A group of women held a vigil outside Hove Town Hall before a full council meeting to highlight the lack of single-sex trauma support services in Brighton and Hove.
The gathering this afternoon (Thursday 24 October) was led by campaigner Allison Hooper, wearing a scold’s bridle – an old-fashioned instrument of punishment – to highlight how she felt silenced by Brighton and Hove City Council.
Ms Hooper applied three times to address the council’s cabinet about the lack of services for survivors of male violence against women and girls despite the Equality Act allowing for them.
Last week, she finally addressed cabinet members, telling them that rape survivors were “self-excluding” from support services because providers could not guarantee that a man would not be present.
At a “Re-imagine” event in February, Ms Hooper’s supporters shared leaflets explaining how she was waiting for help from the Survivors Network and had approached Brighton Women’s Centre.
But she was told that a man identifying as a woman could be present or even be provided as a counsellor.
A colleague, Lesley Hammond, said: “Allison has been trying to get help for her PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) – her trauma caused by rape – for many years.
“And there is not a single place in Brighton where she can guarantee that there won’t be a man present.
“We’re bringing it to people’s attention. We’ve got a lot of visuals to put out on social media. We’re not expecting the council to respond in any way because they just won’t. They never do.
“People have been taking our leaflets. I had someone from a building site come over and have a chat. He was fully supportive.
“Many of the councillors might think we’re transphobic. We’re not transphobic. We just need spaces for women so they can get the help they need.
“We could use female rape crisis for trans women as well but it needs to be separate.
“Someone like Ally needs to know when she goes there that she will not be talking one-to-one to a counsellor who is a man or a group session where there is a man because she has rape trauma.”
Last week, the council’s cabinet member for children, families, youth services and for ending violence against women and girls councillor Emma Daniel responded to Ms Hooper.
At the cabinet meeting, Councillor Daniel said that the council was looking to improve how it delivered its new violence against women and girls strategy by using user experience in the process.
Councillor Daniel said: “We intend to commission national women’s sector specialists, such as Women’s Aid, to support our commissioning and procurement of services run for survivors.
“The council would like to reaffirm its commitment to supporting those affected by sexual violence as well as all forms of violence against women and girls.
“We can continue to support and have confidence in charities in the city that have been set up by and led by women and we are confident that they have the expertise to make safe decisions about their services.
“These organisations include RISE, who have operated in our city for 30 years, the Women’s Centre, who recently celebrated their 50th year in the city, and Survivors Network, which has been in operation for 34 years.
“We acknowledge there are many other fantastic community groups supporting women more generally like the Network of International Women, Mothers Uncovered and the Hangleton and Knoll Multicultural Women’s Group.
“We do believe the organisations named in the deputation behave safely and in a trauma-informed way.”
The following is from the flyer we made for the vigil. ~WallOfSilencingBrighton
“Brighton & Hove City Council have spent two years ignoring the egregious
safeguarding harms of basing policies on ‘gender identity’ instead of the
protected characteristic of sex.
Women & girls have no access to single-sex trauma counselling in
Brighton & Hove. When women survivors tried to discuss this failing in
Cllr Bella Sankey’s public engagement event (29/01/24) council officials
intimidated them and snatched leaflets from the women’s hands, claiming
they felt “unsafe” because of their “offensive” views.
This echoes the treatment of parents, whose concerns at the teaching of
gender ideology were branded “baseless smears” by Cllr Sankey (20/07/23),
with one woman being physically ejected from the chamber for raising the
issue.
This is not democracy. This is silencing”.
“Councillor Daniel said: “We intend to commission national women’s sector specialists, such as Women’s Aid, to support our commissioning and procurement of services run for survivors”.
Lets hope Women’s Aid hold a definition of ‘woman’ that does not include males (unlike BHCC)
#WallOfSilencingBrighton
Women should be able to access a women’s only service after rape or sexual assault. Demanding a woman speak to a man, just because they identify as a woman, in order to access essential sex based services is bullying women into complying with an ideology that distorts reality and is causing women and girls harm. It is nothing less than gaslighting, and cannot claim to be trauma informed care. The council is responsible for equality and safeguarding yet it consistently sacrifices women and girls health, wellbeing, and rights in the name of the trans ideology it seems to promote above all else. It’s time BHCC start acting in line with biological facts, evidence, its responsibilities to the whole population including protecting and safeguarding women and girls who spend on their services.
