AIBU to be asked to reframe my trauma by the trans CEO of Scottish Rape Crisis?

[herewegogc]

The CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis has said "Sexual violence happens to bigoted people too. But if you bring beliefs that are discriminatory, expect to be challenged on your prejudice. Reframe your trauma"

Apparently, survivors are to be "educated" in this service.

forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

Tonight is a really tough one. Women who have been raped or sexually assaulted need females to listen to them. Rape Crisis was that service and used to offer trauma based therapy.

I don't need educating - I know that detailing my experience to a man, or a transwomen is NEVER something I will do.

This is too much.

*job
Although MW can jog on

@Tuscancat

Good post *@FindTheTruth*

the long post on page 27? 🙏

I also think about ordinary trans people who are NOTHING like Mridul Wadhwa, Kathryn Bristow and Morgane Oger. Trans men like Aaron Kimberly, Scott Newgent and feminists on Mumsnet (many who have trans friends and family) have explained the difference but governments don't recognise their different psyche/condition/what drives them to remove sex-based rights.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

So yes, YABU. It's completely fine what she said, quoted out of context by anti trans group obviously makes Wadhwa seem disingenuous when that simply isn't the case.

Women on this board are quite knowledgeable, Lou. They read, digest and understand the nuances of this debate, have been doing so for years. And they read. A lot. There are few posts on this thread which demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the deeply unpleasant sentiments expressed by this unfit-for-purpose CEO in that ugly little screed.

This isn't a question of 'women have confused their pretty little heads about what was said'. They have understood its meaning perfectly well. And have said #NoThankYou.

As a victim of rape I can tell you that what MW has said is 'not fine', that within that context - indeed, especially within that context - it is deeply offensive, and that politicking the trauma (and its therapy) of a particularly vulnerable group of victims of male violence is not okay.

The statement in particular that 'sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well' is particularly off-kilter and frankly disgusting. This person has no business anywhere near traumatized victims.

I'd agree with you on your last point. MW is not, indeed, being disingenuous. Now MW has secured that role and presumably feels secure within it, MW is in plain sunlight and showing the rest of the world precisely who MW is and what MW stands for.

We can see MW.

I'm experienced sexual assault and I don't have an issue with what she has said. I don't really understand your objection to the statement 'sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well', because quite frankly it does and she goes on to say 'these spaces are also for you'. If I brought racist, homophobic or transphobic views in a space I would expect to be challenged, I don't understand why you think that would be acceptable?

She's made a distinction between people who are fearful of certain groups of people as a result of trauma and the fact that rape crisis services are also open to people who hold views that are not a result of trauma.

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

As a trans inclusive feminist even I can see that this is completely fucked up.

Can I ask what you mean by trans inclusive feminist, please?

I believe that feminism that centres females is by nature trans inclusive, as females who identify as trans still need the protections that feminism fights for. Even if they like to deny it. They benefited from it as children and until the day they die.

So I am interested what you, personally, mean by trans inclusive feminism?

@Loobylouu You don't think that calling women who don't want to speak to males about their rape "bigoted" and "transphobic" is a problem? You don't think that telling rape victims to "reframe their trauma" so they can find it "empowering" is a problem? You don't think that using rape crisis services as a way to promote certain political positions is a problem? You don't think that saying "therapy is political" is a problem?

I think it's FINE, completely fine, for YOU to hold that view. It is very definitely not fine, however, for the provider of rape crisis services to hold that view. It is creepy, scary, discriminatory and upsetting.

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

Because when was therapy for rape victims ever supposed to be used to educate others to change their views on their bigoted beliefs. Do you honestly believe that therapists are there to educate people to for instance, change their religious belief? What about their political party?

What world do you live in that a therapist or the ceo of a supposedly non-secular company providing therapy and assistance get to decide what the people they are treating think outside of the trauma they are dealing with.

[quote beastlyslumber]@Loobylouu You don't think that calling women who don't want to speak to males about their rape "bigoted" and "transphobic" is a problem? You don't think that telling rape victims to "reframe their trauma" so they can find it "empowering" is a problem? You don't think that using rape crisis services as a way to promote certain political positions is a problem? You don't think that saying "therapy is political" is a problem?

