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

If two groups with competing rights conflict, you're supposed to do an equality impact assessment. Sex is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and it's not just about encountering a male voice on the phone, either. If I thought a male person might be providing email support over rape I would feel desperately upset. I'm happy to respect someone's gender identity, but I want my own sex rights respected in turn. That would include having single sex provision in areas where it matters.

Women have rights too. For now, at least.

Yes I agree. But they're not using the exemptions open to them, for a variety of reasons.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes I agree. But they're not using the exemptions open to them, for a variety of reasons.

They're ignoring the law to prioritise males. While claiming to run a women-only service for survivors of male sexual violence.

Sums the whole shitshow up, doesn't it.

It does. But I think it's a political move. There are probably people there who disagree but can't say anything.

After I open up about the sexual abuse I suffered throughout my childhood and teenage years, resulting in a suicide attempt and an overnight stay in a psychiatric facility, my doctor referred me for psychiatric help. She agreed with me when I said that I couldn’t speak to a male about it. When I turned up, I was greeted by a man who informed me that I was on his list as he was helping out the female psychiatrist. I explained that I had asked for a female and he responded that it was him or no one. By the second appointment when he tried to bully me into talking about the actual abuse, rather than how I felt, I knew I couldn’t go back. His anger was palpable, even though he tried to hide it. My doctor received a letter from him stating that I refused to ‘engage with the process’ and I was discharged. I spent the next 25yrs fighting my demons and with a profound mistrust of anyone involved in ‘support services’, because of that experience.

I finally received the proper help, after I lost my husband, but that was with Cruise. They actually helped me deal with the abuse inflicted on me by those abusive men as well the loss of my wonderful husband. The difference was, my request for a woman counsellor, was respected.

This so called support service for women, is still proving that male bodied people and their feelings will ALWAYS be more important than women, no matter how much that woman is suffering. They have become implicit in the abuse of vulnerable women and girls.

*complicit

@LillianBland

I'm so very sorry you had that experience, on top of the harm of the abuse to begin with. It's unspeakably wrong.

That's so callous Lilian men really don't like being told no, do they.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes I agree. But they're not using the exemptions open to them, for a variety of reasons.

In which case they should be accepting of any male applicant regardless of gender

Lillian. That's appalling that you were put through that.

Sorry been out today

Anyone have a good response please

This so called support service for women, is still proving that male bodied people and their feelings will ALWAYS be more important than women, no matter how much that woman is suffering. They have become complicit in the abuse of vulnerable women and girls.

This. So sorry Lillian

Not even the generosity to provide female only options alongside the mixed sex options; you either genuflect to their political gods or you're excluded.

They really should be adding to their 'we serve people with disabilities, age, BAME etc' the proviso: but only if you are obedient to our politics. Those of you whose disability, race, culture, faith, trauma, and other reasons means you cannot access mixed sex services can fuck off.

The most important thing about females' trauma is whether it inconveniences men.

Really needs looking into under taxpayer/government funding regulations actually:

a caste is being created of 'untouchables', tax payers who are unable to access services because of being unable to conform to highly partisan and shall we say, er, 'debatable' politics?

Services are supposed to provide even-handedly, showing diversity and inclusion. These are actively excluding females.

@LillianBland, my true thoughts about your former so-called therapist are unprintable. I was under the impression - quite probably mistaken - that anyone could request a change of therapist for any reason. These are people to whom you're confiding your most intimate issues and it isn't possible to engage in that kind of reciprocal working relationship when that level of trust isn't there.

I wonder if a request to change therapist for any reason other than his sex would have met with less resistance?

It does seem a woman's right to request a female counsellor, therapist or practitioner is under increasing attack from zealots. What other interpretation can there be, but that vulnerable women's wellbeing comes secondary to men's feelings?

I'm more sorry than I can say that you were put through that

In which case they should be accepting of any male applicant regardless of gender

Precisely. They're discriminating but not meeting the conditions.

