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.

mnmumak

For the record I absolutely support trans people, in various ways. I’m often at odds with people on this board who describe themselves as gender critical, though I respect their right to hold those views. I have a massive issue with this specific woman.

I think you’ll find that people on this board who describe themselves as gender critical saw this coming a long time ago, specifically about this person and generally about this scenario, and know this won’t be the first or last situation similar to this. If you want to listen to people who describe themselves as gender critical rather than be at odds with them, you’ll appreciate that trauma is being perpetuated in other ways: males being housed in women’s prisons, for example. Maybe stop gaslighting yourself by referring to this person as a woman, and see it for what it is: a male with no qualifications telling women to “reframe their trauma”. Ask yourself how this person got this position in the first place. Ask yourself where you were when people on this who describe themselves as gender critical complained about their appointment originally. Ask yourself where you’ve been and whose side you’ve been on when people on this board who describe themselves as gender critical warned about the fact this ideology would lead us exactly to this sort of scenario.

This is not a problem with just one person. It’s the end result of an inability to say no to a certain group of males because “be kind”.

It's all been said, so just to add YANBU

Waitwhat23

Thank you for the link to the debate. This is a paragraph from Johann Lamont's comments at the start of the debate. It's interesting that there was no initial opposition to the amendment, this argument was advanced later. It depresses me if this is the quality of debate in our parliamentary. What is the culture within these institutions that someone would argue, without shame, that the amendment to the bill was unnecessary because it would be rendered redundant by lack of female forensic examiners?

First, the point has been made that there are not enough female examiners, so the amendment is meaningless. However, to argue that is to argue that the provision is meaningless, not the wording. If the provision is meaningless, the logical position would be to argue for its deletion instead of resisting a change in wording. What a counsel of despair! Are we simply to give up because we do not have enough examiners? Survivors of abuse are not fools—of course they are not. The legislation can and should drive change, translating a real difference in provision through workforce planning and spending. Is that not why we, as legislators, are here?

The Green MSP who spoke against the amendment has recently resigned. The statement he published to explain why is an interesting read. If self ID does not conflict with women's rights then why do so many of our elected representatives need to be bullied into supporting it or staying silent about their concerns?

www.andywightman.com/archives/4634?fbclid=IwAR1qaqV1GYmLcxXer1aCkxL4SLdjLKXT4FRVx9ULm0rMjfVWZTuTPe6uI_E

Egomaniacs too. Sadly as a therapist I’ve had my share of therapy with really crap therapists who are in the job because they enjoy being in a position of perceived power over their clients, they get a thrill from the idea that others are looking to them for their wisdom. It suits a certain kind of person who is ego driven and doesn’t have a lot of humility or ability to recognise their limitations.

YY.

I think you’ll find that people on this board who describe themselves as gender critical saw this coming a long time ago, specifically about this person and generally about this scenario, and know this won’t be the first or last situation similar to this. If you want to listen to people who describe themselves as gender critical rather than be at odds with them, you’ll appreciate that trauma is being perpetuated in other ways: males being housed in women’s prisons, for example

Yes, I kind of wanted to say this, having read mnmumak's really excellent and eloquent post but could not find the words. I think what was puzzling me was the question of 'but why this' when the GC feminists have been raising so many instances where women's spaces and places have been unfairly invaded or usurped and there are real dangers for women - for example where intact males have been housed in women's prisons. This case isn't standout bad, unique or different from many others and it reflects an ideology and political impetus that is common to the cause that MW is part of but which is reflected by many activists similar to MW. Why this instance and not others?

Has this woman actually got any recognised qualifications in delivering therapy?

Which woman?

I think you’ll find that people on this board who describe themselves as gender critical saw this coming a long time ago, specifically about this person and generally about this scenario, and know this won’t be the first or last situation similar to this. If you want to listen to people who describe themselves as gender critical rather than be at odds with them, you’ll appreciate that trauma is being perpetuated in other ways: males being housed in women’s prisons, for example

This. Please join the dots, and I'm sure you will recognise the male coercive control writ large in this movement.

mnmumak

Thank you for explaining more from a professional side.

This person has been expressing misogynistic views for a while now. They seem to get interviewed regularly and a previous interview unearthed some harmful views about how they felt back working in the call centre which effectively decided whether women in a particular region in the US received financial assistance to buy food during the course of the phone call.

The dishonesty in applying for two roles now that were stated to be for females when they do not have a GRC even is another issue.

However, their actions over the six word amendment was a major concern for someone who was, by then, being elevated as a would be MP, and a feminist activist for rape victims. I I a
I would be surprised at anyone following the rise of this person not being very concerned with this person after that amendment. Them gaining this position, again one advertised using the EA2010 exemption no less, having clear political aspirations (which is no doubt why the board decided to utilise those connections), with their attitudes towards women now clear from numerous interviews, was rather a huge worry for others in the sector and it would be for users of the service .