I think it's FINE, completely fine, for YOU to hold that view. It is very definitely not fine, however, for the provider of rape crisis services to hold that view. It is creepy, scary, discriminatory and upsetting.[/quote]
It's also utterly patronising - the belief that traumatised women need to address their 'bigoted' views in order to heal. FFS. Gaslighting at its best.

And for the record, no, women seeking help for rape trauma should NOT have their views challenged as part of that process. Even if they are racist, homophobic, Tory voters, third solution believers, pro-Lifers. Their trauma should remain at the centre. Not someone else's views on their beliefs, however abhorrent someone might find those beliefs.

It's obviously very different from a public situation like being on a train or at work. They would be perfectly legitimate places to challenge someone's beliefs if they were being expressed. Counselling, rape trauma service. No, thank you.

About being labeled bigot.

Since that interview I’ve been thinking about why it makes me so angry. About not wanting males to perform intimate exams or provide psychotherapy. Most particularly after being raped. The revulsion against that is visceral and so is the revulsion against the idea of being counselled out of it. It isn’t analogous to the bigotry of racism.

For a start, men of any and all races can and do rape and abuse women (and other men of course).
Secondly, it’s a huge number of men that do it.
Thirdly, it’s almost all women who have suffered from abuse by males, to a greater or lesser degree.

Fourthly, no matter how he presents, the female lizard brain will (almost always) recognise a male and be on her guard. If that male has never been challenged in their transgender role, that would be because we are schooled to be polite, and could be because they presented no immediate threat or even because the female(s) were too prudent in the circs.
Fifthly, females cannot tell by looking whether a feminine-presenting man is going to be benign or a threat, but sure as hell someone like that seeking to enter protected female-only spaces is going to be seen with more suspicion than someone buying lipstick in Boots. Why are they doing it? Are they really seeking validation in the most intimate spaces of damaged women?

Bigotry? Yes, of course Not All Men. We know that. Most of us are fortunate to know men who aren’t like that. (At least, we like to think so.) But too many men are like that and we can’t tell which just by looking.

As for those who try to gaslight us, it’s very hard to see them simply as the egalitarian idealists they’d have us believe they are and think that we should be too.
The needs of the client should come first, not those of the counsellor.

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

So let’s call this RCC a ‘re-education’ centre and be done with it. And whatever views the CEO and board think is bigoted will be included in the re-education plan.

If you cannot see that the prevailing views that this CEO has expressed in the past is harmful to women that is on you. To the very point that they even changed political parties because they wanted to keep the wording of ‘gender’ vs ‘sex’ for any rape victim to be able to choose their examiner and treatment provider.

So. You are advocating for a person with views that many other female rape victims found abhorrent to have the authority and moral authority at that to ‘re-educate’ those victims until they comply?

Is that really what you wish to advocate for?

@Helleofabore no I will not have that discussion here. I have posted my thoughts many times on FWR and if you want I am actually happy to have a discussion on a new thread there about it. I really do not want to deflect your question as I am sound in my beliefs and happy to justify them, but I do not want to derail this thread into another debate over that matter.

@Loobylouu but you're completely (and I'm not sure if you're doing it willingly or not) missing the point. I don't think there's anything to suggest anywhere that MW is talking about women being aggressive or offensive to anyone. I think it's sadly pretty clear that what MW means is that basically it will not be acceptable for women to ask for practitioners of a particular sex, and that doing so (i.e. asking for a woman instead of transwoman counsellor etc) is not acceptable in MW's eyes.

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

Why would it be part of the remit of a rape crisis centre to educate on other minority groups? Why would the CEO be commenting on victims’ attitudes to race/disability/religion/etc?

Victims of rape aren’t required to be educated into politically correctness before they’re given support. Or have I missed something?

@LoverOfLight

I don't agree with that, I think there is culturally room for trans men and women because I fully believe that there are plenty of genuine trans people just trying to live their lives in peace.

There is one group of people saying that there is absolutely no difference between a trans woman and a man and there is no room to entertain this idea at all. There is another group saying transwomen must be treated as biological women and any distinction or message to the contrary is biggotry.

Both of these rhetorics are damaging and don't really take in the full picture. However, I don't actually think this is the right thread to discuss this and it is derailing to the issue. As a trans inclusive feminist even I can see that this is completely fucked up.

