TL;DR: The transgender CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, who has been at the centre of a media storm for a number of years, has stepped down after an independent report criticised her leadership of the centre. Much of the coverage, and social media response, has seen journalists and commentators use it as an excuse to spread transphobic and hateful rhetoric - with little discussion about what Trans+ survivors need.
The chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Mridul Wadhwa, has stepped down after an independent review said the centre had failed survivors in a number of ways.
The independent review said Wadhwa, who is transgender and has been at the centre of a media row for a number of years, was found to have “failed to set professional standards of behaviour” and “did not understand the limits on her role’s authority” - The Guardian
In a statement, the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre board said it planned to implement all of the recommendations from the review but felt the "time was right for a change of leadership" to ensure "we place survivors’ voices at the heart of our strategy" - BBC
A key focus of the media upset was around the centre’s approach to transgender inclusion. Wadhwa, who is trans herself, wanted the centre to be trans-inclusive.
However, the report found that the centre "failed to provide women's only spaces", which for many survivors of sexual assault is a key requirement.
The charity, Rape Crisis Centre which runs centres across Scotland, has paused new referrals to the centre and said it was "extremely concerned" that women-only spaces had not been provided for 16 months." You can however, still self-refer to the centre - The Times
Trans inclusion was just one part of a wide-ranging review which found the charity had experienced several difficulties, including a restructuring of the service during the pandemic and a series of board and trustee changes.
What was the reason Edinburgh Rape Crisis was independently reviewed?
The review was sparked after an employment tribunal found a counsellor with gender-critical views had been unfairly dismissed from the centre - BBC
Roz Adams believed that those using the service should be able to know the sex of the staff that deal with their case. She has since spoken about how she initially welcomed the trans-inclusive approach the centre took, before later questioning it. It was when she began to ask questions, Adams says, that the constructive dismissal process began.
It was one of many employment tribunals related to so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs that made national press headlines, despite employment tribunals not very often being mainstream news fodder.
This press attention focused on the ethics of having gender critical views and whether the Equality Act protected them. However, most of the rulings that went the way of employees with gender-critical views did so because of poor employment practices, not because the rulings supported the right to act on these beliefs.
Analysis: Trans people are four times more likely to experience violent victimisation
The last time we talked about the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre it was because "bigoted" and "hostile" journalists spent time outside of it amid the ongoing media storm.
Georgie Bull, a transgender survivor of sexual violence who wrote that story for us, said the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s actions "signalled that they are a safe place to seek help (which is not guaranteed in the UK)" and that "they are excellent."
She wrote that after the tribunal ruling, she received a message informing her that the Centre building was being subject to ‘press attention’ and asking if she wanted to cancel her appointment.
The focus of the media attention continues to look like using the wrong pronouns and being transphobic towards Wadwha. This attention, Georgie says, left their "illusion of safety" around the centre "shattered".
"These appointments are supposed to be a place of privacy, safety and healing. Journalists waiting outside, unknown to vulnerable and traumatised service users, delivers none of that."
What seems to have been lost in the devastating media hysteria around this story is critical statistic that puts this story in a very different context:
Some studies have shown that transgender people as much as four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault.
Where have Trans+ survivor's needs been discussed in this conversation?
Information is everything. It helps us reach and justify conclusions. But the information ecosystem is failing us.
When the Cass Review was released, news outlets rushed to cover the story, highlighting the report's conclusions without taking time to consider whether the report could be flawed.
In doing so, it amplified and solidified to the wider public the report's key conclusions without balancing it against the evidence it excluded to reach them.
While much of the news media zoned in on that conclusion, trans activists, healthcare experts and the LGBTQIA+ sector combed through it line by line to show it was another official report captured by harmful, prejudiced rhetoric.
Crucially, despite a four-year process, it still failed to find any smoking gun of widespread regret among trans folks who transition. It instead had to rely on a methodology that allowed it to deem any data about how gender-affirming care helps trans people as too low quality. Whether your analysis means that led to it being ignored or excluded is by the by - it was downgraded.
It's not enough to know what the Cass Review says. We need to understand why it reached those conclusions. When we do, we can see it for what it is rather than what it's been reported as.
At QueerAF, we'll always take stock - and deliver accountability journalism with our unique slow news approach, so you understand why.
We think that approach is essential so you have the information you need to fight back against anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric.
