Apparently female rape survivors 'need' mixed sex groups

[IamSarah]

Honestly. This is what my local rape crisis centre wrote in a letter to the EHRC.

Apparently women who have been raped need to welcome trans women into the rape crisis groups as they provide amazing value and are 'needed'.

Of course they haven't actually asked female survivors. None of it is trauma informed. I've no idea what the motivation is but its dodgy as hell.

survivorsnetwork.org.uk/our-letter-to-the-equalities-and-human-rights-commission/

If women shun their services it won't be long til they lose their funding.

I just don't see why they can't run both mixed and separate groups, including a trans only group.

The least they could do is ask service users what they think, even if they then go against it.

Yes. It would have made everything much clearer had the existing provision been explained.

The BBC do often make corrections if people write to let them know.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682

@IamSarah just seen the BBC article. So sorry you went through this. Solidarity ✊

I suspect the issue with that - and organisations such as Survivors' Network know it - is that if you offer female survivors the choice between a single sex group and a trans inclusive one, most of them will say they want the single sex one, which means either they can't have what they want, or rape crisis organisations would have to respond by making most of the groups single sex and only having a few inclusive ones.

Surely then, if you don't care, but other women do, and to the extent that they stop accessing services, then the solution is to offer female only services.

I'd be astonished if any female survivor of male sexual violence 'needs' a male in their support group. A male might want to be there, but males need to fuck off out of female only spaces, those spaces are there for good reason. And that reason could be that just one woman in a room of 500 rape survivors might feel uncomfortable. That's a good enough reason.

That doesn't seem like it should be an issue though. If only a few want trans inclusive ones, then surely that's enough - there would only be a few trans women who want services like that and who want women's groups. As long as there ARE services available for them, isn't that enough? Women also need services that are suitable for them and what they want, and if most of them want women's-only services, then that's what they should get.

(sorry that was a reply to a previous message)

Well if that’s where the chips fall, that’s where they fall. If it’s only 1 group out of 4 that is trans inclusive and it’s a tiny group with only a handful of members, so be it. It shouldn’t be about engineering outcomes, but meeting the needs of all survivors.

But surely that’s the best way to suit everyone’s needs? Survivors need to feel supported and safe, I can’t understand why it would be an issue to keep female only spaces and add a fourth fully inclusive group.
If there are male only spaces and trans only spaces already why does that always mean the woman only spaces need to be made inclusive?
Companies just need to expand to make inclusive groups and if that means they only have a few members then so be it, the whole point is to support clients needs, not force them into situations which may cause more trauma.

It shouldn't be an issue in a sane world, no.

But we are trying to move the needle from a situation where all women's groups are trans inclusive because lobby groups like Stonewall have done such a great job of convincing people in positions of authority that inclusiveness trumps natal women's rights.

And I think the sticking point is that as soon as rape crisis organisations actually poll their service users, find out what they want, and try to provide single sex, mixed sex and trans inclusive services roughly in proportion to the number of service users who want them, they are going to have to face the fact that the overwhelming majority of their service users will want single sex provision, and so that needle needs to move not just from everything being trans inclusive to a few groups being single sex, but from everything being trans inclusive to most groups not being trans inclusive.

That's why they don't want to ask their service users what they want in the first place, because they know it will open a can of worms that they will then have to deal with. They don't want to know the answer to the question "what do female rape survivors actually want and need?" because deep down they know that they will either have to ignore the answer, or act on it and incur the wrath of Stonewall.

Yes, there should be female only woman’s groups offered and there should be complete freedom for survivors to choose between groups. No one should be told ‘oh we only have one female only group and it’s full so you have to use a trans inclusionary group” or be browbeat/guilted/called a transphobe into going into a trans inclusionary group if it makes them uncomfortable.

The TW can join a womens group with me or others like me who don’t care. I agree, there is no “need” on my part for a TW to be in a group anymore than I’d “need” lesbian, straight or bisexual women to be in my group. It’s enough for me that we are all people who have been victims of sexual violence. But there’s no “need” for different kinds of women…that’s a stupid argument as well from the TRA side of things.

And that reason could be that just one woman in a room of 500 rape survivors might feel uncomfortable. That's a good enough reason.
I would let it get to a room of 500 though. I’d divide the group into two. One female only and one trans inclusive. And if that means a group of 480 in the female only room and only 20 (10 females and 10 TW) in the trans inclusive group, then so be it. I wouldn’t try and force them to be “equal” groups.

I sent a message to the news site about misleading information, so perhaps this will be amended in a later version of the article. I guess it depends how much of it was deliberately worded that way, or how much was actually not understanding, and also of course how easily they can verify the correct information. There seems to be a specific piece of information at odds from what is reported elsehwere (that men are referred to another organisation), as well as information that is left out (that there are also trans/mixed groups available).

