Rape Crisis consultation on 'women only' spaces

[ArabellaScott]

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/about-us/women-only-spaces/

Launching soon.

'In terms of women-only services, member organisations choose to define women-only services as single-gender (by which we mean services provided to anyone who identifies as a woman or that women’s services are for them), or single-sex services (by which we mean services being provided to women on the basis of biological sex).'

....

'We believe it is important that staff, trustees and volunteers at RCEW are free to hold and express a variety of viewpoints that can be communicated respectfully and constructively. This is part of our commitment to anti-oppressive practice. The same applies for our member organisations.
We intend to design a consultation that enables us to hear many voices across our network on this issue. Early in 2024, we will launch a consultation to hear from staff and volunteers (including trustees) working at RCEW and our member Rape Crisis centres to understand whether they think RCEW can remain an organisation that welcomes multiple approaches on the delivery of services that are sex-based or gender-based, or whether they wish to see us adopt and promote a particular view.'

"whether they wish to see us adopt and promote a particular view."

I think recent and upcoming court cases would suggest that this decision (to adopt and promote a particular view) happened quite some time ago ...

Yes, I hope they are consulting lawyers as well as staff and service users.

Staff and volunteers, but not people who use/have used the services.

Hmm. Now where did we recently see a rape crisis centre that prioritised the feelings of staff over the needs of users?

anyone who identifies [...] that women’s services are for them

I'm saying nothing about how that 'for' can be read.

Oh. I missed that.

Surely they'd consult the people the service is set up for?!

Can there be a choice? Services for all? And can they be honest about the provision - so if it says "women only" - what does that mean, exactly?

As in Sarah's case - all she wanted was ONE option for single sex services, alongside all the other mixed sex / single gender options.

Quite honestly I found that the statements about the consultation to be a/irritatingly repetitive at the same time as b/confusing and c/ultimately not very informative.
And I too wondered if and when they would be asking their actual service users to participate in the consultation. It doesn't seem very clear.

So now they ask.

Early in 2024, we will launch a consultation to hear from staff and volunteers (including trustees) working at RCEW and our member Rape Crisis centres to understand whether they think RCEW can remain an organisation that welcomes multiple approaches on the delivery of services that are sex-based or gender-based, or whether they wish to see us adopt and promote a particular view.

And what a poor way to frame the consultation. Surely a bigger part of the problem is that these centre haven't been required (or even been able!) to be honest and open about what kind of services they really offer. They've been encouraged to fudge the issue. It's "women-only" in the headline and "guess what our organisation means by women" in the small print. The first question needs to be "so what kind of service do you offer?"

Several management and trustees at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre honestly believe that someone who is born male can be a "biological woman". I do hope English and Welsh Rape Crisis groups aren't so deeply confused about basic biology and the words we use to talk about it. Otherwise how is a consultation even possible, no-one will be able to talk to anyone and be sure they mean the same thing.

I was a bit surprised to read this as RCEW has only recently done a survey on this.

So on re-reading what this is about is whether RCEW (or any other RC federation) can be representative of groups which may turn out to have a very different perspective on provision of servcies.

ie RCEW (and WAFE) were formed at a time when those who formed the services, and others, assumed / knew that this was about service provision to women by women.

And being affiliation to the Federation was also meant to ensure that in some ways an agreed level and type of service was being provided (eg Refuge was not part of WAFE for years because it was anti feminist).

So assuming I am right in understanding what they are saying this is quite a brave step.

And if in fact it leads to RCEW only being from groups providing services to women by women as in the original intention, and possibly as smaller grouping, I think for those providing the service, and more importantly for women* needing the service a good thing.

And, even if years too late, a small sign that the tide really is turning as women*'s service provision is at the cutting edge of the trans onslaught.

NB I have gone to the bother of * women so that this comment doesn't get derailed by comments about what do you / they mean by women. Obviously I mean biological females.

Thanks to mumsnet bizarre forum software my careful use of an asterix to indicate the meaning of my use of the word women has been totally undermined by they turning those words bold and getting rid of the asterix.

I give up. Its hard enough to try and type something that makes sense, but made worse by stupid programmers effing it up because they assume you should think like them.

It’s a shame it’s only volunteers and people who work there. Such a shame.

Anyone working in this area must surely be aware of ‘trauma informed’ practices. You meet the survivor where they are at and put their trauma foremost in your organisation’s thinking. The staff are supporting their clients first so unless this is a neat move to put a stop to ideologist and reframe your trauma types in their tracks, it sucks.

Well that sounds hopeful @IwantToRetire After the shitshow that was ERCC I've lost confidence, but hopefully RCEW have a different (clearer!) perspective.

but hopefully RCEW have a different (clearer!) perspective

It would be good to think so, and although I often say we shouldn't forget if we had got personally involved in local services (as much as we post on FWR!) perhaps the takeover wouldn't have happened so easily.

But maybe the ongoing bit by bit steps through campaigns, court cases, keyboard warriors (and even Tory KB!) groups are feeling a bit bolder and able to say what the pressure groups have been stopping them from saying.

Its all so sad that they cant just make a straight forward sentence. How I have read it may just be my wishful thinking.

It would be hugely significant if being an acredited member of Rape Crisis was that you were providing women^ only services.

^ biological females