Sorry for the typos.

I also want to again to continue on and also touch on notbad’s post.

People who follow this board have also been pointing out the problems with not just this individual. There is a pattern well formed now that is being played out across the UK.

Transitioned males getting roles specifically set aside for females. Often Women’s Officer type roles. These males then are involved in setting policy in that role and use it as a platform for their own activism which will usually be not focused on progressing the needs for females.

We have also seen the rhetoric now used by prominent activists that ‘everyone now recognises me as a woman, why should I be exempt from being considered ‘female’ in all things’.

Which is also the direct result of destabilising the language women need to describe themselves.

Mnmumak thank you so much for explaining in detail what it entails to be a therapist or counsellor. It was very clear and it sound like there is a lot of theoretical study in combination with practical, supervised experience. Am I correct in thinking that a therapist also need to be in therapy themselves to be able to work more efficiently with clients?

It doesn’t sound like MW has done any of this regulated training. Hotel management???

I think it sounds beyond dangerous if someone without this extensive therapeutic background tries to influence how the sessions are being delivered. I cannot imagine these poor women who have been raped and assaulted and may not dare to seek help as there are people they perceive to be male there .

I actually think I read a thread on MN ages ago where the OP was a woman who had been raped and called a service. The person answering the call had a male voice but said they were a woman. The OP said she hung up the phone . I don’t think that should be allowed to happen.

How is this allowed to happen? Why can’t people in trauma just be helped with client centred care? I am so upset about this.

Yes, it seems to be a bit of a trend whereas I am as woman form birth have never had a single role which is a "woman's role" (other than giving birth). It is as if transwomen who used to be male choose these roles as a statement or what looks to me very very male assertion of their dominance and new power to shout look at me - I am definitely now a woman.

@mnmumak thanks for sharing, that's so insightful and I was having this discussion again last night and said similar regarding women no wanting to seek support. As if it isn't hard enough already for women to seek support for this kind of crime.

@LittleMyTopKnot

Mnmumak thank you so much for explaining in detail what it entails to be a therapist or counsellor. It was very clear and it sound like there is a lot of theoretical study in combination with practical, supervised experience. Am I correct in thinking that a therapist also need to be in therapy themselves to be able to work more efficiently with clients?

Unfortunately the term therapist isn’t a protected title in the UK so anyone can call themselves that. Which is why it’s so important when seeking a private therapist to search from a professional register.

There is no requirement or expectation in my own modality that you must be in therapy, but I can’t speak for other modalities and training courses. During my training we had small groups of three therapists where we would discuss how we were doing and whether there was scope to apply the techniques we were learning to our own situations and had support in doing that, which is probably similar. I haven’t met many therapists who haven’t had therapy themselves but it’s not mandatory. It’s definitely valuable to have had experience of being a client, but at the same time I wouldn’t find it appropriate to make it mandatory as therapy isn’t helpful or useful unless you actively want/need it, it would be a box ticking exercise for someone with no issues they wanted to work on to be made to have sessions for the sake of their course. It wouldn’t actually achieve anything or replicate what it’s like to have therapy that’s actually meaningful to the individual, does that make sense?

Yes, the training to become a CBT therapist was very intense! It required 200hr of practice over the course of the year, several submitted videotapes of sessions to be marked, lots of academic work (essays), two full days of lectures per week alongside three days in practice. It was gruelling and not everyone who began the course was able to make it through. That’s as it should be though, people in need of help deserve skilled care delivered at a high standard. Unfortunately anyone can take an online course of a few hours and call themselves a CBT therapist so it’s crucial to check the person is registered. If someone is accessing therapy via the NHS then they’ll have been properly trained as a condition of their employment. I have to maintain my social work registration alongside my CBT registration to keep my job. Other colleagues are mental health nurses by background who’ve done the CBT course too.

[quote LoverOfLight]@mnmumak thanks for sharing, that's so insightful and I was having this discussion again last night and said similar regarding women no wanting to seek support. As if it isn't hard enough already for women to seek support for this kind of crime.[/quote]
It’s just appalling. I’m thinking of a woman who has been assaulted by a trans woman seeing this discourse and realising that they simply won’t be able to access support if they’re not also willing to ‘work on their prejudices’ too. It’s abusive, a real abuse of power. It’s not a therapy service’s role to do this. Therapists are there to help and serve their clients, not the other way around.

It’s a common phrase in therapy that you meet the client where they’re at. This is the opposite of that, implies there’s a standard view we should all hold and if you’re not up to scratch you can get out. Just barbaric.

