Mail article on rape crisis centres recruiting self identifying women

[Wandawomble]

Mail article on rape crisis centres recruiting self identifying women
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8513337/Anger-rape-crisis-centres-recruit-self-identifying-women.html

So, in other words, if you are a woman or a trans man.
"Sod off, we don't hear you".

The Trans Sexual Violence Project in Wisconsin (USA), 2004, found that 45% of participants were survivors of sexual violence.

Wisconsin is very different to Cambridge.

Wisconsin did not recognise same sex marriage until late 2014.
I know the place fairly well.

Also, surely it goes without saying that participants in something called “The Trans Sexual Violence Project” would have experienced sexual violence, I’m surprised it was as low as 45% to be honest.

What a ridiculous response. Is that the best evidence they can find for why the wishes of rape victims for appropriate female only services can't be respected?

So basically the priority, for a group providing an emergency service for women, is the male women.

They are not bothered if this means female women will lose access to their service or be afraid to access it, this is no problem, since the main purpose of this woman-focused service is now to politically support men.

Who could actually have access to male rape services, male refuge spaces, and female rape services and female refuge spaces, in fact the male women get all the spaces and choice, and do not need to give one flying fuck about anyone else or anything but themselves and their personal preferences. Females will put males first at all times regardless of their own needs or can fuck off and have nothing.

Male supremacist women's services.

Exactly, as you say. It's a front for their woke "intersectional" politics. I'm sure anyone who disagrees has to stay silent or be pushed out. Cambridge, where they let Lib Dem TRA Sarah Brown mislead them on the Equality Act.

Essentially, it's been proven again, why females need single sex spaces to be vigorously defended.

Because as shown here, when males are allowed to share a service with females, they quickly end up being the sole dominating focus of the service, with females being allowed to have the bits of service left over after the males have been properly catered for.

This has been known for decades. That females don't participate fully in groups when males are present because males dominate the agenda and conversation and are deferred to. Because males are better at garnering attention, time and resources. Because males will assertively focus things to their own interests and needs, and female service providers will automatically defer to and value them over female clients.

It's evidenced in the clinic's own letter.

It's shocking to see it demonstrated so blatantly, by them citing an extremely weak piece of evidence that is a non sequitur as to why males should be able to work in women's single sex services.

Not to mention that there are female experiences that females wish and need to talk about when accessing services dealing with trauma crisis, that many will not speak freely about in front of males, regardless of how the male identifies themselves. Nor do these female people need to be exposed to vigorous policing in language by those whose main interest in a female woman's trauma is whether or not her mentioning it is in any way fails to appropriately genuflect to their personal politics.

They've completely misunderstood that survey.

It's here.

It was surveying sexual violence survivors, so oddly enough, rates of sexual violence survival were high. Far higher than the figure they gave - 45% were survivors of direct violence, and a further 45% direct and indirect - one assumes the remaining 10% were indirect (supporting other survivors). It wasn't looking into prevalence; it was exploring what the needs were, and harms experienced. To use that to declare prevalence rate is like surveying a breastfeeding support group and then insisting it proves that almost all women breastfeed.

They are misreading and misrepresenting the findings, which is I suppose inevitable when you rely on what someone else has told you, instead of reading the evidence yourself.

Clearly there should be support for trans survivors. As with all victims of male violence. I'm just not sure why they want to throw women under the bus when it comes to said male violence, if our needs conflict with those of people born male, other than to prove they're so open-minded their brains have fallen out.

I was originally hoping that it was a misunderstanding, and they want to recruit trans volunteers to support trans survivors, which would clearly be valuable (nobody understands like a peer can) and afford an additional resource. But that's not what they're saying, is it?

Thank God for services like NIA holding the line, and remaining genuinely single-sex.

@Michelleoftheresistance

Essentially, it's been proven again, why females need single sex spaces to be vigorously defended.

Because as shown here, when males are allowed to share a service with females, they quickly end up being the sole dominating focus of the service, with females being allowed to have the bits of service left over after the males have been properly catered for.

This has been known for decades. That females don't participate fully in groups when males are present because males dominate the agenda and conversation and are deferred to. Because males are better at garnering attention, time and resources. Because males will assertively focus things to their own interests and needs, and female service providers will automatically defer to and value them over female clients.

It's evidenced in the clinic's own letter.

This ^

@Michelleoftheresistance

Essentially, it's been proven again, why females need single sex spaces to be vigorously defended.

Because as shown here, when males are allowed to share a service with females, they quickly end up being the sole dominating focus of the service, with females being allowed to have the bits of service left over after the males have been properly catered for.

This has been known for decades. That females don't participate fully in groups when males are present because males dominate the agenda and conversation and are deferred to. Because males are better at garnering attention, time and resources. Because males will assertively focus things to their own interests and needs, and female service providers will automatically defer to and value them over female clients.

It's evidenced in the clinic's own letter.

Yes.

Ha, cross post, Aesopfable!