Shocking but not surprising B&H priorities the feelings of trans identifying MEN above the feelings of REAL women who have been raped & don’t wish to discuss their experience with a MAN present whether or not he has a dress & lippy. Wish I could cancel my £4000 Councio Tax! What a waste of money promoting the rights (that we all have already) of a tiny % of the population, unfortunately B&H is a nesting ground for AUTOGYNAPHILIA men fantasising, predators & voyeurs all WELOME TO B&H
Biological sex and same sex spaces matter. I’m glad more people are waking up to or starting to speak out about this.
Women’s rights have vanished completely in B&H. There is nothing that is ours alone. Too many men see demolishing our rights to privacy, decency, respect as their prime concern.
I am full of admiration for Allison and full of rage at the bad actors who are trying to destroy our hard won rights and identity.
Are women’s rights being destroyed though, or is it more accurate to say there is a clear desire and need for biologically female-only spaces, and that hasn’t been provided by current services, and therefore there is a gap in provision that needs addressing?
I feel it is important to keep focused on the issue, and avoid the emotive.
Incorrect. It’s not just the obvious need for female only spaces that is being denied, it’s the redefinition of the word woman to include men, the redefinition of the word lesbian to include – you guessed it, men – its the redefinition of female changing spaces to include. – yes again – MEN
Those are the hard won rights and identity being taken away by – yes, men. And ideologues like Bella Sankey – who ignores her constituents. Shame on her.
Brighton Council appear to be ignoring women’s legitmate concerns. One has only to look at the statistics to know that men provide a much higher risk to women, however those men may identify. Self ID is not law in this country and so single sex services are a must especially so in rape crisis settings. Gender identity is a hotly contested ideology with no basis in objective reality but lots of basis in damaging “queer theory” which seeks to overturn societal conventions, many of which are based on good safeguarding. Brighton councillors should familiarise themselves with its origins and the output of the Cass Review and other reviews from around the world, eg Sweden and Italy, that are highlighting the dangers of this belief system before they continue with their unenlightened policies, including those in education, that are hurting women and girls.
It’s not just a problem for women in Brighton unfortunately; an extract from a recent BBC article:
A rape support centre in Glasgow has broken away from the supervision of the umbrella charity Rape Crisis Scotland in a row over gender.
Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis said its priority was to provide a single-sex service by an “all-female workforce” – and this was “at odds” with the charity’s priorities.
RCS chief executive Sandy Brindley recently apologised after another centre in Edinburgh, which was run by a trans woman, failed to provide single-sex spaces for 16 months.
It seems that women’s right are under attack all over.
Well done to all concerned. The rights of one demographic cannot come at the expense of the rights of another demographic. That is NOT equality so the Council is in breach of a multitude of human rights and equalities legislation, not to mention child safeguarding in schools. And to think Council Leader Ms Sankey prides herself on being a ‘Human Rights’ lawyer. The irony. Perhaps she can be made personally liable for failing to address all the human rights breaches she has publicly stated her support of, including the Trans Toolkit for schools which is causing so much damage to vulnerable youngsters, who in many cases just need more support through the natural trauma and phases of growing up, not irreversible re-direction of their future life path.
“The rights of one demographic cannot come at the expense of the rights of another demographic.” You can flip that argument back on itself though Barry, is it also not discriminatory to be trans-exclusionary? Are trans people not also people too, and deserve the same care and support?
It’s reasonable to want a biologically female-only space, and it is reasonable to suggest that service should cater for this desire to support trauma. But the rights of one demographic cannot come at the expense of the rights of another demographic. Your words Barry.
Your extremely dangerous lack of knowledge on this subject, and eagerness to rally others down a similar path is deeply concerning, Barry. It is a good thing is that you don’t have a platform beyond a comment section – you’d do more damage to this particular cause than anything else.
You make some interesting points Benjamin.
Where do you stand on this?
Do you think it is unacceptable for biological women rape victims to insist upon not being counselled by trans women? Or do you think that trans women should be excluded from providing this service if the biological woman (being councelled), requests (or insists) on this? I ask because your comments don’t make your position clear.
You’re right, I’ve been keeping a middle ground on this.
I think those spaces should be provided where people want a pure biological woman space. Trauma can be deep and multifaceted, so it is important to accommodate to allow healing to take place.
I think an outright no to this reasonable request is unfair, and it is worrying that there is no service that can provide this, what is clearly been demonstrated, desire for a service.