@Discovereads you wrote 'They’ll simply have to accept they cannot access all womens groups. Women like me who don’t care do exist and so there will always be a place for TW to go that is a womens group- so what would TW have to complain about? ' This is an idea of a 'third space' that most GC women are happy with, that is make some spaces mixed-sex, to cater to all those women who don't mind sharing facilities with men when vulnerable/undressed/need privacy, and some spaces women-only, that is exclusively female. This idea is entirely unacceptable to the trans rights activists, as they frequently also consider transwomen female. This is exactly where most of us started our road to Terfdom, as it is surely not kind not providing at least one place away from all males for women who do need them. And we all know some women who do, often personally. But no, we were told that is not allowed. And that just seemed a bit fucking unfair, which led to more reading and 'educating ourselves', and becoming quite impassioned about the actual unfairness built into the unyielding and literal interpretation of TWAW. I wish I didn't have to spend time and money defending my daughters' access to single-sex rape counselling, if needed, or single-sex NHS wards for me if hospitalized, as multiple rape survivor who wouldn't be able to sleep in a bed next to a male stranger, but here we are.

That's why they don't want to ask their service users what they want in the first place, because they know it will open a can of worms that they will then have to deal with.

Shonagh Dillon's PhD is interesting for the difference between Stonewall interpreted versions of what various crisis support groups said and what the people actually said when they didn't feel under pressure. I posted this on page 1 but it bears repetition.

Following on from Shonagh Dillon's PhD (available online and for free from her site) and the different responses she elicited relative to the SW survey, I, like you OP, would need 3rd party validation of any such claim.

PhD title: "‘#TERF/Bigot/Transphobe’ – ‘We found the witch, burn her!’" A contextual constructionist account of the silencing of feminist discourse on the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the policy capture of transgender ideology, focusing on the potential impacts and consequences for female-only spaces for victims of male violence.

…

The second finding, the one that during the data collection period surprised me most, relates to the participants I interviewed that also took part in the Stonewall Research. This research undertook interviews with 15 professionals from 12 national umbrella bodies and frontline services in the MVAW sector: reporting gender reform would have no impact.

I interviewed a third of the same participants and my findings were quite different, you can go straight to chapter 6, (The Impact) p.201, if you want to skip to this part of my research, but for a sneak preview here are a few of the participant’s quotes:

We certainly have had an issue with a perpetrator self-IDing…where someone is manipulative, they will use the system. I did say to Stonewall there is problems with any legislation and there will be unintended consequences. (2)

I tried to make it really clear [to Stonewall] that it is not uncomplicated, it is very complicated, and it is something that we have questioned all the time. (4)

I can be a trans-inclusive service, but I am telling you right now there will be different ways of delivering that service and probably different doors! (1)

Obviously, I offer potential reasons as to why my findings and Stonewall’s are very different, these can be found on p.226, in the conclusion. But it is concerning and could point to a fear from professionals within the MVAW sector in raising their voices against transgender ideology, and or gender reform.

www.shonaghdillon.co.uk/welcome-to-my-website/

mumsnet thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4287881-Congratulations-Shonagh-Dillon-for-Defending-Your-PhD-TERF-Bigot-Transphobe-We-found-the-witch-burn-her?

Apparently women who have been raped need to welcome trans women into the rape crisis groups as they provide amazing value and are 'needed'.

Specifically, what "amazing value" to they provide? How is that quantified? And who are they "needed" by/and why?

What can a transwoman provide that a woman can't? 🙄

(I realise these are rhetorical questions :))

I agree, there is no “need” on my part for a TW to be in a group anymore than I’d “need” lesbian, straight or bisexual women to be in my group.

Women's sexual preferences tend not to distress other women. Males in a room of female sexual violence survivors will.

@LK1972
Yes, I agree. I have a lot of views in common with both GCA and TRA. I consider myself a trans-ally and feminist because both sides of activists have extremists who’s views are not only unacceptable to me but they also seem to be very entrenched in their ideology and unwilling to negotiate reasonable compromises with each other. I understand why you say frustration at extremist TRAs has pushed many a feminist into terfdom. It’s human nature to pick sides in a conflict and both sides usually end up hating people like me as “being on the fence” but I see myself as trying to build bridges and defuse conflict.

Males in a room of female sexual violence survivors might or may cause distress. It’s not a given that they will.

I think it's a reasonably safe assumption to make that they will cause distress to at least one woman in a women only group.

Males in a room of female sexual violence survivors might or may cause distress. It’s not a given that they will.

So you support Sarah unequivocally then, in her request for a female only group? Esp given that male only, trans and womens' groups existed.

Yes, I do. Wholeheartedly. And I’ve stated how TW should have nothing to complain about because support centres can survey patients and those who don’t mind TW in our groups (like me) will meet TW needs. There is no “need” for TW to have access to all womens groups. And saying we need female only womens group doesn’t deny them access to womens group as a whole.

So if you think they might or may, then you accept there's a risk (however much you are minimising it) so female only groups must be the default, with other options available.

Also, can I just ask you, why do you think we have single sex spaces enshrined in law?

But trans activist organisations such as Stonewall actively work to prevent single sex services being provided to women.

Why would they do this?

Why would they not use their time and resources to increase provision for trans people?

If you're trying to 'build bridges' and 'diffuse conflict', then why keep arguing and distracting people from a useful and important thread that is trying to get a message across? Even if you think you are right and you need to change the narrative, is this really the place, when you are obviously not being clear in what you're saying so that people have to keep clarifying? That sounds like the opposite of 'building bridges', as it's just frustrating people who would like something to be made clear. Someone who is skilled at smoothing things over would recognise when and where their input is actually helpful to an ongoing campaign, which in this case is to provide a women's only group, in addition to all the other groups available. It is not about denying trans people services, nor about whether some groups could be trans-inclusive without upsetting some women.