https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/help-sarahs-legal-challenge/
Please donate to this crowdfunder if you can.
Sarah, a rape survivor, was forced to quit her group therapy sessions after a trans woman joined the group, because she feels traumatised and vulnerable around male bodied people.
She then tried to find a single sex group and was unable to find a single one which wasn't proudly inclusive of anyone who identifies as a woman.
Nobody is saying that trans people who have been raped don't deserve the same support as everybody else.
The point here is that many female survivors don't feel able to process their trauma in anything other than a single sex environment.
If being trans inclusive is your end goal, you end up excluding others.
Rape crisis organisations need to provide both trans inclusive and single sex services if they are to be truly inclusive of everyone.
Rape survivors don't need to "reframe their trauma", as Mridul Wadhwa put it. They need to process their trauma in a safe, non-judgemental, non-political environment.
Thank you.
2
0
I am unclear on this - is she saying every therapy group she could find actually included trans gender participants? (which I find extraordinary given their numbers in the general population) or just that she couldnt find one that said they would refuse to admit them if they wished to join?
1
0
Is she suing a charity? It's unclear to me whether the rape crisis centre is a public body or a charity.
If it's a charity, would it not be a better use of the money to set up a similar charity for single sex use?
If it's a public body, then they can find the money to fund both, one presumes.
2
0
Guy, the point is that many female survivors simply don't feel safe using these services if they know that they aren't single sex because a male person can join at any time.
Why shouldn't female rape victims have single sex support?
1
0
Yes, but being woke is more important than meeting the needs of female survivors.
0
0
I’ve donated. FWIW though, I think she’ll lose. The EA says they can, rather than they must. She’ll have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness won’t she? Very tough fight I think, that one.
0
0
Poor gal. If occaam says she will lose think she probably will.
Does Team Chill have a position on this issue?
0
0
I think it's important to get this debate out in the open though.
The EA allows for the provision of single sex spaces and services because it recognises that there is a legitimate need for them.
What is the point of that exemption existing if in reality organisations refuse to provide those spaces and services because they've been bullied by the likes of Stonewall?
1
0
i remember that story clive
can’t believe she’s suing the charity as opposed to eg founding another charity (as davos says)
particularly if this really is the only support service for rape victims in the brighton area and they now have to spend time and funding defending it
3
0
Or they could just provide some single sex services, Chill?
1
0
Yes chill because the whole brigade never try to get what they want via lawfare do they?
0
0
Whole = woke
1
0
By the way Chill, your anti woman stance is noted, and registers a zero on the "how surprised am I?" scale.
4
0
Imagine telling a rape victim they need to start their own charity!
0
0
As you know, I'm with you on this, but the point of the exemption is so that the service provider themselves can judge whether there is a need for the service. It doesn't give a right to the service user. As I say (and I may well be wrong - this isn't my particular area in terms of service provision rather than employment) I think she'll have to show that Brighton exercised its discretion so irrationally that no reasonable service provider would have so exercised its discretion that way - it's a tough hurdle that - all they have to show is that they had some reasons for doing it, not that it was even the right call on balance.
0
0
Imagine doing so and still believing that you are one of the good guys.
1
0
What blows my mind is that being trans (in the sense defined by Stonewall, meaning everything under the trans umbrella, rather than someone undergoing a sex reassignment process) isn't even a protected characteristic in the EA 2010, and yet because of capture public bodies are treating it as if it is, and not only that to the detriment of women, whose sex is a protected characteristic. That's obviously going to be part of the Wednesdbury argument I would have thought.
3
0
Apparently a lot of so-woke-their-brains-have-fallen-out local authorities have pulled funding from these types of organisations or threatened to do so if they provide single sex services, under pressure from trans lobby groups.
So I don't think they are making a free choice, there is both indoctrination and coercion going on here.
Imagine a rape charity saying they have judged that there is no need for single sex services for female rape survivors despite the fact that they have female rape survivors literally begging for these services. It doesn't make sense.
A rape charity that prioritises ideology over actually helping the people it is supposed to help isn't fit for purpose and deserves to be sued. (See also Rape Crisis Scotland.)
Whether she wins or not, we need to shine a bright light on this issue.
