Genesis The Podcast

Transforming Language and Support Systems in Gender-Based Violence: Insights from the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women

• Genesis Women's Shelter

Share episode

What if the language we use could change the way we understand and address gender-based violence? Join us for a compelling conversation with Kelsey McKay, a former prosecutor and expert in gender-based violence, recorded onsite at the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women in Dallas, Texas. We explore the profound impact of terms like "victim" and "survivor," the importance of personal choice in identification, and the dehumanizing effects of legal jargon. Discover how evolving terminology within law enforcement and the criminal legal system can better recognize non-physical forms of abuse, such as coercive control, and why it's crucial to enhance empathy and support for victims.

Dive into the heart-wrenching complexities of victim credibility in legal contexts involving sexual violence and substance use. Expert insights from Russell Strand illuminate how substance use should never undermine a victim's credibility and highlight the necessity of understanding trauma responses. We critique systemic biases that scrutinize victims more harshly than defendants and emphasize the need to shift perspectives to support victims more effectively. Learn about the significant implications of non-fatal strangulation in abuse cases, as informed by research, and why accurate documentation and better training for law enforcement are paramount.

Finally, we tackle the transformative power of language in the criminal legal system with a focus on initiatives like "Uncooperative," which aims to shift systemic responses through survivor stories. Reflect on the societal burdens placed on victims and the importance of believing them as the first step toward ending domestic violence. This episode is a must-listen for anyone committed to improving the support systems and legal frameworks that protect and empower those affected by gender-based violence.

Speaker 1:

We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women in Dallas, texas. My guest is presenter Kelsey McKay on the topic of how we talk about gender-based violence. I'm Maria McMullin and this is Genesis, the podcast. Kelsey McKay is a former prosecutor and a highly recognized expert on criminal asphyxiation, domestic violence, sexual abuse and other forms of power-based crimes. As a prosecutor, she spent 12 years handling complex cases and designing creative solutions. She has trained practitioners across all systems and represented individuals as they navigate the criminal system. She is the founder of Respond Against Violence, a multidisciplinary think tank seeking to generate sustainable change in our society's collective response to violence and trauma. Kelsey, welcome to the podcast. Thanks, maria. It's good to see you again and it's good to see you in person at the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women. Absolutely. I don't know that we've ever sat down together in person. No, we're always on Zooms. Of course, I'm in Dallas and you're in a different part of Texas.

Speaker 2:

Austin, you're in.

Speaker 1:

Austin, a great part of Texas, as it were. So we have talked, though, and talked and talked, especially over the past year, about the language we use to identify both gender-based crimes and the people who experience them, and we keep returning to a few specific points, one of them being the appropriate word choice for certain elements and how names or labels affect the bearer and possibly even the listener. But before we get into the specifics of that, I want to set the stage for naming and labeling, because language is sophisticated and we, as humans, like to label and categorize. The examples of this are endless, but a great one is found in an article published in the New Yorker May 6, 2024, titled why we're Turning Psychiatric Labels Into Identities, by Manveer Singh, where the author is discussing the complexities and complications of the DSM-5, that is, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the 5, meaning its fifth iteration or revision. And so just a couple of things real quick. To be fair, we're not talking about psychiatric labels in this episode, but the article does help to illuminate the concerns we are going to address in today's conversation. And second, this article is likely behind a paywall for many of you, so you probably need a subscription to access it, but maybe somebody can gift it to you for free. It's a great overview of the situation about labels. That I think really does lend itself to lots of different conversations beyond the psychiatric labels and identities.

Speaker 1:

But here's what I learned. The author mentions philosopher Ian Hacking's thoughts on labeling and how that affects human perception, and this is a quote. Human classifications of humans, that is, human classifications, change how individuals experience themselves and may even lead people to evolve their feelings and behavior, in part because they are so classified. He goes on to talk about this process and its impact and states and here's another quote naming creates the thing named. And that very last bit right there naming creates the thing named is the heart of what you and I have been getting at all these months and conversations later and the fallout that ensues from the naming. Some examples from our past conversations In our episode from September 2023, where we discussed allocutions, the term criminal justice system came up and we teetered back and forth about the accuracy of that term, versus maybe calling it the criminal legal system or maybe the legal system.