I think the aggrievance is better positioned towards the services themselves to do better in this regard, rather than towards the council who just commission. Or at least, the focus might be better targeted towards encouraging creating a service that caters for this specific need.
I don’t think a legal route will achieve much at the levels suggested; legalisation in this regard perhaps has a lot of evolution to do yet and is still developing.
Benjamin, the services themselves are reliant on funding from the council which invariably requires ‘inclusion’ before they will fund.
Regarding creating a service to cater for women only…….this is precisely what women did. Do you think these services should now be handed over to trans people and women can go and campaign and fund their own service all over again?
Funding is clearly important, although I would suggest that reliance on the council is not quite accurate, as there are many services out there that don’t receive commissioning. It is but one avenue.
According to the article, there is a gap, so I would respectfully suggest that when you say, this is what was done, evidently, there has been an evolution over time to cater for transgender females as well. I get how women would feel it has been stolen though, the message has been clearly given on that front – it hasn’t been stolen; although I can understand why someone would not want to share a space. Transgender women can, and have, been raped too, and it is important to create spaces for both – some are fine with the overlap, others are not.
So again, my viewpoint stands. Specific spaces in this regard, women, men, transgender MtF or FtM, there is clearly a gap that should be addressed.
Women expressing their opinions, concerns, feelings was going so well and without being called transphobic, bigots, vile etc. for once. And then the man- or should I say ‘Ben’ splaining begins. Your base misogyny can’t hide itself Benjamin even when dressed up as barryphobia, or your well articulated but none the less carefully chosen ‘factoids’. Care to consider that women, Barry and others are both capable of and entitled to express themselves without complying with your world view, trans (ideology) or your eagerness to rally everyone down your dangerous path (your words). Misogyny and ongoing attempts to silence, minimise, deflect or excuse women’s legitimate voices, experiences and concerns (including your 6 comments on this feed so far) is exactly why ‘we’ are in this mess in the first place.
I believe most people would say I’m pretty consistent, regardless of the topic. I’m also generally in favour of the spirit of what is trying to be achieved here, so I fundamentally reject your baseless accusations of misogyny.
I choose my words carefully to remove the emotive, I inform my opinions using research, information, and data to have a solid logic grounding. I never attack the person, I always challenge the concept.
Ad homeim attacks of a person doesn’t compel a constructive and meaningful dialogue. If you think my thoughts are incorrect, then I have always welcomed them to be challenged. I learn new perspectives, and you gain someone having greater awareness of this important issue.
I look forward to a meaningful discussion with you.
We reject your rejection of your misogyny. You are clearly trying to put the wants of some men in front of the needs of all women. You are a base misogynist. Shame on you, and shame for every female you know.
Except if you are Barry or one of those vile women who dare to speak up?? Your words Benjamin. Thanks for sharing how you see yourself, but while I do believe you’ve moved to present more ‘middle ground’ on this matter, as I’ve said the mask slips behind some very eloquent and selected gendered put downs, bensplaining, and factoids that sound very intelligent. Dig a little deeper and all we can really say is none of the available ‘evidence’ re trans is robust or stands up to scrutiny except 1. No one can change their biological sex; 2. You can’t be born in the ‘wrong’ body; 3. People can be more feminine or masculine regardless of their sex and this has been the case for eternity but that doesn’t mean you are really girl in a boys body or vice versa; 4. Medicalisation of gender dysphoria is harming children and young people; 5. Women and girls are particularly disadvantaged by this ideology because of the consequences of colluding with all of the above and the result that some biological men expect to be treated the same as biological women and expect to be able to counsel them about rape, represent them in women’s forums, compete with them in sport, share their ‘safe’ spaces etc. etc. and biological woman are considered vile and unreasonable to dare to object, and require ‘re-education’; 6. Women who object have been called emotive, hysterical, vile, bigots etc.etc. and systematically silenced by the trans ideologues and their allies; 7. Trans ideology is inherently and deeply misogynistic and homophobic. I think most women (and men and youth) would welcome a truly open discussion and debate about all these issues, motives, consequences, in a truly open and transparent safe space. Sadly this article, and the way women have been treated by trans activists and their allies, and BHCC demonstrates how the narrative has been hijacked and systematically silenced them. Hows that for the start of a meaningful discussion on this matter?
