Rape crisis centres led by trans women....what the appeal for males to be involved in the running g of the!

I think you've read rather more into my post than I believed it contained. At no point have I suggested that survivors of rape should not have a choice in the sex of their therapist. However the option of a sensitive, good male therapist is a good thing to have available in some circumstances.
Sadly, women are not immune from behaving badly and some female therapists may be harmful and not respect a survivors boundaries. It should always be about listening to the survivor, while acknowledging that the expert in the process is likely to be the therapist.

I understand what both of you mean with this, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable as this 'it is good for women traumatised by male violence to be ministered to by males' has been used by males and supporters of males in such spaces to justify and make nice the very idea of coercing women for their own good. This very idea of 'it's good for women' has been weaponised by males so that they can abuse women. Look at Wadwah's own comments in interviews about how good it was for women to be 'challenged on their bigotry and prejudices' as part of therapy.

This 'nice' idea that is about reminding us all that NAMALT and some men are lovely and wonderful therapists has been the step abusive people have stood on to take it the next step into paternalist 'it's good for women and if they fuss and say no they have to be made to'. And as discussed here, some - we have no idea how many - males are very much using this as means for furthering their own personal agendas for desired experiences using those women. It has been exploited into compliance training of women to enable men.

Where is the absolute focus on a woman who has experienced having her boundaries violated being listened to? Being the primary voice on what she needs (as opposed to what some authority sees as 'good for her' regardless of her feelings? Her right to set her own boundaries? To make her own choices and set her own pathway for the care that works for her? The respect for her as an autonomous person who is making the choices as opposed to being done to? And in the case of ERC, used as a resource largely to further the agendas and meet the needs of a male centric team?

It is becoming so important that women really pause and reflect before saying the on the surface nice, thoughtful, open minded things, and really focus on why they are saying them and to what purpose? I catch myself doing it. The 'oh we must think of x...' and the 'but of course with awareness of y' is, at heart, about me showing those I'm with that I'm a good person with intelligence, it's me meeting my needs about what I want in terms of validation and perception. But some of these habitual nice phrases are enabling the harm of other women.

Indeed. And someone without a GRC - hence legally male as well as biologically - who applies for a job advertised for women is clearly taking the piss.

As PP said, though a man should clearly not have been in a job advertised for women only

Any man applying for a job advertised for women is already showing a disregard for boundaries and safeguarding that should exclude him from the post.

I have a recollection of MW claiming to have personal experience of sexual abuse, I think in India. Can anyone remember or link to his exact wording?

Regards the keeping it fun thing, apparently that was taken out of context, the fun thing was referring to him cooking for his colleagues, allegedly. That certainly wouldn't make him any more trustworthy in my eyes though.

I HATE HATE HATE that! The fact that whenever you say something like "gosh it's horrible being a woman ", some
cr€€py pr|¢k will say "it's not easy being a man either" or some such comment - and change the conversation entirely.

Scottish politics is a very small world. I'm assuming that being well networked in that world didn't hurt.

He wasn't a qualified counsellor when appointed, he wasn't a woman, and he barely seemed to be able to manage an office - how bad were the other applicants? Or did he get a special nod? And if so why?

Absolutely. It would be a positive thing for these women to see that some men can be trusted- but during the aftermath of trauma is not the time for such ‘lessons’. Otherwise it snacks of ‘reframe your trauma’.

Any decent man working in this capacity would completely understand why many survivors/victims (I’m sorry- not being one myself, I’m not sure which word women prefer) CAN NOT be counselled by a man.

Therapeutic abuse is a real thing. I have experienced it. People coming to therapy of any kind, are vulnerable. There is an inherent power imbalance between therapist and client, which is why therapy is very concerned with ethics.

Proper training, being accountable to a governing body, and supervision, is the bare minimum to safeguard against harm done by people giving therapy.

I'm surprised that more isn't made of the fact that MW was giving therapy without being qualified, and presumably without being supervised.

As PP said, though a man should clearly not have been in a job advertised for women only, a big part of this is just what MW is like as an individual.

The thing about bodies reacting automatically is really important for counselling men who were abused as boys. Because adolescent boys will get an erection at the drop of a hat, and on that basis they'll convince themselves (and/or be convinced by their abuser) that they wanted what happened to them.

