Glasgow Rape Crisis Service Will Now Exclude Transgender Women
Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis announced the move to exclude transgender women along with their decision to leave the Rape Crisis Scotland network because of the network's trans-inclusive stance
Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis (GCRC) will now exclude transgender women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence from its services.
The service previously included trans women and girls, along with most rape crisis services which are part of the federated Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) network.
The move to exclude trans women coincides with GCRC’s decision to leave the RCS network because of its trans-inclusive stance, which GCRC says “no longer meets the interests of our organisation”.
The RCS network and its federated rape crisis services across Scotland have been providing inclusive services to transgender women since around 2008.
In an announcement on 24th October, a spokeswoman for GCRC’s board stated:
We were created to provide support by and for women. We believe, and women have consistently told us, that single-sex services delivered by an all-female workforce are crucial to help them heal from sexual trauma. This approach remains our priority but is at odds with RCS’
Glasgow and Clyde is one of Scotland’s most densely populated areas, meaning GCRC provide services to a fifth of Scotland’s population.
It now appears that trans women and girls within that population will be excluded, despite research showing they are just as likely if not more so, to be the victim of rape and sexual violence.
Statistics show that 1 in 4 cisgender women experience sexual assault, compared to almost 1 in 2 trans people, according to the US National Centre for Transgender Equality (the UK government doesn’t collect statistics on transgender victims of sexual violence).
The decision by GCRC to exclude transgender women and girls leaves vulnerable victims of rape and sexual violence with no specialist support service to turn to.
Fallout
The decision seems to be a result of the fallout from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) excluding a would-be user of their service because they were uncomfortable that the service was trans-inclusive.
The issue came to light after a worker at the centre with ‘gender critical’ beliefs took the centre to an employment tribunal, which subsequently resulted in an independent investigation into ERCC.
The excluded woman had been assigned a caseworker who was non-binary and didn’t wish to have their birth sex disclosed to a service user, according to employment tribunal judgement.
The issue spiralled, with the ‘gender critical’ staff member pushing the problem and harassing her nonbinary colleague in the process. The failure of management to adequately handle the situation resulted in the would-be service user being excluded.
That should never have happened. The centre should have just assigned a different worker and ensured the trans-exclusionary service user wasn’t placed in the same group as trans and nonbinary service users - for their protection, not hers.
It’s the responsibility of services to manage situations like this to protect everyone. I know this because I’ve worked in services with vulnerable people and had to do just that.
This issue should have been managed without excluding or harming anyone; the decision to exclude transgender women and girls entirely from GCRC’s services is just as bad.
Exclusion and erasure
It’s not clear if GCRC will provide any services to trans women and girls going forward. Will we be excluded from the service entirely, or will GCRC provide alternative trans-only or LGBTQ-only services? GCRC’s statement doesn’t say.
In fact, GCRC’s statement manages to not mention transgender women and girls at all. Instead, it states that they will provide services for women by women.
Presumably, this means cisgender women. But the omission of “cisgender” implies that transgender women aren’t women — thus, no need to differentiate between cis and trans.
In effect, GCRC’s statement invalidates the identity of trans women while erasing us by failing to even mention us in a statement about our exclusion.
Worryingly this reflects the independent report into ERCC I mentioned above: despite being focused on the issue of transgender inclusion, the report doesn’t mention transgender women once.
Instead, the report refers to those with “gender identity beliefs” - a far-right, anti-trans and anti-feminist dog-whistle which is highly offensive in reducing transgender identity to a mere “belief” or ideology.
It’s also unclear how GCRC will implement these changes to its service provision: will they be asking all new service users if they are cisgender or transgender? Will they require service users to prove their birth sex, and if so how?
Asking vulnerable rape victims to prove their status as women could be harmful, especially for intersex women (who I doubt GCRC have even considered) and especially if that involves invasive questions.
Confusion and distress
GCRC’s statement makes none of this clear and is likely to cause confusion and distress to transgender and nonbinary would-be users of their service, who may now be excluded.
As a transgender woman and a survivor of rape and sexual violence, it’s certainly caused me distress; what will this mean for the future of rape crisis services in Scotland more broadly, will services in other areas follow suit?
There’s a double standard here: one cisgender woman excluded is unacceptable (and again, I agree that shouldn’t have happened) but excluding all trans women and girls is okay?
I also question GCRC’s assertion that “women have consistently told us, that single-sex services delivered by an all-female workforce are crucial”.
Did they specifically ask their (cisgender) female service users about trans inclusion, or did they ask them about single-sex services without making it clear they meant services which exclude trans women and girls?
Of course, the Equality Act (2010) technically allows them to do this; that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
GCRC could at least be clear about what this means for trans victims of rape and sexual violence to avoid confusion and harm.
Imagine being a trans woman who has experienced sexual violence and attempts to access their services, only to be rejected because that very service doesn’t even consider you a woman.
Implied transphobia
I’ve written to GCRC asking for clarification on their statement, but I shouldn’t have had to. If they’re going to exclude trans women and girls, they could at least be clear about it.
Instead, GCRC has put out a statement which excludes us without actually mentioning transgender women once - as if we’re a dirty word - while somehow still managing to include the transphobic implication that trans women are really men.
Thank you for pointing this out, and for your insight.
It never ceases to amaze me that acceptance is not the default behavior for everyone. It's as if some people feel that accepting the differences of others always takes something away from themselves, and in a harmful way. To me, this is evidence of the thinking inside a very limited mind.
Addressing your point: 'I also question GCRC’s assertion that “women have consistently told us, that single-sex services delivered by an all-female workforce are crucial”'.
I feel certain if it were possible to look into this more deeply, what we would find is that the question about preferences can be posed to service users in such a way that is guaranteed to elicit precisely this response, all without revealing the bias hidden in the question. The GCRC (and others who have taken the same tack) will then receive the answer they must have in order to justify their bad behavior, without ever having considered the question fairly.
(I'll stop now, before I spiral further into more unanswerable "why" questions.)
This is awful. Thanks for writing about it. People need to know. (I'm a lesbian cis ally)