It does seem a woman's right to request a female counsellor, therapist or practitioner is under increasing attack from zealots.

Quite. The woman's needs, feelings, distress, inability to access the service without a female to provide it - all rubbished, she needs to get over it now, it's indulging behaviour equated to racism etc etc, and she deserves to lose services if she won't get with the RightThink. There is no empathy, basic compassion, respect of any kind for that human in distress, no attempt to listen or help.

The male person in the equation on the other hand - their possible distress, hurt feelings and rejection of in any circumstances not being validated because they need to put someone else's feelings ahead of their own? Horrors. The inhumanity. Get the smelling salts out. The males are never asked to tolerate or get over anything at all. Diversity, listening, hearing their voice and experience, accepting differences - all of that gets ranted on about at length if it enables someone male. The hypocrisy and the inequality is stark.

It absolutely stinks.

The really shocking part is that 33% of reported abusers were women.

I'm not sure how clear the 'gender' markers are for any of that report wellbehavedwomen.

It gives "Sex assigned at birth" as 69% female, 31% male. But everything else talks about 'gender', so there is "Gender of the perpetrator" and "Victim’s gender at the time of the assault".

And this is the list of "Gender identities" of people who took part (in order of frequency): FTM, female, MTF, male, genderqueer, FTM-lesbian identified, femme male, androgynous, trannyfag, non-gendered human, intersex, masculine female, queer, bigendered, T-girl, transman

So a man who has been assaulted by a woman might actually be a transman who has been assaulted by a transwoman.

Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre shouldn't be using a survey of 32 people from Wisconsin 16 years ago in which the majority of assault victims were biologically female and the majority of perpetrators were male to justify having male support workers.

Does anyone have a reply I can send to the email please

bigendered

Am I the only one who read this as big-endered. I was wondering if they had had buttock implants...

No you aren't the only one

Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre shouldn't be using a survey of 32 people from Wisconsin 16 years ago in which the majority of assault victims were biologically female and the majority of perpetrators were male to justify having male support workers.

Yes, putting it mildly.

@OldCrone

The really shocking part is that 33% of reported abusers were women.

I'm not sure how clear the 'gender' markers are for any of that report wellbehavedwomen.

It gives "Sex assigned at birth" as 69% female, 31% male. But everything else talks about 'gender', so there is "Gender of the perpetrator" and "Victim’s gender at the time of the assault".

And this is the list of "Gender identities" of people who took part (in order of frequency): FTM, female, MTF, male, genderqueer, FTM-lesbian identified, femme male, androgynous, trannyfag, non-gendered human, intersex, masculine female, queer, bigendered, T-girl, transman

So a man who has been assaulted by a woman might actually be a transman who has been assaulted by a transwoman.

Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre shouldn't be using a survey of 32 people from Wisconsin 16 years ago in which the majority of assault victims were biologically female and the majority of perpetrators were male to justify having male support workers.

If the sample size is 32 then the stats are irrelevant - though as you note, a study that shows the expected pattern, of male people predating on female,is not good evidence that male people should be allowed to provide therapeutic support for women survivors of male violence.

There's never any good evidence. It's always like this. My particular favourite was someone using a study that showed lesbians have an increased risk of male sexual violence, and saying that it proved trans women did. It's that thing of a lie being repeated sufficiently often, people assume it's the truth. Nobody reads source data - look at all the people attacking Rowling, while insisting that they'd never dream of reading her actual words.

Where are transmen meant to turn to for help if they're raped? Excluding them under Equality Act grounds is downright evil, and proves that everything we've been saying about the danger of allowing language to be distorted is correct.

Indeed. Its shocking really. But noone cares about transmen, they have male privilege and never get abused of course.

Where are transmen meant to turn to for help if they're raped? Excluding them under Equality Act grounds is downright evil, and proves that everything we've been saying about the danger of allowing language to be distorted is correct.

Under the Equality Act excluding them is clear cut discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.