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/

I don’t think it is a risk, it is a certainty that males will cause distress for some female sexual violence survivors. (Just not all survivors or within all womens groups so that’s why I prefer may or might vs will).

I don’t think there should be any default tbh. Female only womens groups and trans inclusionary womens groups are equally valid options and should always be offered. The number of each should be driven by survivor demand/preference, and so the # of each being offered by any one centre at any one time should be fluid and varying.

Mostly traditions based on sex differences is why single sex spaces are legislated. (I don’t like the term “enshrined” as it has religious connotations.)

Because some TRAs are extremists.

@IamSarah I wholeheartled wish you well with this. And thank-you for your bravery for standing up for women.

Well I think that includes Stonewall as an organisation, quite a few of the Labour front bench, and many other people in positions of power.

If these extremists don't represent the majority of the trans community, why are they not speaking out against them? Why are they allowing these injustices to happen in their name?

If Stonewall are extremists, why are they allowed to have so much influence?

Lol. As I said, I’m often hated on by GCAs and TRAs as they see my more moderate voice and efforts at smoothing things over to be a betrayal or distraction from drawing up battle lines. Sorry, but I truly think more moderate voices are needed, not fewer. Your trying to police me off the thread would be to create a GC echo chamber….which ultimately doesn’t help anyone. It just whips up anti-trans sentiment by only having “us” and thinking everyone else is “one of them” when there are actually quite a few of us in the middle thinking why the fuck can you both not settle your differences?

I think my contributions are valuable because the language used on this thread E.g. saying all female survivors are triggered by males in womens groups represents an extremist opinion that is not fact based. And making such extremist arguments doesn’t help you get what you want, which is female only womens groups…it just further polarises the debate and gets you called transphobic by equally extremist TRAs. We all need to move towards the middle, not further away from each other.

I do personally. But it’s not an easy position to take as you end up hated by both sides. It’s much easier to pick one extreme or the other because then you’re only hated by one side.

I have not read that all female victims are triggered by males here or anywhere else

I have seen repeatedly " we need the option for single sex , we need that choice "

I don't hate you. Or think you're being hated on.

I think it's arrogant to think you're a moderate, smoothing over sort of person, when clearly it's not working. Lovely to think of yourself like that, and actually I agree that moderate voices and those who can bridge gaps are actually needed in debate - but it needs people who have great tact and communication skills, at a level that not many do. Otherwise it comes across as blundering and making things worse, and not recognising that, which is the opposite of the sort of person that is needed. I think there are times when one has to recognise that they are not the peace-keeper they might like to be (world leaders included). Someone can try hard to be the sort of smoothing-over person they'd like to be, but when it doesn't work, they have to recognise that maybe they aren't actually fulfulling that role in that situation.

Right now, I think it's important to get the message out that this particular organisation is trying to insist on having no female-only groups, despite having men's, mixed and trans groups, which is unfair on women who need women-only groups. That message isn't coming across clearly on the BBC article and people are getting a misleading impression of what is being fought for, and it has nothing really to do with hating anyone.

I would be very grateful if anyone could let me know who the non-extreme TRAs are, who is out there trying to find a reasonable compromise, coming from a place of empathy and kindness towards all (including women). What compromise are they suggesting?

All I can see is a campaign to remove single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act by the Stonewall, initiated in 2015-16 iirc. They have not succeeded then by democratic means (through secondary legislation, debated in Parliament), but continued to undermine these exceptions in their training.

This is what women are defending, the law, the legal exceptions. But apparently that makes us 'extremists'?

@Discovereads I don't think anyone hates you, at least on the GC side. It appears you're GC, as you support rights to single-sex provision, where required, and you accept they are, sometimes, required. You mistake disagreement with your arguments with hate. It's not.

You do all realise that if there were single-sex spaces for women, a man could still get in by saying he’s a woman, if he wanted to invade a space that much.
Unless you expect the people who run the sessions to check everyone’s genitals before they join a group?

well it's pretty obvious without a genital check, to be honest.