A sensitive man would know that. I wouldn't trust MW with the care of abused men either. It's shocking that someone like that would get a responsible position in the sector; not so shocking that he would gravitate towards the sector.

I agree and it is something that I think is so difficult to balance, that there is no definitive answer. My view is a little coloured by having worked with men and women who were sexually abused as children, by women as well as those abused by men.

on the face of it how do women know who are the safe men?

This is the issue of course.

Whilst in principle I agree with the statement It is important though that survivors can see there are some safe men I think it is more important that they are protected from the men who do get gratification from hearing the stories and on the face of it how do women know who are the safe men?

Yes I was going to mention the lack of qualifications. Sure, male counsellors and psychologists/psychotherapists exist and many will be in it for the right reasons and be able to help women appropriately.

But isn’t it the case that MW has none of those qualifications?

And as for ‘keeping things fun’.

Well all of it is enough to make you feel you’re in a parallel universe isn’t it? Does no one in authority understand safeguarding anymore?

I don't believe all men who are involved in therapeutic work are deviants.

However there was evidently a very toxic environment in that centre beginning with the Trustees who allowed a man to take a position reserved for women.

He was then allowed rampant to abuse and retraumatise survivors of sexual assault. The Director was great chums with him and supported his abuse. The therapists allowed him into sessions to retraumatise clients.

This noxious individual was allowed to disabuse his position seemingly unchallenged until they bullied someone out of their job and were investigated.

It's obvious from his behaviour that his intentions are not in good faith and I think he's now got another position to do it again.

Absolutely this, and it is legitimate to explain to rape/ sexual abuse survivors, that bodies react automatically, it is not legitimate to discuss that in any form of salacious manner. It sounds as if he had listened to some training/ client interviews and took a normal piece of work and turned it into something to meet his own interests.🤢🤮

Remember MW was not in any way a qualified therapist - he had no relevant qualifications. But counselled rape victims ‘to keep things fun’.

@Dumbo12 However he was aware of other men in his profession who he believed did get some gratification from hearing the stories.

Oh god that's awful. Feeling ill again.

It is important though that survivors can see there are some safe men.

Yes exactly this. And victims of MW and others like him get the opposite experience.

The orgasm comment made me feel ill too. Hideous. Women are so extremely vulnerable when seeking support for sex assault or abuse. That this was said to a woman in that position makes me want to scream and cry.

I don't think being male precludes someone from bring able to contribute to therapy for assaulted women, in general.

What MW did and said was awful. Not because MW is male but because of what MW is like.

There will be people coming into this thread who don't know the context.
MW threatened and bullied a woman working in their rape crisis centre for asking other staff if it was OK to confirm to a rape service user that another staff member was female, as they described themselves as non-binary, so the person asking wasn't sure if they were male or not, as this was clearly important to them.

That unleashed enough bullying that it went to a tribunal, which revealed appalling things going on under MW's direction. Full report is jaw-dropping.

I know, me too. The orgasm thing made me feel ill and also so enraged. MW was and is a horrible, creepy, sexually depraved man who quite clearly got his kicks being involved directly with traumatised women. In an ideal world this would be headline BBC news and all of ERCC staff involved in his behaviour removed from post, but it won't happen. The BBC at least put it in as a side article on the Scotland section but it's not been featured prominently as it should have been.

The period officer story got more coverage and outrage from the BBC even though there wasn't anything inherently "bad" that that guy did (although I disagreed at the time with his appointment). Scottish civil service government etc have created a sacred caste around trans women (men) which has inevitably led to these types abusing their positions and still not being punished properly for it.

Absolutely agree with this. I too l know a brilliant male psychologist, who spent his career working with victims of sexual assault, both men and women, victimised as both children and adults. However he was aware of other men in his profession who he believed did get some gratification from hearing the stories. It is important though that survivors can see there are some safe men.

Because the more "Women Only" something is, the more men with a deep need to be accepted as women are going to want to get in there. It is intolerable to them for anything to exist where it commonly accepted they should not be because it is proof that underneath the performative TWAW, society actually fully knows they are not women and does not really accept them as such.