Speaker 1:

We also debated the terms. The legal system, specifically in Texas, assigns to parties in a trial like replacing victim with accuser and defendant with accused, and I think maybe you said in that instance, you preferred reporting parties. So today, then, our objective is to identify some of these more maybe problematic terms and how the naming creates and possibly destroys, and also offer some solutions or alternatives for listeners to consider. So let's start with the one that I find the most challenging. Let's start with the one that I find the most challenging a victim or survivor.

Speaker 3:

My opinion on that is it's up to the person. I think it's wonderful if you feel as though the label that speaks you of survivor empowers you, that you survived it. I feel like the term survivor doesn't get attached to what I think is quite empowering, which is they literally survived something, and that's what we did our conference on this year surviving strangulation. Because the truth is, if she's not dead, she survived. That's true with sexual assault as well, particularly when you make decisions to survive by compliance.

Speaker 3:

And so you know, I tend to leave that up to the individual victim, slash survivor or the person. You know not everybody wants to be labeled that. I feel like a lot of responsibility and weight and pressure comes with being labeled, that introducing yourself like that, having it on your business card, being out in public about it, and not everyone wants that to lead first. And so, so long as the term is empowering or, in the case of victim, perhaps validating for a period of time, you know, I think it can change and there are some people who don't want it at all.

Speaker 1:

But then when you go into the courtroom with a person that you're representing and the courtroom may have a different set of terms that need to be used, right yeah?

Speaker 3:

Well, and you know there's debate, defense attorneys push back when the victim is referred to as the victim. They think it makes it too empathetic, right the assumption that they are a victim. You know, I guess they could say alleged victim, but the truth is it is the reporting party which, I think, takes away not only the judgment but what is ingrained in the conversation hundreds of times a day for prosecutors and judges, police officers, and that is dehumanizing this person to a name and a category that has no identity, right, it takes that individuality out of it and it dehumanizes it. We already have a lot of dehumanization, either using names or asking what would you like me to call you? What I do with my clients is I ask what do you want me to call him? And right, there's a range and I have my friend, tracy, who I think you've had on the podcast. They chose to call him by one name. I've had people want to name their offenders swear words, some are random, but in the end I always ask them because what I find is I don't want to trigger them unintentionally each time by saying his name If it makes them feel empowered to call them a swear word and that's all we refer to him as I'm here for it, right.

Speaker 3:

I had a call with one of my clients last's. All we refer to them as I'm here for it, right? I had a call with one of my clients last week and it was interesting because now that I'm handling these cases where a survivor in this case, specifically surviving a homicide uses violence back and defends themselves, that often happens in this microcosm of what they feel is love and their interpretation right. The reason they're still there is because they have been manipulated by this person to believe that this is love and even after being abused, having a violent act committed against them and that violent act being so severe that they were justified in killing them, they still didn't want to kill them, and so I was having this conversation. I thought it was fascinating because my first meeting with her and she is charged with manslaughter was how would you like me to refer to him? And she just said his name Just don't want you to call him. That. For her to have to accept that he's a killer or would have killed her is heartbreaking, and it was interesting because I hadn't heard that spin and it gave me empathy for that, and so you know, my focus is more on what are the things I would do to trigger you, and I think that we have to be mindful of what people want to be called or labeled. Like I can see I have a lot of survivors or victims I've worked with who they don't want to have been a victim. I've had women when I was a prosecutor who, until they're meeting with me the week before trial, will tell me more about what happened. You know whether it's the safer environment and they feel like they're able to tell that to me. And every time they have shared with me things like he actually raped me as well, and I ask, they always say they didn't want him to have that power.

