On a related note, I would like to ask you Tetsugaku-San to please self-revert this edit and this edit. Both of these are recent edits that I reverted, and per WP:BRD they should be discussed prior to reinsertion.

• For the first edit I reverted, I said that this was both WP:UNDUE and violated MOS:GENDERID. An unreliable source (Legal Feminist), an opinion piece (The Critic), and an article by an RS that hve been party to the harassment campaign against Wadhwa (The Herald) do not demonstrate due weight. Describing Wadhwa as a "male without any kind of GRC" fundamentally violates MOS:GENDERID and per caselaw (AEA v EHRC) is wrong and irrelevant.
• For the second edit I reverted, I said that this was not an improvement, and that the specificity of which election in 2021 was important. Reverting this also reintroduces a grammatical error as she announced her candidacy as an SNP MSP 2021 should at minimum include the word in eg she announced her candidacy as an SNP MSP in 2021. While you could argue that this is implied by the use of MSP, that is a term that would be unfamiliar to readers outside of the UK. By specifying we make it clear that Wadhwa was not standing as a candidate in a local or Westminster election.

Now if you have reasons for why those edits by Melissa Highton should be restored, then feel free to make them here. But per WP:BRD I again ask that you self-revert pending a consensus for their inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note, another user has now reverted those edits. Justifications for the original removal still stand though, and this content should be discussed and consensus gained before being restored again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Decided I'll just wait for someone with more patience to come along.Tetsugaku-San (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits[3] by Melissa Highton that falsely claim Wadhwa to be "male" and supposedly not a woman are blatant BLP violations that target the subject of this article solely on account of being transgender, the "sources" are low-quality, far-right, conspiracy theorist and transphobic websites (For Women Scotland, an extreme anti-trans group, "Legalfeminist", a well-known TERF website and associated Twitter account that promotes conspiracy theories and transphobia, Jean Hatchet, an anti-trans activist), and should be reverted on sight. Unfortunately, this article has a long history of harassment of the article subject, related to the very harassment described in the article and numerous RS. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still on wikibreak but I logged in to point out a possibly urgent BLP issue. The article currently includes the categories Indian transgender women, Scottish transgender women, Transgender women politicians, Indian LGBT politicians, Scottish LGBT politicians. As I understand it, the subject is a trans woman so she may belong in these categories.

But per WP:BLPCAT, "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources". I'd argue that "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" should also apply a gender identity although strictly speaking from the wording it doesn't.

Whatever the case, unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't say anywhere she is a trans woman nor imply it in some other way (e.g. that she was assigned male at birth), other than sort of imply by the headline of one RS. (There was an addition to the lead but this was removed.) While headlines are not RS, I'm fairly sure that the article itself which is an RS must mention some details of her gender identity, so I didn't consider this urgent enough for me to remove myself.

But if there is insufficient sourcing to establish that we should mention she is a trans woman (or whatever) somewhere in the article, perhaps because as mentioned above most sources which delve into this are from op-eds, critics and those harassing her, then the categories transgender categories need to be removed ASAP.

Likewise unless I've missed something there is no mention of her sexual orientation other than a mention of a husband, so since there's also no mention of her being a trans woman, the LGBT categories also don't belong. Indeed strictly speaking until the issue is resolved all the categories should be removed.

Related, I think if we do lack sufficient sourcing to mention that she's a trans woman, we have to consider whether to remove or at least reword the part about her leaving due to objections over her being listed on an all-woman candidates list as I feel this part is hard to understand without such knowledge.

I'd even go as far as to suggest we should consider removing the part about her being misgendered. While people are frequently subject to misgendering even when they gender identity matches that assigned at birth for a variety of reasons, I feel that it's an important aspect of understanding one of the reasons this happened. I'm fairly surprised that sources that mention this harassment don't mention her being a trans woman, my only guess is the sourcing mentioning this harassment is fairly limited.

(To be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting it makes it okay. But just like the info about her being born in India and a immigrant to Scotland helps to inform on her being subject to racist attacks without excusing it, the knowledge she is a trans woman helps to inform on her being subject to misgendering without excusing it.)

On a mostly unrelated note, IMO the section on her leaving the SNP doesn't flow very well. It first mentions she quit the partly due to attacks on her motivated by both her leadership ambitions and transphobia. It then says she will still vote for Scottish independence. It then mentions she left after an amendment to the law the SNP allowed. I assume both of these are true, she left both due to the attacks and the law change they allowed but the way it's worded just seems confusing. At the very least, I feel the independence thing should be moved after both reasons but perhaps the section can just be reworded to make it clearer that these are among the reasons.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If she didn't ascribe the law change as a reason for her leaving but the source did mention it came after that, perhaps a better option would be to move the part about the law change to be first, so we say she left after this happened, and we then explain the reasons she gave for her leaving. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. I don't want to go too far in to this, but even putting aside the misgendering, reading the section on harassment more careful I'm actually really surprised sources which discuss the harassment don't mention in some way that she's a trans woman. It just seems to me it's a very significant aspect of this, as it's extremely likely the harassment is not just because of her advocating for trans rights etc, but in fact is primarily due to transphobia directed at a trans woman. A bizarre situation all around IMO if I understand what was said above correctly and it's primarily only sources harassing her etc which mention she's a trans woman and other sources have largely ignored it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Mridul Wadwha is definitely a trans woman – see this Guardian article of 12 December 2022 [4], which includes In line with a longstanding policy of trans inclusion by the country’s official network, Edinburgh rape crisis centre has been run by a trans woman, Mridul Wadhwa, since May 2021. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a question of whether you can find a source that says she is a trans woman, there is also a question of WP:DUE, whether it is a defining characteristic, BLP concerns related to mentioning someone's sexuality or gender identity etc. For example, does she publicly identify in this way? It seems to me that this has mainly been made into an issue in connection with the racist and transphobic harassment of her that the article describes.

In particular, describing her as a trans woman in the lead is as absurd as starting an article about a gay man in this way: "John Doe is an actor and a gay man." Normally, sexuality etc. is something that would be mentioned briefly way down in the article, not in the lead. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

With regards to neutral sources (ie not The Times and Herald), very few actually mention that Wadhwa is trans. For them it doesn't seem that pertinent when discussing her or her work. I think the Guardian source could warrant a brief mention in the background section however, and that would satisfy the WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATV issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What wording are you thinking of? Just She is transgender? Or something else? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I've no specific wording in mind right now, other than something simple like She is a trans woman because that's pretty much the depth that source goes into. Is there maybe an about self or interview source that we could use? I know she's spoken in the past before with LGBT History Month Scotland about some of her history in India, is there anything similar in her own words that we could use here from another interview or podcast source? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

When I did a search for MW being transgender, the Guardian was the only RS that came up. I would be happy with She is a trans woman. in the Background section. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the statement 'She is a trans woman.' Sweet6970 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"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.[5][6][7]

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[8] 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.[9]

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)

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)