3
0
It also begs the question, why are trans activist organisations such as Stonewall spending time and resources trying to prevent organisations from providing single sex services for women, rather than setting up or providing funding towards services for trans people?
0
0
i think we did all the arguments on this on the former thread - i just don’t see how suing the charity (that she herself says is the only rape crisis centre in the area) helps the situation
0
0
I totally agree with you re: shining a light. I'm just a bit sceptical about outcome. And publicity of a bad outcome could be unhelpful.
0
0
What would you suggest she does instead then Chill? Just shuts the fvck up, I suppose.
0
0
oh it’s the invisible hand of the trans mafia again ok well then i don’t think we need to bother with the rest of the thread
2
0
I could be wrong but I think there is starting to be a shift in public opinion, with more and more people gaining the confidence to say, this is all a bit concerning, isn't it?
If she loses, I think it will peak a lot of people.
0
0
Not sure who you mean by "we", but it's cute that you seem to think our valuable contributions will be missed.
Bye
4
0
It's not invisible, it's perfectly open about its indoctrination. And not enough people are saying no, particularly in public services.
Their method is to get people to participate in their Champions scheme, and then when they do they require them to mis-state the law and apply policies which do not reflect what the law says. They use negative publicity from withdrawing from the scheme to keep the process going. When they can, they bully organisations to discipline people for saying sex is real and should form the basis of policy and law.
None of this is a secret. It's their open and stated policy, and it's been found in evidence in Court.
0
0
Stonewall is now nothing more than a misogynistic, homophobic hate group whose sole aim is to undermine the rights of women and gay people.
2
0
I've been saying this for a long time. I'm just not 100% confident the institutional capture can really be overturned because it is so engrained. I think the second Forstater judgment and a positive Bailey outcome would really help.
I suppose my question would be look at the Stonewall champions list. What would need to happen for all of them to withdraw? Will a stinging Forstater and Bailey judgment do that? I'm just not sure.
0
0
No idea on the merits so I will defer to Tom Fun who has previously said they are an employment lawyer so must know a thing or two about the legislation.
Seems to me that both sides spending a load of money on this and then the single sex side losing just leads to there being less provisions for both sides, which is obviously the worst outcome.
0
0
There is currently zero provision for one side, Davos.
0
0
That is the point.
2
0
Chill if she did found her own charity- which I think is a bit much to put on a woman who's been traumatised by being raped- wouldn't she be at risk of being sued by Stonewall / their backers?- see what's happened to the LGB alliance.
0
0
Ah so it's very much a break everything down not build it up type approach.
Tbh i'm not going to change my monthly stonewall and LGBT foundation donation to this.
0
0
Why are you donating to an anti-woman, anti-gay hate group?
What is wrong with you?
1
0
I will donate and I hope she wins. Her case is based on the provider's policy to only offer trans inclusive session and ensuing indirect sex discrimination. Brighton is the only center in Sussex.
If nothing else it will shine a bright light into the state of things.
0
0
not if she was providing some services to trans people clive (as far as i know)
i think her point isn’t “trans people shouldn’t be able to access rape counselling” just “i would like cis women to be able to access rape counselling just for them”
thats why i’m sympathetic to her argument, but it appears to me to be primarily a funding issue and so i don’t see how suing the only rape crisis centre in the area helps matters
0
0
she should crowdfund to get the existing survivors network to fund additional sessions just for cis women
0
0
See I don't see how an indirect sex discrimination argument works either, any more than a Wednesbury unreasonableness one. Is there a provision, criteria or practice (inclusion of male people in a service being provided) which puts one sex (women) at a significant disadvantage. Arguably, yes. Is that disadvantage objectively justified? All Brighton would need to show is their budget and the potential need to provide these services to trans people (which of course they should). Again, think it's a very difficult position to win from.
2
0
Thanks OTL. Every little helps!
For context, Sarah attended several group therapy sessions attended exclusively by women and was finding it healing to discuss what had happened to her in the company of other women who had had similar experiences.
Then one day a trans woman joined the group, who made no effort to physically "pass" and did not speak. The effect on the group was chilling, because the women were then obviously uncomfortable sharing their experiences. After a couple of sessions, Sarah decided to ask the organisation if there was a single sex group she could join instead, and was told no.