I'm glad this thread is in AIBU as you're right, most trans men and women want to live their lives in peace and would never do what MW has done. Calling this out in public and discussing it in good faith might help us see that we have more in common than that which divides us.

I agree with most of what you said and you might be surprised that the feminists on Mumsnet, including the ones in the naughty corner, do too

(the meanings around 'inclusive feminist' is an interesting one. I suspect you mean you want all of us to live our lives in peace which is great. Inclusive feminism is discussed here. Semantics become important when it comes to rape crisis centres.)

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

I think if this were a statement about a different minority group (not women) there would be no question that the wants, needs and preferences of that group would come first.

It's only women who need to be put in their places.

[quote FindTheTruth]New articles

Brendan O Neill for Spiked
www.spiked-online.com/2021/08/11/now-even-rape-victims-are-being-called-bigots/

The Critic
thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/

Times
archive.is/gezUd[/quote]
Fantastic article from Jo Bartosch.

I'm always very interested in the language that is used by the media and by the trans rights activities, or the person in the centre of a scandal, trying to deflect or persuade.

As 'reframing trauma' is a term used in therapy but as we have seen before, it is being used in the most outrageous, disgusting way. Something that is broadly and socially understood as a meaning of a word or phrase is twisted to suit an extreme agenda like we will all be fooled by this, like we can't see what is going on here. I never cease to be amazed at the deeps that can be found. Every day some fresh new hell receives some sunlight (I'm also glad this thread remains in AIBU).

This boils down to something really quite simple, to quote the Critic article:

"I shall leave the final words to Amanda: “Therapy is not political, and it isn’t bigoted to need a female only space.”

[quote beastlyslumber]@Loobylouu You don't think that calling women who don't want to speak to males about their rape "bigoted" and "transphobic" is a problem? You don't think that telling rape victims to "reframe their trauma" so they can find it "empowering" is a problem? You don't think that using rape crisis services as a way to promote certain political positions is a problem? You don't think that saying "therapy is political" is a problem?

I think it's FINE, completely fine, for YOU to hold that view. It is very definitely not fine, however, for the provider of rape crisis services to hold that view. It is creepy, scary, discriminatory and upsetting.[/quote]
Of course, I think calling women who don't want to speak to men bigoted or transphobic isn't acceptable, which is why it isn't happening and no one is suggesting it is. The inclusion of trans women hasn't prevented other women from receiving the care they need, and in my experience of accessing these services, I've always been given the choice about whether I'd like to have a male or female therapist which is the norm.

In regards to reframing trauma, I've no issue with this because it's an excepted method in therapy. Why wouldn't you want to reframe your trauma so that you can heal? I've recently gone through this in therapy and it's really helped me get my life back, it's a really important part of healing. The point of reframing trauma is so that you can be empowered, the trauma is no longer in control. In my case, this was being able to resolve a lot of PTSD symptoms so I'm not at the mercy of horrific flashbacks and nightmares.

And therapy is political, more so for some than others. A lot of what I talked about in my therapy was my anger that men are seemingly able to get away with rape because of police failure and CJS failings. There will be people who will want to discuss in therapy who they feel self ID put them in danger, that's political. Therapy is political for trans people who are finding they are very suddenly being vilified in parliament and in the media.

Is Rape Crisis Scotland funded by public money? If so I’ll be complaining to my MSP.

I agree that we need to do something!

@Loobylouu there is a difference between reframing your trauma for your own healing and co-opting this acceptable term into something else meaning reframe your trauma for the benefit of others.

There is also a difference between discussing politics in a therapeutic context and "therapy being political". Trying to pretend that therapy should ever be political because there are topics related to politics is not morally right. Also, in the specific context it was used, "therapy is political" was a very loaded term with a specific meaning behind it. It wasn't a general statement, clearly.

I've always been given the choice about whether I'd like to have a male or female therapist which is the norm.

Presumably you haven't access a therapist through RCS? MW doesn't want to give you that choice.

In regards to reframing trauma, I've no issue with this because it's an excepted method in therapy.

MW doesn't use the phrase 'reframing trauma' in the correct way. Reframing trauma is indeed a valid concept in counselling. What MW wants, is NOT reframing trauma. It's something else entirely.

And that is gaslighting.

Odd. This thread is not showing in 'active' (at least on the first page), yet threads on AIBU that are posted on later do show as do other threads I post on at the same time as this one.

