I just want things done

[azu]

At a meeting yesterday to discuss what is fundamentally young men sexually harrassing and assaulting young women within our setting (alternative educational setting), the discussion turned into a debate about how inclusive our terminology was. Despite not having any trans women in our setting, the focus (which was based on those reporting, that is, young women) was deemed to be not inclusive and actually transphobic as we were talking in a way that it was clear we were only talking about 'women'. But these were those that had reported and therefore prompted the meeting.
But this, according to several colleagues, was excluding trans men and trans women, as well as gay men - and we will prevent these groups reporting anything as our focus is too transphobic and homophobic. By framing what is happening in this way, we are 'perpetuating hetreonormative' views which are oppressive and violent. Yes, violent. And ultimately, we should not target any support based around 'women' being subjected to this by 'men'.

As someone who has had many disclosures from young women in our setting (as well as having experienced sexual abuse as a child (by a man); sexual assault and harrassment (by men); rape (by a man); and domestic violence (by a man)), I came away feeling both furious and despairing.

I fully acknowledge that both men and women (however defined and whatever sexuality) are at risk from sexual violence and harrassment. BUT am I wrong in thinking that:
a) women are the main 'victims' of sexual violence and
b) women are targeted by men because they are women
c) gay men are targeted by male perpetrators because they are men
d) trans women are targeted by (male?) perpetrators because they are trans women?
Because I was told I was wrong. 'Cis' women are in a privileged position and gay men and trans women are truly marginalised and should be the focus of any initiatives that we put in place.

I am so tired. I work frontline with this, whereas these other colleagues have positions/roles which allow them to not have to engage directly with the distress I have had to deal with.

Can anyone explain? I just want to address what is going on, not waste time on conceptual debates.

Oh fucking hell.

I suppose it's easier than talking about the actual issue...

In a setting like that and on this topic though.. That's fucking outrageous. What were they thinking, spending the session talking about that instead of topic?

What is the group- at one institution or across many?

What is your position in the group? How many people?

Was it organised IE chair agenda minutes etc? Or a free for all?

Few things you can do but depend on situation.

I am so sorry for your experiences.

Is this a paid role or part of your paid work or voluntary?

I would really struggle to work with a group of people if they were aiming to tackle violence and harassment against women but not centre women.

I doubt they will get much done if they cannot even identify who they are meant to be helping, so if it is voluntary, I'd put my efforts into another group if you have an option.

Good luck.

I am so tired. I work frontline with this, whereas these other colleagues have positions/roles which allow them to not have to engage directly with the distress I have had to deal with.

Can you tell them this or is it a lost cause? Maybe if you tell them directly enough they're wasting everyone's time with abstract debates while the students in their care are being hurt, it will turn out they're capable of shame?

Totally undersstand that this might not be possible at your workplace. This shit is so infuriating. I'm so sorry you are having to deal with it.

I suppose it's easier than talking about the actual issue...

Yes, it is a kind of displacement activity.

So you meet with colleagues about several women being sexually assaulted. And their response is that women are cis and privileged, that talking about it is 'heteronormative' and that focusing on women being assaulted by men is transphobic?

Were the people who said this male or female?

Dear safeguarding officer

I have concerns about staff X and staff Y. I met with them on to discuss the sexual assaults on X number of women.

1. X and Y showed no empathy with the victims and went further by saying they were cis and privileged - in effect victim blaming. X and Y prioritised their political / philosophical views over the needs of victims, and do not, in my view, belong in a role or organisation with safeguarding responsibility.

2. X and Y argued it was transphobic and exclusionary to focus on the women assaulted in our establishment or use the words woman and women. We help no one if we don’t acknowledge who is doing what to whom and why.

3. X and Y wasted on airing political views and student essay narrative rather than helping our victims. Of the 2 hour meeting, X minutes were spent on terms like 'heteronormative' and X minutes were spent discussing HOW to prevent assaults

n)...

OP which country are you in? In the UK, possible actions include 1) book a meeting with your MP, 2)raise it with the regulatory body and of course 3) contact women's groups of which there are many.