While I appreciate your perspective on biological sex and gender identity, it’s worth noting that the majority of medical and psychological bodies worldwide, including the NHS and the WHO, recognise gender dysphoria as a legitimate condition and support evidence-based treatments. To clarify, no one disputes that biological sex is a physical characteristic, but gender identity—how one experiences and expresses their gender—is a separate concept rooted in both social and personal dimensions. Empirical studies demonstrate that affirming gender identity can significantly improve mental health outcomes, particularly for youth facing gender dysphoria.
As for the concern that discussing these topics silences women or is inherently misogynistic, the picture is more nuanced. Many advocates for trans rights also identify as feminists and aim to balance the rights and safety of all groups, including women. Safe, inclusive discussions are indeed needed to ensure mutual understanding and address concerns about single-sex spaces while respecting legal protections for trans people under the Equality Act.
Finally, although some individual activists on all sides may engage in personal attacks, reducing an entire community’s advocacy to “misogynistic and homophobic ideology” is unfair and counterproductive to productive dialogue. Both sides deserve respect and a platform to address shared issues of dignity and safety. A balanced, open discussion that values the lived experiences of all involved is indeed essential for a meaningful resolution.
Yet here you are Benjy boy, attacking the person….
‘I look forward to a meaningful discussion with you.’
What a passive-aggressive operator you are trying to veer and manipulate the conversations to where you want them to go. Well some of us have studied behavioural psychology and we see you.
You welcome ‘’meaningful discussion’’ then you pick and choose and blatantly misrepresent whats been said to bensplain again Benjamin. I won’t waste my time except to make clear I’ve explicitly said women have been silenced from discussing this issue (not by discussing this issue 🙄) and you are part of that silencing/deflecting/gaslighting problem- yet again exposing your misogyny and real agenda here. You boldly claim empirical evidence shows affirmation helps distress in gender dysphoria. Yet that evidence has been widely discredited by Cass and should be interpreted and applied with caution. Your position puts gender dysphoric children, young people, and women and girls at risk.
This is disgraceful, many ‘trans’, surely that prefix is misguiding, to say the least, are actually suffering, or enjoying, depending on perspective, autogynephilia, which is getting a sexual jolly from identifying and/or presenting as ‘female’. How on Earth can it be appropriate for a male in teh throws of a sexual thrill, to be anywhere near a woman traumatised by rape. This country is at peak insanity.
Factually, studies state that MtF transsexualism is extremely rare, some putting it around 3% of all transitioned MtF in Western Europe. It is also a very contentious concept.
It oversimplifies transgender experiences and fails to accommodate non-erotic motivations behind gender transition. Some newer research suggests that understanding autogynephilia as a paraphilia is reductive, proposing instead that it may align with diverse romantic or self-conceptual dynamics.
What are your sources Benjamin?
Ray Blanchard is generally considered the primary source of research around this term over the last 10 years or so. However, there’s a few more articles outside as well, here is a list of a few articles I’ve been reading over the last few days to inform my thoughts about the concept:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=autogynephilia
Since you’ve been doing lots of reading the last few days to inform your views on the concept, could you share which of those studies factually back up your 3% claim? Most interestingly Ray Blanchard who you promote as the prominent academic in this field ‘’expressed the view that trans people, “should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals.” Blanchard rejected the idea that treating gender dysphoria as a mental disorder contributes to stigma against the trans community’’.
Like all communities ‘trans’ is not a homogenous group. Autogynaephilia is most associated with men who transition later in life often after having had families. It is a widely recognised phenomenon, related to sexual fantasy of being a woman and alongside the sexual predators who are using trans ideology to get into womems spaces, it’s not something the trans community is likely to want to acknowledge or promote. The massive increase in young people, including girls, identifying as trans is a very new phenomenen, and numbers are largely unknown. Some of their characteristics are known and are cause for concern- these are more likely to be gay/lesbian youth , they are more likely to be autistic, have eating disorders, and/or have other mental health conditions. These are the teens who would have had body/gender dysphoria as part of normal puberty in the past and most would have worked through learning to accept themselves as part of growing up. This group are now being fed (some would say groomed) that they are in the wrong body and that the solution is medical transition. The numbers of young people affected is largely unknown. Given no one knows the overall incidence of ‘trans’ in its various forms, any research/claims such as less than 3% of the trans population has autogynephilia can only be highly dubious. Cass exposed the misuse/representation of evidence informing medicalisation of gender dysphoric children and young people, and from an ideological perspective it also really doesn’t suit the narrative that trans women are all harmless and the biggest victims to acknowledge there are undoubtedly sexual motives for transition in some men. In the meantime women and girls continue to be gaslighted, silenced and bullied into accepting these men into their spaces without care for the consequences on their health, wellbeing or rights.
