Big update on Rape Crisis legal challenge

[IamSarah]

I know many of you have been waiting for an update so first of all thank you for your patience and the many messages of support.

I am suing Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service, as it refused to offer a single sex women’s group in addition to the mixed sex women’s groups. By mixed sex I mean inclusive of any males who identify as women.

I’ve been granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and it was submitted to Brighton County Court today.

I am being represented by law firm Didlaw and my Barrister is Naomi Cunningham (Chair of Sex Matters). So far they have acted pro bono which I am incredibly grateful for as it has taken a lot of time. The team are confident I have a good case but this is unchartered territory for women’s rights.

Many of you have very kindly offered to be involved and help with gardening. I don’t think I’m allowed to share details on here so please go to my Twitter page http://twitter.com/SarahSurviving/ which has all the info in a pinned post.

Of you’re not on Twitter feel free to send me a DM for more information on how you can help the case. Any publicity you can give the crowd funder would really help.

Thank you everyone.

Sarah x

Absolutely: We were unsuccessful in reaching anyone who described themselves as intersex in our consultation. No one in the group disclosed an intersex variation, though this is in the context of generally low uptake on demographic/equalities monitoring forms. We reached out to intersex groups and people with paid consultation opportunities but ultimately were unable to make the connections we would have liked to.

Accordingly, when we talk about the communities we worked with in this report, we talk about trans and non-binary communities, because we don’t have the information or experience to draw authentic conclusions about intersex experiences.

No surprise that the forced teaming of the rightfully pissed off intersex community was unsuccessful.

I thought this bit was ironic:

“Because my abuser was a middle class white woman, and I feel like that’s a demographic that often dominates this field, if my supporter was part of that demographic I would definitely struggle.” (Interviewee)

No surprise that the forced teaming of the rightfully pissed off intersex community was unsuccessful.

They could well have found one of their "trans" interviewees saying they were also "intersex" for bonus points, Yaniv style - that's more common than real DSDs.

But maybe such people wouldn't want to do it in such a formal context where they might be asked questions. Easier to do in a throwaway fashion.

Letter written to SN about their statement ,reply received inadequate to say the least.

'Thanks for your email, your comments have been noted' by any chance?

That is all I got back from them.

I just completed a row of seedlings which was most satisfying. 😆

This thread has been linked to on Glinner, amd I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. I'm a solicitor and it is shockingly unprofessional and unethical for RMW to have posted on a support thread for Sarah. So inappropriate.

I missed all this but Glinner sent me here. Absolutely shocked! Did a little digging for you.

100%

And as usual zero self reflection on 'why might we be finding this particular community do not want to engage with us?'

Add that to the list of 'why are women really pissed off and saying we need single sex spaces and to be allowed to be homosexual'. The list of what Stonewall don't understand is miles long at this point.

Just popping down the garden. I might even ice a dahlia while I'm down there.

Can you post the crowdfunding link please?

This is such an unbelievable breach of conduct from this barrister, to insinuate herself on a support thread for a vulnerable woman!!!

The trans cult is really something, but wouldn’t it be, after a rape(!) support centre refuses to have women only groups!

I am another one who did an additional spot of digging in disgust for RMW’s inappropriate near-intimidation on this thread.

I hope Karon Monaghan wipes the floor with them.

Sarah, I looked at that study and it’s so awful.

As far as I can see it had only 19 people, using interviews with 9. The ‘study’ had no scientific rigour. I don’t know why we needed to know that the one researcher had a puppy and the name of the cat owned by the other researcher. They express surprise at not finding intersex people but don’t seem to know how small this population is and how this population is distinctly different.

They and their subjects know that the largest demographic for this service are women so replace women for ‘trans and non-binary people’ here:

Many of the trans and non-binary people we spoke to indicated that this lack of clarity - not knowing if a service or space would be inclusive or not – caused them intense stress.

and here:

Trans and non-binary people want and deserve to give and receive support in spaces which commit to a trauma-informed, anti-oppression practice, and where the empowerment of survivors is seen as key to healing.

To be honest in my opinion, the message that came across from trans and non binary people is that they want to feel safe, talk about their trans experience as integral to the abuse and would rather have their own spaces away from the main group (women). If they had spoken to women (by that the biological women who do not identify as trans or non-binary), I bet you would get the same message: women want to feel safe, talk about being a woman in the context of abuse, and have their own space with other women. But they did not speak to women so there is no meaningful analysis.