Speaker 3:

So like acknowledging that, saying out loud, like words, words matter, even if it's just kind of it happened, but to say it out loud is a different thing. So all these labels, all these terms, all these words, ultimately what we're doing is right. We're having conversations and when things are natural in our muscle, memory uses certain terms, like we do in the criminal system, without understanding how other people hear it. It influences them, either impacting and making it painful for the term that you're using and that person seeing it or hearing it, but also for society. Right, it becomes like how we refer to things. It's like strangulation. People call it choking. It's not choking. Oh yeah, I totally want to ask you about that one too. So it's like how we refer to things. It's like strangulation. People call it choking.

Speaker 1:

It's not choking. Oh yeah, I totally want to ask you about that one too.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so it's like yeah, so I think you're right and I think that giving the choice to the person who had something happen to them because Erica Olson is telling me don't use the word experience because it's not whether it is actually, you know, she didn't experience rape, she was raped by him. So anyway, yeah, she wasn't experiencing homelessness. She wasn't experiencing homelessness, she didn't have a house. Yes, let's talk about domestic violence versus intimate partner, violence versus battered women or other options, because I've heard people use all of these terms. I've even heard people say don't say domestic violence, say domestic abuse or abusive partner, and do those mean different things to different people than in the court system? Or is there like a preferred term? What's going on here?

Speaker 3:

Well, you know it's interesting because when I start in the system and it's a topic I don't know. So when I started as a prosecutor I knew nothing about domestic violence and I'd say it's pretty routinely referred to as domestic violence within law enforcement and prosecutors. Over the course of time it's been kind of re-termed intimate partner violence.

Speaker 1:

I don't see that lots of people in the system, maybe beyond advocates, use that term as much. Is that for people who maybe are dating, or can it still be a married couple that experiences intimate partner violence?

Speaker 3:

Well, you know, like that's, the question is, is it exclusive of something we also like? In Texas, we call it family violence because that's the name of the statute that attaches, and so it's not uncommon that law enforcement and prosecutors use terminology because it's how it's named in the penal code and, unfortunately, what that doesn't translate to is any nuances around it. And the truth is I don't like the word domestic violence either, except for the crimes I was prosecuting was all violent crime. But there are a lot of criminal acts beyond violence that are abusive within a relationship and an ex-relationship. So the way family violence is defined in Texas is it's pretty broad. It's dating and relationship, formally live together, live together, husband wife, have kids together, so then it covers like the post-separation stuff.

Speaker 3:

But you know, it wasn't until I started to recognize the power and the worth of the non-violent, non-physical abuse that occurred and where I think everyone gets confused is well, they, every officer. When I have a case where I'm trying to say, no, it wasn't a suicide, I think everyone gets confused. Is, well, every officer. When I have a case where I'm trying to say, no, it wasn't a suicide, I think it might be that, or I'm saying something their only follow up to anything is always like well, had there been physical violence, moreover, that had been reported? And so I think everyone looks to violence as that thing. He's a violent man. Well, no, he's not a violent man to everyone, he's an abusive man. He uses violence as one of those tools, and so I think what it's done has really overly narrowed our focus on spending a lot of time trying to solve a complex issue by naming it something different, and the truth is naming it, passing a law about it. Those things don't do a lot, except for it's an opportunity to talk about it, because now it's a legitimate thing. It doesn't allow us to do better at it, to understand it better.

Speaker 3:

A great example is stalking, right? What is the operational definition? Well, I mean, you hear people in society use that phrase stalking. Do they know what it means? I don't know, but we have a statute on stalking and we have a law called stalking, but stalking is the statute that, I think, combines all of these issues, and that is the two challenging things officers and law enforcement, and really I think society has is understanding what is abuse and what does fear look like and how does it influence?