I’m fully onside with the protestors’ general points raised above.
But this specific comment might be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
I think it does highlight how emotive this topic can be, and why it should be treated with careful decorum and allowing respectful discussion. In this case, I just wanted to give perspective with some peer-reviewed research and meta-analysis to contextualise those feelings this person has.
One persons rights cannot every trump another’s and here we clearly see a small number of men trying to force their views onto women who have been terribly treated by other men. This is a misogynistic (not to mention homophobic) movement – one intolerant of other views and unable to exist without forcing everyone to talk and think like them.
Females have the right to insist on and getting female support when going through the horror of surviving sexual abuse.
Not one person is saying trans identified men cannot give support to people who are willing to receive it, not one
What women need and deserve is the choice, without pressure or censure, to choose another female to help them through dark times.
How can trans activists possible deny females this basic dignity? Can’t they see how awful they look?
I think you’re right about the choice being available. Rather than feeling attacked, it sounds more like the heart of the matter is looking at commissioning a service that can provide a biologically female-only space – the need, as evidenced by the protest, seems clear.
I’d hate for this important issue to be clouded into an argument about accusing all transgender people of sexual deviancy, which too often happens, and deflects from making progress.
If less of them kept getting busted for being paedophiles or other sexual and violent attacks, it might look better in the press yeah?
But many do seem to keep doing it. Weird.
Well done to everyone at the protest yesterday standing up for something that is logical and right.
As much as I am critical of some of the comments on here for various reasons, the concept of wanting a biologically female-only space is a reasonable one, I would hope that also includes spaces for transgender female-only spaces as well, and spaces where both can heal together.
It’s not a difficult concept for me, at least. If there are groups that aren’t able to facilitate any one of these aspects, and it sounds like there are clear gaps; then perhaps that is where a new charity could be formed to fill that niche?
Transgender females are called men, they can and should have their own spaces, not ones where they impinge upon women’s spaces and rights.
But thats never acceptable is it, trans activists are only happy with compelled speech and the need for everyone to affirm that black is white.
So sorry that this action was necessary yesterday.
Shame on the council.
Especially Emma Daniel and Bella Skankey.
Maybe it’s time to consider a crowd-funded prosecution of these two for the unlawful harm they are endorsing and perpetuating.
You do come out with some complete nonsense Barry.
This shouldn’t even be a discussion. Those involved in withholding necessary services like this should hang their heads in shame.
I absolutely have no interest in or objection to how people identify – but I do think that single sex places should be exactly that. Somebody born as a male cannot be re-born as a different sex, and vice-versa. Vulnerable people should be be able to be put at risk of being predated on, however small that risk.
I very much suspect that this will carry on until a person is harmed by a person not of the same biological sex, who was permitted access by such rules. A court case anywhere in the UK would settle where the blame might lay, and this could reverse these decisions overnight as fiscal penalties and/or jail time may ensue.
Someone being transphobic shouldn’t exclude them from services and they should be catered to, but it must be separate.
From what I understand, people aren’t being excluded, they have decided they don’t wish to be in a space where a transgender person may be. Considering the topic of these sessions, that is perfectly reasonable to want those spaces.
That is called ‘self-exclusion’.
Most traumatised women would choose to self-exclude if the alternative is therapy in a room with a male bodied person.
Indeed, it’s a bit of a paradoxical term semantically, choice to restrict oneself. Still, it is a very concerning point you make and signals a need and desire for transgender-free spaces if people are potentially failing to treat trauma because of it, from a mental wellbeing point of view.
The issue is not with a transgender person, it is with a male claiming to be a female.
exactly they should be given those spaces, but not by excluding others from it
Not wanting to get rape support from a man isn’t transphobic
Saying me in dresses are not women – is not transphobic
Saying a lesbian cannot have a penis is not transphobic
Staying trans identified men should stay out of female spaces is not transphobic
Realistically though how would this be enforced? You can’t perform mandatory genital checks on rape survivors. You can’t exclude people just based on looks, especially in brighton there are lots of women who look like men and they’re not trans.
“I’m sorry you were raped but you’ve got a buzzcut and a gruff voice so you’ll have to find support elsewhere”
And there are surgeries and all sorts, I could just point my finger at anyone in my crisis group and accuse them of being trans, they wouldn’t even have to look masculine.
What’s the plan?