Wellbehavedwomen this is what I love about FWR - statementsgets followed up and examined! (Which is why TRA hate us)

I fail to see how any male bodied person, would think that it would be right for them to work for or be involved in any way with a women's rape crisis centre.
I also assume (maybe incorrectly) that these centres would be staffed by women, who would be in charge of recruitment.
Why then, would a woman wish to recruit someone who would most probably traumatise many of the women in the centre, women who have suffered unblelievable abuse at the hands of men?

Thanks for the link to the survey wellbehavedwomen.

The survey in Wisconsin was of 32 people. The majority of these (69%) were female.

The 'gender' of the majority of perpetrators of sexual violence was male (it doesn't state their sex).

They have included two quotes from participants:

• “I was inappropriately used sexually by my gender therapist in Milwaukee. He began sexually advancing to show me how to be a ‘real man’, as a way of modeling masculine behavior. It became obvious that I needed to be sexual with him in order to receive the required letter to have chest surgery. We had sex a countless number of times — sometimes in his office, sometimes my house, sometimes he would make me take him out to dinner and pay the bill. When I realized that this was wrong, I asked him for my surgery letter so I could discontinue ‘therapy’. He refused and I had to pay thousands of dollars to reestablish a relationship with another therapist in order to get a surgery letter.”

• “Because I was 17, I was scared and didn’t have the means to protect myself or even know what to do.”

Distinct lack of quotes from mature 'transwomen'.

forge-forward.org/anti-violence/sexual-violence-research/wisconsin-data/

I was reading more of that Forge research into sexual abuse of trans people.

It says that 44% of those harmed were female (in the biological sense) at the time they were victimised. It says that 29% were trans at the time. That would tend to dilute the claims made, that being trans is the key risk factor. It also says that Abuse/assault occurred most when victims were between 0 and 12 years of age and then again between 19 and 21 years old. So the correlation seems to be as much about child sexual abuse as trans.

A really haunting quote: “I was inappropriately used sexually by my gender therapist in Milwaukee. He began sexually advancing to show me how to be a ‘real man’, as a way of modeling masculine behavior. It became obvious that I needed to be sexual with him in order to receive the required letter to have chest surgery. We had sex a countless number of times — sometimes in his office, sometimes my house, sometimes he would make me take him out to dinner and pay the bill. When I realized that this was wrong, I asked him for my surgery letter so I could discontinue ‘therapy’. He refused and I had to pay thousands of dollars to reestablish a relationship with another therapist in order to get a surgery letter.”

Cambridge Rape Crisis seem to blindly assume that trans means trans women. They also seem to assume biology is not as relevant as gender. Yet the very study they cite does not say this.

The really shocking part is that 33% of reported abusers were women. That's astronomically higher than any other sources - even the highest possible estimated prevalance tends to range from 5-20% - and makes me wonder what the factors there might be? Are trans people more likely to be victimised, even in childhood, by women, or is childhood victimisation by a woman likelier to create gender dysphoria, or what? I genuinely have no idea but it's such an outlier of a statistic, it could merit looking into, perhaps.

It's all horrendous, clearly, and those affected need and deserve support and care too - all survivors do. I just don't see why that is relevant when recruiting single sex support for women, and saying self-identified women are okay to work phonelines for a single-sex service. Because this study does not support their position.

Sorry Old Crone, another cross post!

I'd looked at the wider research (which was in the hundreds) and missed that the demographic info here was for such a tiny number, by restricting solely to Wisconsin. That makes none of the stats very reliable, due to statistical distortion with such a small sample size.

Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre Charity Commission link.
beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=286098&subid=0

I'm not an accountant, but financially it looks very healthy. It appears to retain 44% of its income.

List of Trustees at 2019
beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=286098&subid=0

Have been wondering whether there should be a thread on FWR where we list the Rape Crisis Centres that have advertised for "self identifying women" as a useful resource.

ie just to post the name of the group, a link to the ad or web page and if there is a discussion thread already started on here add that.

If at some future date they reverse their SelfID position MNHQ could be asked to delete their entry.

Thoughts?

Sorry, to clarify, click on "People" on link here for list of Trustees.
beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=286098&subid=0

I agree stumbledin

I think the emailed response is straight out of Stonewall hand book.

Horrifying that anyone can type that and not see the contradictions - but worse still that they are implementing this policy at a Rape Crisis Centre.

Such a shame as it was a fairly new centre, but maybe that's the problem no historical links. (I am sure a fairly well know radical feminist was part of setting it up. Wonder if it was one of those where rad fems do the basic heavy duty work, and then the work paid employees move it and totally corrupt the purpose.)

Why doesn't it mention WOMEN? (Although mankind is in there.)
From their Charity Commission link.

"Who the charity helps
Children/young people
Elderly/old people
People with disabilities
People of a particular ethnic or racial origin
The general public/mankind"

On the earlier thread about this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3963548-Self-Identifying-Women-wanted I did wonder if Rape Crisis England and Wales who provide the training and standards for "approved" centres shouldn't be contacted and ask them to reply.

This is because even if you / the centre agree with the right to SelfID what you dont have the right to do is impose this on survivors who make the call to your service on the basis that you advertise it as being for women and girls. It is an act of deceit and could have terrible repercussions on the women making the call.