Speaker 3:

Right, and because every little element of stalking doesn't have to be something serious and it's usually ingrained in like a secret message, right and so, individually, when the police go out and she is mentioning, oh, he did this and that, like they don't know what the legal elements are, and law enforcement is looking at through the lens of what's the crime. Well, individually, the crime is nothing. The role of fear and multiple acts becomes a crime. But so when she calls the police the first two, three times, which they will, that's not a crime. But so when she calls the police the first two, three times, which they will, that's not a crime.

Speaker 3:

And then what happens is she starts to get documented of calling the police and then it's like, oh, this woman is making things up, or this woman is just trying to do something to this guy, and so that is where well-intended laws kind of fall apart. And so there's a lot of movement with passing laws on coercive control Great. What I want to know is can your officers describe what coercive control is? Listen, I think coercive control should be against the law. That is what most of the abuse is beyond the violence. But again, solutions are not made by giving something a term, it's the understanding of that concept. That, I think, drives change.

Speaker 1:

I think to your point. We're getting hung up on the word violence in some cases when we talk about domestic violence or intimate partner violence. We get hung up on the word violence because we believe it's physical. All the time. Abuse, abuse can broaden it for us using the word abuse or intimate partner abuse, whichever one you're more comfortable with, because that may then imply some of the unseen, no visible bruises.

Speaker 1:

We talk about this book all the time, the things that don't leave bruises, like coercive control and other things. And so now, coercive control in particular, which is a term that was really popularized by the late Evan Stark, that is now being seriously looked at by lawmakers, and there are a few states that are implementing laws and specifically calling out coercive control as a part of family violence. Right, yeah, and I'm here for that.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, but my point is, if you label something, it doesn't change anything. To change practice, people have to understand it. True, and the reason we need coercive control laws is because law enforcement and prosecutors don't recognize it or identify it within the context of the cases they might interact with. Whether it's stalking, domestic violence, criminal mischief, whatever it is. They're responding right and so it's not as though that woman is standing there with a sign that says I'm being stalked and lists the element and writes the PC affidavit for them. So when someone goes to a scene or responds to a call or speaks with a victim, they need to know how to identify it themselves. Because it's interesting, because the terms we label things and give in like a criminal justice system, the DSM, these become like official, and so then that language carries on in layperson's conversations, and an interesting one is like we see people really wanting to diagnose abusers, because that means we can fix them. It means there's not just something wrong with them, as, like a human, it's that you know they are struggling with something and therefore it can be fixed. And people don't like to give up on each other, or no one wants to give up on anyone.

Speaker 3:

But the truth is, is the DSM like all of this stuff about narcissism, all like they? Like all I've read all the memes like they apply. I get it. But read all the memes like they apply, I get it. But things like alcoholism, things like all of the different conditions I've seen abusers attach to themselves so that they can fake to a judge or make the survivor think that they can be fixed, that gets weaponized against them and to be able to know what really is a diagnosis and what is a condition of humanity, which is the hate for women, the need to control women, the entitlement to do that, that can't be like therapeutic away, Like it doesn't happen. But judges, over and over, want to say, oh well, he drinks, so like, let's do that and I learned so much from Scott Hampton about. Well, no, they do that so they can abuse more and have a way to avoid accountability.

Speaker 1:

Sure, I mean, the labels in the DSM-5 are created through a specific method and for a specific purpose, and so we're not picking labels from the DSM to try to diagnose abusers or anything. But the fact remains that people will lean on those types of diagnoses, and that isn't even the reason why I wanted to include that information in this conversation. The real reason is that we're naming things and sometimes we need to know what we're naming. So even Dr Romney will say we can't just call everyone a narcissist. Right, there's a lot of narcissism out there and people may exhibit the symptoms. But we can't just lay that diagnosis or condition on someone if we don't have the credentials to do so. And it's probably not a good thing for all of us to be walking around saying, oh well, you know he was a narcissist and I got out of the relationship, if we don't actually know that that's true.

Speaker 3:

Well, it's like calling a victim crazy.

Speaker 1:

It's like calling a victim crazy.