The researchers knew what conclusion they wanted before they researched and fitted quotes around it. And I don’t even think their ‘research’ supports their conclusion.

If this is the report that informed the SN practice for women, their main user group, it’s a complete shambles.

Many of the trans and non-binary people we spoke to indicated that this lack of clarity - not knowing if a service or space would be inclusive or not – caused them intense stress.

I wonder what this actually meant in practice. Are we talking men, or women, and which spaces did they want to get into?

Is it mainly non-binary women worried about whether the female group is going to talk about women and misgender them? I kind of suspect it is. They probably hadn't got as far as thinking that a man might be in there...

@CristinaNov182 Mumsnet doesn't allow links for fundraising but googling Sarah Summers Crowd Justice should get you there.

Thank you found it

Many of the trans and non-binary people we spoke to indicated that this lack of clarity - not knowing if a service or space would be inclusive or not – caused them intense stress.

Many of the female people raising concerns in a wide range of matters indicate that not knowing if a space or service will be inclusive of all females who need a female only space causes them intense stress.

Oddly, the people so concerned about TQ+ people in this report do not have the equality of concern for females.

This thread has taught me so much about narcissism, and about male vs female. Anyone who wasn't aware of the issues before certainly will be now. The extent that such people will go to, to centre themselves, and take and take from others.

Sarah you have so much love and support from so many of us. I hope that you can somehow sense us being with you and holding you. xx

Sarah is not asking for a single sex group instead of the multitude if groups available but as well as. Anyone who is against this perfectly reasonable request lays their agenda bare.
Just what I wanted to say, but you said it so much better, thank you WaitWhat!

As far as I can see it had only 19 people, using interviews with 9. The ‘study’ had no scientific rigour. I don’t know why we needed to know that the one researcher had a puppy and the name of the cat owned by the other researcher. They express surprise at not finding intersex people but don’t seem to know how small this population is and how this population is distinctly different.

Oh my goodness Zanda you were being serious about the puppy and the cat!

And yes they were clearly disappointed not to be able to find any "intersex" people to legitimise their views. And how many times do they have to be told not to use the term intersex?

how many times do they have to be told not to use the term intersex?

And also - how many times have people with DSDs said - very clearly and forcefully - that their conditions have NOTHING to do with being "trans", and that they do NOT want to be dragged under the "trans umbrella".

Sarah is not asking for a single sex group instead of the multitude if groups available but as well as.

I think a lot of people don't believe that is what Sarah wants, because it seems such an obviously reasonable thing to want! People assume she must be wanting the service to offer nothing at all for trans people. Otherwise why would SN refuse?

But they would be so useful to the umbrella to get them under it!

Hence the current court battle to permit LGB people to organise independently on their own basis and get out from under the umbrella if they want to.

I see it all the time on Twitter.

Conversation normally goes something like this -

'She's demanding that there be no services for trans people!!!!'

'She's absolutely not. There is a mixed sex women's group, a men's group and a service specifically for trans and non binary people. What she is asking for is one single sex group in addition to the other groups' * *

'But, but, but...where does it say that there are these other groups, you liar!'

(Shows the various sources that state this as well as other organisations which only offer mixed sex rape crisis services)

'But, erm well, you can't force a service to provide the groups you want. Set up your own!!!'

'This was set up by women, who have now been pushed out. And if we attempt to set up new single sex services, this will be deemed transphobic and funding denied became the services aren't 'inclusive'. This is just one group being requested (in addition to the others) to include women who cannot access mixed sex groups, for a multitude of reasons'.

'Erm, well. Bigot! Transphobe!'

It is an entirely reasonable request that Sarah is making. Those fighting against this perfectly reasonable request just won't say the quiet part out loud (i.e. they don't give a shit about vulnerable women who need single sex spaces) because even they realise that it's an outrageously callous opinion and if they made it clear that that is what they are fighting for, the general public would say 'hang on a minute, what?'.

If you look at the research link Sarah posted, the report ‘evidence’ backs Sarah up if you take opinions and feelings out of it. Even one of their selected interviewee quotes says that women should have their own space.

It is also interesting that it appears most interviewed were biological women. However no one can’t be sure as the researchers didn’t enquire about sex/gender status (understandably as this can be a barrier to access and upsetting but obviously essential for meaningful analysis in a research setting, not forgetting the obvious ). They do say they couldn’t get enough transfeminine people so reading between the lines: transwomen.

If you are doing research that informs policy it needs to be statistically valid by having a larger data set, being unbiased and having clearly defined population data. It is flawed and unusable.