Apparently female rape survivors 'need' mixed sex groups

The demand itself for female only women's groups is legal and not extremist, it’s some of the arguments being put forth in support that are extremist in language and tone

Those quotes are not extremist. It is reasonable, sensible and entirely based on women's lived experiences for women to be suspicious of a male in spaces where women are discussing their sexual assaults. It is naive in the extreme to think that only well-intentioned men will enter those spaces as they become opened to them. And of course there is no way to assess the intentions of the males who do when the ideology attacks ferociously anyone questioning the legitimacy of anyone's gender identity or expression.

Nor or is extreme for an actual survivor of male violence to point out that survivors needs men around like a hole in the head. Or does her lived experience not count? And no, she does not need to qualify that statement with 'NAWALT'

Nor is it extreme to say that it is not for 'professionals' to say what is good for female survivors without even consulting or researching what they think. That research has been done actually, and women using services were very clear on the need for women only spaces. The fact that research is now not been done on the effects of mixed sex spaces on women when they are vulnerable tells you everything you need to know about how this policy shift is ideology and not evidence led. Its standard practice in public services to do pilots on big policy changes and have robust evaluations. The fact that this is not being done on this major policy shift speaks volumes.

In fact, it shows just how low down the pecking order women are that these statements are considered 'extreme'.

@Discovereads it appears you have misunderstood. Those statements were made in the context of responding to a letter which suggested that women’s rape crisis meetings were massively enriched by including men who claim they are women and that such women NEED these men in their groups.

No woman in a women’s group NEEDS men in there. Most women are rightly outraged by such an extremist statement. No wonder the responses to such a ludicrous suggestion are strong.

But at the moment, there isn't a rule that's being broken. Transwomen are perfectly allowed in the women's group at this centre. She is asking for a group where they are not allowed. Yes, that might mean some people break the rules and try to use it anyway, but women are less likely to encounter a male-bodied person if the women's only group is available. So it IS necessary to provide this group in order to effectively meet the needs of all victims. It doesn't mean it's a perfect solution that can't prevent any man ever trying to use it, but it is better than having no groups available. Again, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

Other groups welcome transwomen, which is great - inclusive women's groups, and trans groups, and people are generally fully supportive of such services being provided as well.

You do all realise that if there were single-sex spaces for women, a man could still get in by saying he’s a woman, if he wanted to invade a space that much.
Unless you expect the people who run the sessions to check everyone’s genitals before they join a group?

This assumption that trans women will be dishonest is pretty

And saying that there is such a thing as a 'man who says he's a woman' - if someone says they are a woman, that's what they are, isn't it?

Lol - a quick glance at the face and you can normally be 100% certain of chromosomes let alone genitals.

Lol. In reality, there is a lot of overlap between men and women in terms of foot sizes, limb lengths, and pelvis width. So it is quite possible to pass with enough masculising or feminising surgery. There are even men and women who have had no hormones and no surgery that are able to pass as the opposite sex due to their natural androgynous features.

@LK1972
”@Discovereads I don't think anyone hates you, at least on the GC side. It appears you're GC, as you support rights to single-sex provision, where required, and you accept they are, sometimes, required. You mistake disagreement with your arguments with hate. It's not.”

oh, I don’t think anyone on this thread hates me. )Well maybe @BotCrossHuns secretly does a bit) but everyone else on this thread has been great. I was talking more in general.

What about tall skinny women???

What I’m saying is that it’s unnecessary.

People who are already breaking the rules will continue to break the rules.

It’s not like making murder legal, it’s like making murder with a knife illegal.

Yeah they don’t pass. No amount of surgery (which the majority of TW don’t have anyway) can reduce the size of feet, length of leg and arms bones, or widen the pelvis

@LK1972
You have quoted me out of context. The extremist arguments I was referring to are some of the the arguments in this thread are extremist in language and tone, here are a few:
Itscalledmisogyny · 30/04/2022 21:23
This is just shocking misogyny. Women who have been raped do not need or want anyone with a penis in their safe spaces. Anyone claiming they do - without even bothering to ask the female rape victims, just speaking over them, is an out and out misogynist.

IamSarah · 30/04/2022 21:35
Of course female rape survivors don’t need to be around males, the embodiment of their abusers. They need it like a hole in the head.

777magic · 01/05/2022 06:34
At the end of the day, it is a strange male and we don't know their intentions so they should never be in any women only space.

The demand itself for female only womens groups is legal and not extremist, it’s some of the arguments being put forth in support that are extremist in language and tone.

exactly. They know whether they should or shouldn't be using these spaces. Females should be able to use them.

Yes, some will break the rules. That happens in many circumstances. It's not an argument against provision.