I would suggest that we look at the evidence base for which groups are the victims of attack and which are not

Staff x and staff y's antipathy to recognising the critical importance of sex differences with regards to sexual violence and abuse, means they are not serving the interests of students.

Maya Forstarters case protects our legal right to talk about sex. It protects our students and it protects me in raising these concerns with you. We should be able to speak about sex and use sexed language, especially in meetings about sexual violence, without fear of being shamed or being berated by woke staff.

Staff x and staff y have acted contrary to the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristic of sex. Calling women who have survived sexual violence 'privileged' is discriminatory.

The United Nations recognises that (men’s) violence against women in public and private life impedes the ability of women and girls to claim, realise [SIC] and enjoy their human rights on an equal foot with men.

It is not hate to speak the truth. the truth is that women in our organisation have been sexually abused and that they are 'women' and this happened because they are 'women'. Removing the word 'women' is exclusionary not inclusive.

Our staff have a lead role with regards to the protection of the demographic that is the subject of this abuse and that demographic is 'women'. Staff x and Y's track record is one of undermining the human rights abuses of and specialist provision for that subjugated demographic, women.

In effect both I and the victims have been called “hateful” simply for making statements about male attacks on women.

Staff x and Staff y are silencing and punishing lawful speech about sex and gender as “transphobic”, with me being bullied and harassed at work and questioned for using ordinary every day language.

Staff who prevent people using ordinary language about the sexes, when sex is relevant - in this case sexual assault - are creating a hostile environment for other staff and service users.

Groups that can help if you're in the UK
sex-matters.org/
kareningalasmith.com/
fairplayforwomen.com/
womansplaceuk.org/
legalfeminist.org.uk/

Would ofsteds report on peer on peer abuse be any use? They acknowledge that 9/10 perpetrators are male & 8/10 victims female.

Dfe guidance also acknowledges this.

Crime stats back this up even more (someone else will have links I’m sure).

Safeguarding relies on naming material reality, the victims need to be free to use whatever terminology makes it possible for them to speak up.

I don’t know if ‘alternative education’ means kids, but if so ofsted in the times (I think) said they expect over half of all outstanding secondaries that are rated outstanding will loose that, some dropping to inadequate. They were vague about why but did reference the peer on peer abuse study.

Can you report this to them? To dfe? Or tell baroness Nicholson or safe schools alliance?

OP I have nothing useful to add but all the evidence is on your side. There are some excellent links posted here, so you will find what you need to fight this.

I felt like banging my head on a table when I read your post - not easy when in bed with a cup of tea. The horribly deft way these colleagues turned the whole thing around onto the women was chilling. They are not fit to work with you.

I'd be tempted to acquiesce and come up with charts on the actual demographic served, separating out every single time woman, man, transman and transwoman at every meeting. To be honest you could also just talk about male and female. I don't think any other sexes have been invented yet... it is just "woman" being erased [hard eye roll]

Ousted are having a big push on peer on peer abuse at the moment. If Ofsted were to visit, they would almost certainly ask how you as a school have responded to their report and Everyone's Invited. Currently the truth would be that the school has minimised and silenced the victims because they aren't inclusive enough. I don't think this would wash with Ofsted. Can you raise this with the Head or Chair of Governors? Or, for the nuclear option, report anonymously to Ofsted.

I'm sorry, this would both enrage and sadden me too.

What utter wankers.

Much better advice from PP than me, I do think a safeguarding whistle blowing style letter is needed as outlined by Find

Within whistleblowing safeguarding there's a lot of discussion around low level concern which is linked to the culture of a setting.

So this would absolutely come under that type of culture where women's experiences could be dismissed or belittled. For example, disclosure from a woman that a trans woman has assaulted or raped them.

This is the mentality that permitted Rotherham. Weak people unable to look the world in the eye, as it is, and deal with what is actually happening.

As much as they may wish the current reality didn't show one particular group being the victims and one particular group being the perpetrators, their job is to deal with that reality.

If they don't want to grapple with reality, then they should be sent off to a nice sealed room to do their mental exercises and replaced with someone actually willing to do the work, and not actively get in the way because they're the "wrong" sort of victims and "wrong" sort of perpetrators in their belief system.