But nonetheless, even if they could, there should still be the right to single-sex groups. The fact that people break rules to do something shouldn't mean that those activities shouldn't exist, nor that explicitly providing them won't mean that there are fewer instances of rule breaking at least. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It was earlier on in the thread:

Itscalledmisogyny · 30/04/2022 21:23
This is just shocking misogyny. Women who have been raped do not need or want anyone with a penis in their safe spaces. Anyone claiming they do - without even bothering to ask the female rape victims, just speaking over them, is an out and out misogynist.

IamSarah · 30/04/2022 21:35
Of course female rape survivors don’t need to be around males, the embodiment of their abusers. They need it like a hole in the head.

777magic · 01/05/2022 06:34
At the end of the day, it is a strange male and we don't know their intentions so they should never be in any women only space.

SuperTea · Today 07:58
I've only seen the news about this today.
The mind bogles. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on any of these issues, but how on earth could "experts" supporting victims of rape think it was appropriate (or necessary) to have men in the group?

That doesn't say all victims are triggered but it does suggest it's reasonable to assume they may be

Ok, so if the trans woman passes visually and aurally as a cis woman, it would be ok?

So what you’re saying is that women need spaces free from people who look like men. Where’s the line? What about non-binary people with vaginas? What about a woman with facial hair due to PCOS? Might they be turned away because they look like a man? That’s not fair.

What I’m saying is that single-sex female spaces don’t actually solve the problem at all.

'And making such extremist arguments doesn’t help you get what you want, which is female only womens groups…it just further polarises the debate and gets you called transphobic by equally extremist TRAs' - @Discovereads , women are actually legally entitled to this provision, it's a bit galling that we get called extremists by asking for what, under UK law, is entirely acceptable, with this specific example being used in the Equality Act.

What other examples are there of groups being vilified for demanding their legally mandated public provision?

Who are you building bridges between, by the way? You and whose army?

BotCrossHuns · Today 11:07
I don't hate you. Or think you're being hated on. I think it's arrogant to think you're a moderate, smoothing over sort of person, when clearly it's not working.

Well I admit that hate is too strong a word, but you plainly dislike me and are repeatedly insulting me on this thread. Only you are doing this. No one else has objected so strongly to my presence as you have.

If you know you were born with a penis you shouldn't be using single sex spaces for people born without penises.

It's not complicated.

If people could enter single sex spaces who because of their sex they should not if they pass therefore we should not have single sex spaces ?

Imagine people kill others even though they shouldn't - let's make that legal too

exactly. They know whether they should or shouldn't be using these spaces. Females should be able to use them.

Yes, some will break the rules. That happens in many circumstances. It's not an argument against provision.

@LK1972
You have quoted me out of context. The extremist arguments I was referring to are some of the the arguments in this thread are extremist in language and tone, here are a few:
Itscalledmisogyny · 30/04/2022 21:23
This is just shocking misogyny. Women who have been raped do not need or want anyone with a penis in their safe spaces. Anyone claiming they do - without even bothering to ask the female rape victims, just speaking over them, is an out and out misogynist.

IamSarah · 30/04/2022 21:35
Of course female rape survivors don’t need to be around males, the embodiment of their abusers. They need it like a hole in the head.

777magic · 01/05/2022 06:34
At the end of the day, it is a strange male and we don't know their intentions so they should never be in any women only space.

The demand itself for female only womens groups is legal and not extremist, it’s some of the arguments being put forth in support that are extremist in language and tone.

Yeah they don’t pass. No amount of surgery (which the majority of TW don’t have anyway) can reduce the size of feet, length of leg and arms bones, or widen the pelvis

What I’m saying is that it’s unnecessary.

People who are already breaking the rules will continue to break the rules.

It’s not like making murder legal, it’s like making murder with a knife illegal.

What about tall skinny women???