People who follow this board have also been pointing out the problems with not just this individual. There is a pattern well formed now that is being played out across the UK.

Transitioned males getting roles specifically set aside for females. Often Women’s Officer type roles. These males then are involved in setting policy in that role and use it as a platform for their own activism which will usually be not focused on progressing the needs for females.

We have also seen the rhetoric now used by prominent activists that ‘everyone now recognises me as a woman, why should I be exempt from being considered ‘female’ in all things’.

Which is also the direct result of destabilising the language women need to describe themselves.

Indeed. This is not an accident.

Great post from @RedToothBrush just now on the FWR Guilty Feminist thread:

We have an organised political grouping who have a strategy to expand their ideology. Its coordinated. It has certain goals.

We know that there was an active desire to slip things 'under the radar' before the public noticed.

We know that its being pushed hardest in particular places. Places that are typically full of young or vulnerable individuals with little or no political agency of their own.

We know its targeting the third sector.

Its not new.

Unfortunately anyone can take an online course of a few hours and call themselves a CBT therapist

Yikes

@Helleofabore

Unfortunately anyone can take an online course of a few hours and call themselves a CBT therapist

Yikes

Yikes indeed.

You can also find people qualified in a different modality, for example counsellors, doing a short course for a few hours and alleging that they ‘offer CBT’. I was sent to one myself via work, as a CBT therapist, only to realise they didn’t have even the most cursory grasp of how to deliver CBT. They give CBT a bad name for sure.

Thanks for all the posts overnight. I had forgotten that MW had a hissy fit about the amendment and defected to the Greens. A selection of MW's tweets are reproduced here: grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-fox-in-the-hen-house

It's struck me what very male behaviour all this is. I mean do you know the name of any other regional rape crisis CEO? No. Are any of them seeking political election, being interviewed on feminist podcasts or otherwise endlessly self-promoting? No,they're getting on with their job of helping damaged women rebuild their lives. That's their priority. It doesn't appear to be Wadhwa's.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

People who follow this board have also been pointing out the problems with not just this individual. There is a pattern well formed now that is being played out across the UK.

Transitioned males getting roles specifically set aside for females. Often Women’s Officer type roles. These males then are involved in setting policy in that role and use it as a platform for their own activism which will usually be not focused on progressing the needs for females.

We have also seen the rhetoric now used by prominent activists that ‘everyone now recognises me as a woman, why should I be exempt from being considered ‘female’ in all things’.

Which is also the direct result of destabilising the language women need to describe themselves.

Indeed. This is not an accident.

This! I’m trying not to be baffled that people are surprised this has happened. Where did they think we would end up once it was decided that the term woman includes men and therefore female spaces are also for men as well? Once that happened, there were no women’s rights anymore only people’s rights. Men have been able to walk into a multitude of female spaces with the support of every public body in the land. Women only sports? gone. Women only short lists? Gone. Programmes to boost the representation of women in STEM or politics? Gone. Women only arts prizes? Gone. Women only prisons? Gone. All gone because people nodded and said “be kind” and “I’m sure that no one will be unreasonable” and men said “thanks very much we’ll have all of those things then and maybe some others too”

That a TW has become CEO of a rape crisis centre is therefore not really surprising. Shocking but not surprising if you’ve been following this for anytime at all

So no OP YANBU

mnmumak

If a woman did not recognise a male therapist’s identity as a woman in therapy, would you consider that woman transphobic.

I only ask because you have stated that you often disagree with many posters on FWR and you have called MW a woman. But I understand if you don’t want to answer. I just wanted your perspective on it.

It's struck me what very male behaviour all this is. I mean do you know the name of any other regional rape crisis CEO? No. Are any of them seeking political election, being interviewed on feminist podcasts or otherwise endlessly self-promoting? No,they're getting on with their job of helping damaged women rebuild their lives. That's their priority. It doesn't appear to be Wadhwa's.

That's an excellent point.

It doesn't appear to be Wadhwa's.

Wadhwa has been in self promotion mode for quite some time. I think ever since people started discussing the fact that they were a male in a role designated for a female years back.

Once that happened, there were no women’s rights anymore only people’s rights. Men have been able to walk into a multitude of female spaces with the support of every public body in the land. Women only sports? gone. Women only short lists? Gone. Programmes to boost the representation of women in STEM or politics? Gone. Women only arts prizes? Gone. Women only prisons? Gone. All gone because people nodded and said “be kind” and “I’m sure that no one will be unreasonable” and men said “thanks very much we’ll have all of those things then and maybe some others too”

That a TW has become CEO of a rape crisis centre is therefore not really surprising. Shocking but not surprising if you’ve been following this for anytime at all

Exactly. It was inevitable. You can look at what a lightning rod it was for TRAs in Canada too.