And further it's never okay to tell a woman that she should find her trauma empowering. I have heard feminists say this and even coming from them I don't agree that any individual should be told they should feel a certain way about anything. So again, no it's not okay to make these blanket statements about rape, to women, in this context. It's a shit show and I maintain they should be fucking sacked.

Forget that - it's back.

Here's the full quote for clarity. Mridul Wadhwa hasn't said anything untoward:

....Well she said this, which is untoward- we know she is calling her service users bigots for their belief that trans women are not women in the literal sense, she is calling this view an ‘unacceptable belief when it is the law that women can legitimately hold this viewpoint.
She is actively campaigning for trans ideology and not cantering the women when it is her job to do so.
She’s using her platform not to fight against the violent men who are assaulting these women but to fight against the viewpoints of the women themselves.
If she wants to turn a women’s refuge into a campaigning organisation for trans rights then she is not fit to continue with the role.
Calling your clients bigots is not normal practice in any organisation particularly one centring vulnerable women, she seems to be negatively biased against a large number of women and doesn’t seem to be centring their needs.

But I think the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices

I'm experienced sexual assault and I don't have an issue with what she has said.

That’s you. I’ve been the victim of two instances of rape – one of which was gang rape – as well as instances of lower-level sexual assault, harassment and stalking. And I certainly do have an issue with it. You don’t get to respond for me.

I don't really understand your objection to the statement 'sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well', because quite frankly it does and she goes on to say 'these spaces are also for you'.

I’m pleased you quoted this, because this is one of the more telling examples of MW’s disingenuousness and gaslighting. Going on to MW’s statements about challenging said ‘bigotry’, the implicit meaning behind this statement is that ‘these spaces are also for you on the condition that you undergo realignment processes for your wrongthink’. I.e. there's a barrier to women accessing help and care unless they are reprogrammed to chant 'TWAW' on demand. That whole noise can get to fuck.

If I brought racist, homophobic or transphobic views in a space I would expect to be challenged, I don't understand why you think that would be acceptable?

I’m not sure I understand why racism is consistently being dragged into this argument. It’s a red herring, and it’s a straw man. Skin pigmentation has no statistical correlation whatsoever with sexual assault. Sex – as in biological sex – is about the most damning indictment there is, with upward of 98% of sexual assaults being perpetrated by men. The overwhelming majority of the victims of these assaults are women. As a victim of rape, I don’t want the weapon used to perpetrate this assault anywhere near me in my most vulnerable spaces, regardless of who it’s attached to. I’d also suggest that dragging the irrelevant issue of race into this wholly unrelated subject is in itself racist.

I think were this statement about a different minority group, you'd be appalled that the CEO would need to clarify that rape crisis was inclusive, which really begs the question, why is acceptable to do this to trans women?

These are women who have endured the most invasive, humiliating, devastating crime imaginable, at the hands of men. You really think their top priority in that situation is to be kind to those who would potentially counsel them? Counsellors are there to support victims, not the other way round. Frankly I’m amazed this even needs spelling out.

Of course, I think calling women who don't want to speak to men bigoted or transphobic isn't acceptable, which is why it isn't happening and no one is suggesting it is.

Sorry, you quoted MW literally saying this. How can you say no one is suggesting this when it is literally what was said? Are you a troll or did you genuinely miss the entire point of the discussion that bit?

Your comments on reframing trauma likewise miss the point that MW was suggesting women need to overcome their "bigotry" in order to heal. Which is nonsense, whether you believe these women are bigots or not.

And while you may feel you want to use therapy to explore your political views, which is fine, it is emphatically NOT okay for counsellors and therapists to be political, which is what MW is actually suggesting. How dare anyone try to use a rape victim's trauma as a way to score political points against her? That is genuinely disgusting and abusive behaviour.

The problem here seems to be that you've looked at MW's words and read the absolute opposite of what they say. Maybe (being charitable) that's because that's the only interpretation you can make that fits with the world view of a genuinely decent person, and you, for whatever reason, are invested in the idea that MW is decent. What MW actually said was awful, gaslighting bullshit and I'm sorry if you genuinely can't see it. It's all there, spelled out right in front of you. It's like the emperor's new clothes, I guess. Some people are so deeply invested that they hallucinate a beautiful gown where there's really nothing but bare bollocks.