Now, I don't think anybody attending a support group should feel obliged to speak if they are not yet ready. And I don't think that trans women who genuinely feel that they have a female gender identity should feel obliged to wear makeup and miniskirts. (In fact, reducing women to feminine caricatures is one of the things I find most distasteful about gender ideology. If a woman can wear trousers and no makeup, a trans woman should be free to do the same.)
But from the point of the other members of the group, there was absolutely no way of knowing whether this person was a genuine trans woman who had been raped and was not yet comfortable sharing her own experiences, or whether they were actually just a man who gets off on listening to women describe their sexual abuse. Such men do exist, and absolutely will abuse self ID for such purposes.
And ultimately, the person's actual intentions are beside the point. If their presence has a chilling effect on the rest of the group, then their inclusion comes at the detriment of the other members. Trauma isn't logical or open minded or political. Trauma is trauma. People can't help the way they feel about it.
Having both single sex and trans inclusive services would solve this problem.
The organisation in question has had plenty of time to reflect on its practices. Female people who feel traumatised by male people do not make up a small or insignificant proportion of rape victims. Far from it. So this decision has not been made on the basis that single sex services are unnecessary; it is absolutely political.
It didn't have to come to this. They could have listened, and made sure that all survivors are properly catered for. They chose not to. They chose to prioritise ideology instead.
1
0
I'm not a woman or a survivor of sexual violence, but my wife is.
Her solution to all of this is a new Sex Recognition Certificate (SRC).
Give proper funding to people with sex dysphoria, and fund sex reassignment surgery following full medical assessment on the NHS. For men who want to be women, once they've had their penis and testicles removed, they can have an SRC.
Anyone with an SRC is the opposite sex for all purposes apart from sports, where they retain their developed advantage at puberty and losing the junk doesn't affect that.
Would that work for you Anna?
You Chill?
0
0
They're all fvcking Stonewalled, Chill.
Anyway, I thought you were fvcking off? Don't let the door hit you on the way out etc.
1
0
Re the councils etc it is a deliberate attempt to force people to do stuff otherwise they will be labeled ‘transphobic’.
3
0
'I could be wrong but I think there is starting to be a shift in public opinion, with more and more people gaining the confidence to say, this is all a bit concerning, isn't it?'
Yes, and not before time.
1
0
LOL!
So not only do you think this rape survivor should be forced to set up and fund her own single sex services for women, you think she should be dedicating part of them to trans people too? When they already have all of the other existing services available to them?
Amazing stuff.
Literally no such thing as a cis woman, but yes, her point is that single sex services should also be available for the large number of women who need them.
It's not a funding issue.
Even if all existing services were divided in two, with half being single sex and half being trans inclusive, trans people would still be better catered for than women who want single sex services.
1
0
couldnt find one that said they would refuse to admit them if they wished to join?
It would not be at all surprising to discover that they all have a realised policy of accepting anyone who self-identifies as a female rape victim, despite their espoused policy of only accepting women. Like the NHS denying that a male patient is on a female ward.
0
0
Heh. Well, it would show commitment at least.
I still wouldn't be comfortable with male people in women's prisons even if they had had their junk removed, although admittedly this would probabky solve the problem of sex offenders identifying as trans to gain access to potential victims.
But SRS is horribly risky and also pretty much irreversible. I don't think anyone should be coerced into it.
Yesterday I read the account of a young woman who identified as trans at 14, got testosterone at 16, a double mastectomy at 18 and a hysterectomy and "bottom surgery" (not a phalloplasty, the other type) at 19 or 20, and now regrets her decision and believes she has ruined her life.
0
0
anna it is a lovely day and i have no inclination to fight during it but you’re making a huge number of assumptions throughout this thread (most based on the idea that every woman in the country agrees with your position on trans people and everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by some all powerful trans collective)
how can you possibly know it’s “not a funding issue”? do you work for the sussex survivors network?
1
0
In schools too. Handing over sex education to external parties:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10854227/Many-schools-handed-sex-education-classes-unregulated-groups-pushing-woke-agenda.html
0
0
"anna it is a lovely day and i have no inclination to fight"
Chinning Nelsons and fighting on a lovely day is a British tradition.
