"Rape Crisis England & Wales says inclusion is ‘shocking’ Steven van de Velde

[Omlettes]

I know they are not RCS but where I am in England there is no single sex rape assistance intentionally.
I find their statement jarring brass neck in the circumstance.

No single sex option automatically means exclusionary of many women. And makes calling the women's services 'inclusive' about as realistic as calling gravity 'optional'.

Can you clarify this?

What does it refer to?

Rape Crisis E&W is the federation group. They do run the national helpline and that is women only (biological)

Services provided are decided by the service providers themselves. But admittedly it means you have to trawl through the directory to find what each group offers.

If they have reversed their position or made a policy statement that reflects on the autonomous groups that belong to the federation that is really bad.

But before anyone of us can say or do anything need the source for what has been said in the OP.

there is no single sex rape assistance intentionally

You mean because funders have made this a condition or that the groups themselves have decided this.

Sorry all, I got an important call while posting and hit the send button before completing and now cant edit the post.
It was this article that I was referring to
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/25/ioc-investigation-child-rapist-steven-van-de-velde-paris-olympic-games-2024

the group themselves and the council.

I'm still not much clearer. RC E&W dont set policy for individual Rape Crisis services.

How and why services locally to OP dont provide women only services could be because of an actual organisation decision, pressure from funders, no GC women involved in running the centre.

From RC E&W web site:

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).

Must admit I haven't seen it described like that, and would be more useful if all organisations use the same phrasing.

I doubt those seeking help would be aware of the meaning of those 2 different phrasing.

SARSAS (who provide rape/ sexual assault support in a lot of places) call mixed sex rape support groups 'women only' if any of the men who attend say they are women or non binary.

So women who need single sex support have no help whatsoever. It's cruel. Bit like 'sarah' taking legal action in Brighton about a different organisation.

SARAS is Bristol based and already known to be trans inclusive.

And they say this on their web site.

The problem is if those doing the work think single sex isn't important and funders think it isn't important, then they wont happen.

Unless and until women who think they are important start doing the work and / or form a lobby group to tell their local council to fund women only services.

I think everyone knows there's a problem

The issue is how to solve it.

And even if Sarah wins her case, and it sets a precedent, would you want to rely on a group of people who think being trans inclusive is right, to then provide a single sex service that is actully supportive.

We can go on saying its not right as often as we want on FWR, but until someone or some of us provide something different it isn't going to change.

Nobody is listening to us.

Apart from JKR and even with her huge wealth, I doubt she could fund and UK wide network of rape crisis support centres.

And find enough women who will do the work.

(Just in case anyone wants to niggle I am using "single sex" as per the description above - single-sex services - by which we mean services being provided to women on the basis of biological sex)

I wholly agree that a service politicised and organised around the belief that men's rights must always be centred even when it involves directly excluding and re traumatising traumatised women in a rape crisis service, should not be funded to set up a service for anyone other than the group they are politically interested in.

It will be about funding bids, which is how activists captured women's services in the first place. What needs to happen initially is a requirement that all LA funded services must by law include a female only (specified in language that cannot be wangled to men's benefit against women) service alongside all other options, and bids for funding cannot be considered without this being fulfilled. There should obviously be accessible options for everyone, with no groups left unprovided for.

I'd also suggest strongly a move away from the 'one size fits nobody' provision where one (cheap) provider does everything whether or not they are qualified to or have ulterior motives, and instead towards LAs funding several groups specialising in their own particular clientele, who can do their job without trying to control and redirect provision to favour groups they like and hurt groups they dislike.

'And even if Sarah wins her case, and it sets a precedent, would you want to rely on a group of people who think being trans inclusive is right, to then provide a single sex service that is actully supportive.'
Well precisely.

suggest strongly a move away from the 'one size fits nobody'

This concept coming not just from LA but large funding groups is where the rot set in.

Added to which 9 times out of 10, the paper proposing the cuts wont necessarily be written by an ideologue but some bean counter who will only judge on "cost per unit".

In fact (much too late) Brighton Council recognised this approach has failed in relation to continuing to fund DV provisions. Specialits groups like Rise lost out, and the money went to some all purpose "housing" provider. There was an investigation and it said it should never happen again, but that did nothing for appropriate services having to close and survivors not getting the safety and support they needed.

And whilst I doubt LA Councillors have the best analysis of what is a good service, there has to be some mechanism that means quality and appropriateness are an important factor.

Other wise we are going to have what has now happened in housing where "unregulated accommodation" which means that young children the state is meant to be caring for no longer got to age appropriate housing (ie with adult supervision and support) but to all purpose housing for the homeless. This has led to young girls trying to escape pimps etc., basically being put in a shared housing situation at the mercy of pimpns and drug pushers.

And in fact some women fleeing domestic violence have been offered this as a suitable alternative to staying in a violent home.

In wider terms, it's how the 1980s idea of 'inclusion' needs to evolve and develop. It was a good start, but the plan of 'stuff everyone into one provision and make it work somehow regardless of impact on those in that provision' is a 40 year old one now. Schools have the same problem with additional needs. Rather than everyone shoved into the one box that doesn't work for anyone, we need a wide variety of boxes providing for specific groups and needs in the way that ensures the best accessibility for that group. Equality of opportunity in the way that works for them.

Arguably, the EqAct would also do better to be dismantled back into separate legislation and certainly split back into separate minister briefs. Trying to hold them all in one box has demonstrated that those characteristics sometimes conflict, and that one way of working just permits the loudest and best funded group to capture and dominate the brief: so we now see 'DEI' essentially meaning 'trans'. It is necessary that a single brief is able to represent the voice and the needs of that group, to consider the impact upon that group alone in policy, planning and law, and to stand up for that group's interest against noisier and more fashionable groups.

the EqAct would also do better to be dismantled back into separate legislation and certainly split back into separate minister briefs

And then hopefully the Minister in charge of sex equality would stand firm and say no way is this protected characteristic going to be watered won by another one. No other protected characteristic has to accommodate another so no longer will the GRA impinge on the reality of biological sex.

oh dear another typo spotted too late!

watered won = watered down

Just reading that van de Velde got booed during his game.
Meanwhile yet again the Dutch are bleating that he 'served his time'

FFS its not like he did a bit of shoplifting.
Although I suspect given the macho misopgyny that would have been seen as more ignomious and laughably unmanly.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/28/dutch-child-rapist-steven-van-de-velde-boos-paris-olympics

He may or may not be rehabillitated [I doubt it] but eitherway putting him on the world stage as a representative of ones country sends a very clear message.

Further to men in sports who shouldnt be there, another thread has started
'TWO “Female Boxers” Set To Compete At Paris 2024 Were Previously Disqualified From Women’s World Championship For Having “XY Chromosomes”
As usual we have Reduxx to thank for the reporting.
My view is we should flood IOC with complaints.
'