If people could enter single sex spaces who because of their sex they should not if they pass therefore we should not have single sex spaces ?

Imagine people kill others even though they shouldn't - let's make that legal too

If you know you were born with a penis you shouldn't be using single sex spaces for people born without penises.

It's not complicated.

BotCrossHuns · Today 11:07
I don't hate you. Or think you're being hated on. I think it's arrogant to think you're a moderate, smoothing over sort of person, when clearly it's not working.

Well I admit that hate is too strong a word, but you plainly dislike me and are repeatedly insulting me on this thread. Only you are doing this. No one else has objected so strongly to my presence as you have.

'And making such extremist arguments doesn’t help you get what you want, which is female only womens groups…it just further polarises the debate and gets you called transphobic by equally extremist TRAs' - @Discovereads , women are actually legally entitled to this provision, it's a bit galling that we get called extremists by asking for what, under UK law, is entirely acceptable, with this specific example being used in the Equality Act.

What other examples are there of groups being vilified for demanding their legally mandated public provision?

Who are you building bridges between, by the way? You and whose army?

Ok, so if the trans woman passes visually and aurally as a cis woman, it would be ok?

So what you’re saying is that women need spaces free from people who look like men. Where’s the line? What about non-binary people with vaginas? What about a woman with facial hair due to PCOS? Might they be turned away because they look like a man? That’s not fair.

What I’m saying is that single-sex female spaces don’t actually solve the problem at all.

That doesn't say all victims are triggered but it does suggest it's reasonable to assume they may be

It was earlier on in the thread:

Itscalledmisogyny · 30/04/2022 21:23
This is just shocking misogyny. Women who have been raped do not need or want anyone with a penis in their safe spaces. Anyone claiming they do - without even bothering to ask the female rape victims, just speaking over them, is an out and out misogynist.

IamSarah · 30/04/2022 21:35
Of course female rape survivors don’t need to be around males, the embodiment of their abusers. They need it like a hole in the head.

777magic · 01/05/2022 06:34
At the end of the day, it is a strange male and we don't know their intentions so they should never be in any women only space.

SuperTea · Today 07:58
I've only seen the news about this today.
The mind bogles. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on any of these issues, but how on earth could "experts" supporting victims of rape think it was appropriate (or necessary) to have men in the group?

well it's pretty obvious without a genital check, to be honest.

But nonetheless, even if they could, there should still be the right to single-sex groups. The fact that people break rules to do something shouldn't mean that those activities shouldn't exist, nor that explicitly providing them won't mean that there are fewer instances of rule breaking at least. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You do all realise that if there were single-sex spaces for women, a man could still get in by saying he’s a woman, if he wanted to invade a space that much.
Unless you expect the people who run the sessions to check everyone’s genitals before they join a group?

I would be very grateful if anyone could let me know who the non-extreme TRAs are, who is out there trying to find a reasonable compromise, coming from a place of empathy and kindness towards all (including women). What compromise are they suggesting?

All I can see is a campaign to remove single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act by the Stonewall, initiated in 2015-16 iirc. They have not succeeded then by democratic means (through secondary legislation, debated in Parliament), but continued to undermine these exceptions in their training.

This is what women are defending, the law, the legal exceptions. But apparently that makes us 'extremists'?

@Discovereads I don't think anyone hates you, at least on the GC side. It appears you're GC, as you support rights to single-sex provision, where required, and you accept they are, sometimes, required. You mistake disagreement with your arguments with hate. It's not.

I don't hate you. Or think you're being hated on.

I think it's arrogant to think you're a moderate, smoothing over sort of person, when clearly it's not working. Lovely to think of yourself like that, and actually I agree that moderate voices and those who can bridge gaps are actually needed in debate - but it needs people who have great tact and communication skills, at a level that not many do. Otherwise it comes across as blundering and making things worse, and not recognising that, which is the opposite of the sort of person that is needed. I think there are times when one has to recognise that they are not the peace-keeper they might like to be (world leaders included). Someone can try hard to be the sort of smoothing-over person they'd like to be, but when it doesn't work, they have to recognise that maybe they aren't actually fulfulling that role in that situation.

Right now, I think it's important to get the message out that this particular organisation is trying to insist on having no female-only groups, despite having men's, mixed and trans groups, which is unfair on women who need women-only groups. That message isn't coming across clearly on the BBC article and people are getting a misleading impression of what is being fought for, and it has nothing really to do with hating anyone.

I have not read that all female victims are triggered by males here or anywhere else

I have seen repeatedly " we need the option for single sex , we need that choice "

I do personally. But it’s not an easy position to take as you end up hated by both sides. It’s much easier to pick one extreme or the other because then you’re only hated by one side.