Are you a commie?
2
0
and yet you say she should run the financial and time risk of founding her own charity which would (at best) split available local funding, duplicate cost and compete for resources - resulting in less provision overall and effectively endorsing the wrong approach being taken by the charity.
the worst outcome is clearly ‘do nothing’. She is right to call it out and challenge it.
surely it’s better for the charity to make a single-sex group available than to fight a legal challenge?
1
0
Not at all, Chill.
I'm not assuming anything.
I know there are people who don't agree with me, and I also know there are millions who do.
Rape crisis services shouldn't be political.
You seem to think that female rape victims who need single sex support should be denied that support because they aren't trying hard enough to believe that trans women are women and that there is no difference between them and that biologically male person in the room who physically resembles the person who raped them.
You disgust me.
Because literally all she is asking for is some of the existing services to be reserved for natal women.
1
0
I've donated to this.
FWIW, the argument about indirect discrimination follows largely the same logic as the advice the Good Law Project received about single-sex schools declining to use their discretion to permit a trans pupil of the opposite sex (which was something that they could legally do, but as a matter of policy might choose not to do). That barrister said it was arguable as indirect discrimination (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YmoyjcNQtr0V2yPSZjbXQy1GcGYiAKbB/view).
The support group could of course say that their objective justification is related to funding, but I suspect there will be an absolute wealth of evidence about internal views on TERFs and TWAW (similar to what is being seen in Allison Bailey's case) that will show the decision is nothing to do with funding.
0
0
no i don’t
there’s no point discussing this you’re just looking for a fight
0
0
"surely it’s better for the charity to make a single-sex group available than to fight a legal challenge? "
Don't know, ask the charity I guess.
0
0
"there’s no point discussing this you’re just looking for a fight"
Lol m7 what part of this thread made it seem she didn't want a fight? Even the title is purposefully antagonistic. It's just a hobby. Sometimes fun to indulge. Other times fun to play the wind up.
*Donates 1,000 to stonewall*
1
0
You are the one on this thread mansplaining about why a female rape victim trying to secure single sex rape crisis services for women is wrong.
Can you not just take a step back for a second, look at what you are saying, and consider whether maybe, just maybe, you might have taken a wrong turn somewhere?
0
0
You're donating money to an organisation which spends its resources trying to stop female rape victims from getting single sex support.
Well done you.
0
0
Indeed.
And surely it's better for Stonewall to use its considerable resources to fund services for trans people rather than preventing women from getting the help they need.
3
0
Screw it, 2,000.
*Triggering intensifies* meme
2
0
TRAs really have fooked everything up for everyone
back in the day, a transwoman might have gone but no one would have thought about it or cared, they would have been living as a woman and felt a natural part of the environment
now a bunch of creepy lads who want to hear women describe being raped and narcs who want to make every drama all about them know there is an opportunity to go along and do so and there is nothing anyone will do to stop them
0
0
Oops, accidentally liked Davos' post.
I'm not triggered. I'm glad you're showing everyone your true colours.
0
0
Poor woman. Hope she finds someone soon who can help her with her trauma, and also explore with her growing as a person and moving on from her transphobia.
0
0
I wonder if there is a breach of the consumer rights act 2015
2
0
Warren is Mridul Wadhwa AICM rainbow lanyard.
2
0
This thread is really bringing all the woman haters out in force, isn't it?
0
0
There isn't a goods contract is there?
The relevant statutory provisions are I think at s.29 of the EA 2010: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29
0
0
I often wonder what Warren and Chill would have been if they were in the 60s. Would they be the right-on hippy CND kind like far out etc... or would they be the old school hornrimmed glasses and Brylcreem proper sexists? I think the proper sexists.
0
0
Was the trans woman who joined the group a victim of rape?
0
0
Or survivor sorry
0
0
No idea, since they didn't speak.
2
0
Warren that's very unfair to call the woman who brought the case transphobic.
0
0
If they had become a woman (or trans woman) and then been raped - would it be ok for them to be there?
1
0
What does it mean to you to become a woman?
(a) say they are a woman (Chill's definition)
(b) put a pink dress on and like dollies?