@MoveAhoy

I'd be tempted to acquiesce and come up with charts on the actual demographic served, separating out every single time woman, man, transman and transwoman at every meeting. To be honest you could also just talk about male and female. I don't think any other sexes have been invented yet... it is just "woman" being erased [hard eye roll]

Yes. I'd be v tempted to do this too. Hopefully they can be genuinely happy that being a transwoman is such a safe demographic in the UK. If they seem confused (perhaps because their opinions have been copied and pasted in bulk from some misogynist source) you can helpfully point them to where in the world has so many murders of transwomen (South America), and why (sex industry). I'm sure they'll be delighted to channel the energy they have for protecting transwomen into the most practical action that would actually do that in the UK, ie stopping porn and the sex trade.

Also agree to report as concern though.

This is awful OP. Others have given some good advice but please tread carefully in taking it forward and perhaps even seek some legal advice.

So often in these situations the person trying to raise the problems becomes the focus and can end up faced with disciplinary actions or even loss of work.

It's an all too common story. I met a muslim woman a while back who worked in FE who tried to raise the same issues about young asylum seeker/immigrant males and sexual harassment of female students, she ended up branded a trouble maker and eventually left her post.

Yes its common for whistleblowers to become the target. But this is about safeguarding, and sometimes we have to suck it up and take the consequences.

@Thelnebriati

Yes its common for whistleblowers to become the target. But this is about safeguarding, and sometimes we have to suck it up and take the consequences.

This ^^

If people can’t speak up about safeguarding they shouldn’t be in a safeguarding role.

I met a muslim woman a while back who worked in FE who tried to raise the same issues about young asylum seeker/immigrant males and sexual harassment of female students, she ended up branded a trouble maker and eventually left her post.

She was right to raise it and it is a problem outlined in this book

PREY
Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Thank you so much everyone! I feel so much stronger and validated now. I don't want to give too much away for obvious reasons but we mainly work with 16-20 year olds, and I work in a study support role, paid. But an increasing amount of my time is spent with young women who are struggling with studying due to this. I passed my concerns on to my manager and this meeting was called as a result, but open to anyone within the setting with concerns (it was a Zoom meeting so I'm not totally sure who was there to be honest, as not everyone spoke). The meeting was dominated by 2 males in direct training/teaching roles who are not dealing directly with this, and who expressed these views, and my line manager (female) and several other female staff agreed, but it was just agreement not offering anything else. The meeting went nowhere, and we ran out of time. I feel I have made myself a target, but reading through these comments is so reassuring that I am a) not alone! and b) not losing my mind.
I am dreading going into work tomorrow though.

@FindTheTruth

I would suggest that we look at the evidence base for which groups are the victims of attack and which are not

Staff x and staff y's antipathy to recognising the critical importance of sex differences with regards to sexual violence and abuse, means they are not serving the interests of students.

Maya Forstarters case protects our legal right to talk about sex. It protects our students and it protects me in raising these concerns with you. We should be able to speak about sex and use sexed language, especially in meetings about sexual violence, without fear of being shamed or being berated by woke staff.

Staff x and staff y have acted contrary to the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristic of sex. Calling women who have survived sexual violence 'privileged' is discriminatory.

The United Nations recognises that (men’s) violence against women in public and private life impedes the ability of women and girls to claim, realise [SIC] and enjoy their human rights on an equal foot with men.

It is not hate to speak the truth. the truth is that women in our organisation have been sexually abused and that they are 'women' and this happened because they are 'women'. Removing the word 'women' is exclusionary not inclusive.

Our staff have a lead role with regards to the protection of the demographic that is the subject of this abuse and that demographic is 'women'. Staff x and Y's track record is one of undermining the human rights abuses of and specialist provision for that subjugated demographic, women.

In effect both I and the victims have been called “hateful” simply for making statements about male attacks on women.

Staff x and Staff y are silencing and punishing lawful speech about sex and gender as “transphobic”, with me being bullied and harassed at work and questioned for using ordinary every day language.

Staff who prevent people using ordinary language about the sexes, when sex is relevant - in this case sexual assault - are creating a hostile environment for other staff and service users.

THIS!