(c) have their penis and testicles removed and other medical interventions including treatment
or something else?
0
0
No, because their presence would still be problematic for female victims who are traumatised by male people.
1
0
That's exactly what the man who identifies as a woman and runs Edinburgh Rape Crisis said.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bi…
And Chill agreed with them. And now Warren does too.
3
0
My god warren, you should be ashamed of your 928
0
0
lots of misrepresenting of chill going on on this thread, i assume to try to start a fight
chill is having a lovely day though and won’t get drawn in!
0
0
Nobody needs to misrepresent you Chill.
We can just read what you have written.
Namely, that a female rape victim who was not able to access the single sex support she needed to help her deal with her trauma should set up her own organisation providing single sex services to female rape victims, but that if she doesn't want to be transphobic she needs to dedicate part of it to providing services to trans people as well.
Can you explain why you think it's OK for existing organisations to provide trans inclusive services but not single sex ones, but it wouldn't be OK for a new organisation to provide single sex services but not trans inclusive ones?
0
0
chill just went for a coffee and met two tiny puppies! what a lovely day
2
0
Chill is Dolores Umbridge AICM £5.
2
0
Some of the comments on this thread make me feel sick.
2
0
You know one way you can avoid getting drawn in? Stop posting your TRA propaganda on these threads. Any shred of credibility you had when you said you were going to think about your role in these trans threads has gone.
0
0
chill didn’t start the thread orwell! chill is going to get an ice cream!
3
0
Chill is perfectly capable of refraining from posting TRA propaganda, and Chill pretending to be the innocent in this is not only not fooling anyone but is coming across as aggressive. If you were acting in good faith, you wouldn't be doing the equivalent of coming in to a conversation, insulting the participants and then sticking your fingers in you4 ears saying "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING".
0
0
More triggers being pulled than a Kansas gun range.
Love to see it.
Well done all. Top thread.
2
0
Chill didn't need to contribute to this thread at all.
Chill could have thought, "I'm not interested in this cause" and got on with his day.
Instead Chill, who identifies as a feminist of all things, decided to post ten separate comments on this thread between 8am and 10:30am, expressing zero sympathy for the female rape survivor, but explaining why she is wrong to be fighting for single sex rape crisis services that so many women desperately need.
We are all entitled to draw our own conclusions about Chill's mentality from that.
2
0
You love to see people who have had loved ones raped being upset by the fact that the appropriate support services for them no longer exist?? Jesus Christ Davos.
0
0
chill was asked what “team chill” thought and hasn’t insulted anyone on the thread (and is indeed sympathetic to the position of the woman in the op)!
chill is going for a walk in the park now 😃☀️
2
0
Sure Chill is. But please do keep it up - anyone who was in any doubt that you are an insincere troll won't be any longer.
0
0
chill also thinks anna doesn’t really have much standing to criticise excessive posting about trans issues! it’s a lovely day!
4
0
If anyone was in any doubt that Chill, Davos and Warren are anything less than dyed in the wool misogynists, this thread should clarify matters considerably.
Thanks, lads.
0
0
This thread is about women's issues, Chill.
Specifically, the need for single sex support services for female rape survivors.
0
0
such deep misandry on display once more
wouldnt you be better off becoming a lesbian Anna, you appear to really hate men
0
0
Heh so much triggering so little substance
Classic ROF
"YoU aRe A mIsOgYnIsT"
3
0
No, you are right Davos. Its not misogyny to laugh at people distressed about how the rape victims they love are supported. It's just good old-fashioned quntery.
0
0
Heh, classic ROF and lack of being able to read.
0
0
It's both.
3
0
Everyone can see what you've said Davos, so continue to "heh" away.
2
0
I don't hate men, only misogynists.
And a lesbian is not someone who hates men, a lesbian is a female person who is exclusively sexually attracted to other female people, meaning I could not be a lesbian even if I wanted to.
0
0
Yep I agree Orwell - it's perfectly clear to all readers. As usual.
But please, feel free to pile on, the usual types will because they are so inclusive and lovely, but as per the last time, I DGAF.
4
0
It's not a pile on. It's a genuine revulsion that someone would think the reactions of people who are worried about support of rape victims is funny.
Join the discussion