Speaker 3:

I haven't seen that in the DSM and I would like to know more each time they tell me that. And if what they mean by crazy is did something you didn't like or you didn't understand, well, that's what we call counterintuitive behavior that is created by what abusers do that then force that reaction. Or she was hysterical, oh yeah, yeah, hysteria, we really are.

Speaker 1:

Let's talk about the position of the one who's doing the labeling. So within this context, it could be the court system, the media, the person who experienced the crime or many others and that is going to influence the label. So, in other words, if naming creates the thing named, then the intention or even the life experiences of the creator must be influencing that label. One who practices law might have a very different perspective of a crime victim than a sociologist might. Or gender bias, for example, will influence the name we give to someone's experience. So those things and cultural influences can impact word choices. How have you seen all of this play out in different parts of an investigation or in the courtroom?

Speaker 3:

You know, I think, like we know, gender bias is ingrained within policing and I've never found it compelling to a policeman for me to say you're gender biased, right, it is the appropriate term, but what we do is we see it play out in actions and terminology and labels is definitely one of those ways that I think, again going back to dehumanizes it as well as victim blame. So most of the terms that I see within law enforcement and prosecutors are quite punishing to women, and it's usually attached to women, and more forgiving to men, as though he is the victim of a crazy woman, and so the types of terms that I hear are that she was uncooperative right, and what's interesting about these terms is one it's negative connotation and it's also a blaming right. So it's not just there's something wrong with you because you aren't like. No one thinks of uncooperative as anything good. I don't want my kids to be uncooperative Right.

Speaker 1:

Like.

Speaker 3:

I don't want to.

Speaker 1:

It's a super negative word, yeah, super negative word, with no room, like and in one word, and just to be clear, this is a term that law enforcement might use to describe someone's behavior at the scene or even during the investigation right Absolutely.

Speaker 3:

And what's interesting is because it's become so normalized that we just say, oh, the victim's uncooperative, it's another way just to do this, and that is I don't really want to deal with this crime, I don't really care, I don't really know she's being difficult. Because they don't understand the context and therefore don't understand the different influences driving the survivor to do certain things. They don't understand trauma, so they don't understand why they can't just tell them a logical, chronological story and they don't understand that as soon as he gets out of jail he might kill her, and she knows that, and so that might change that choice. They get very frustrated and so what happens is we victim blame and we use those terms If she doesn't do everything they want at the time. They want the way they want, without being too difficult.

Speaker 1:

So, in other words, it's kind of like they're describing this behavior and maybe also how it's affecting their investigation.

Speaker 3:

And as an opportunity to not do their job but blame the victim. That is the reason I see so many dismissals is, you know, victim is uncooperative. Victim didn't want to press charges and it's like, well did she? And it's like, because it allows it to encompass so many things, it's kind of like credibility she wasn't credible. That's the other huge term that I did a talk earlier today with Russell Strand called credibility or corroboration. And the truth is, all the things that are used to say she's not credible they miss a lot of logical steps. And that is how does that not make her credible that she uses drugs? How does that make her more likely to falsely accuse somebody for sexually assaulting her?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, exactly I mean. Substance use does not necessarily mean you're lying.

Speaker 3:

Well, and in fact it, in my opinion, gives evidence that it happened. Because that's a coping mechanism and so you take whatever it is you don't understand or you don't like or you don't want to take the time or have the knowledge to navigate, and we call it a credibility issue. And then no one questions that you know the witness wasn't credible. What are you going to do? It's kind of like prosecutors might say well, we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We have an ethical duty, but it's like who's defined that? The thing about beyond a reasonable doubt is it's such a subjective per person definition, literally prosecutors. We can't give a definition of it to the jury, they just have to figure it out. So what happens? Is A definition?

Speaker 1:

for unreasonable doubt.

Speaker 3:

For reasonable doubt yeah For reasonable doubt. Yeah, there's no definition.

Speaker 1:

There's no definition for that.

Speaker 3:

I mean.

Speaker 1:

I have an idea for a definition.

Speaker 3:

We're not allowed. Now, the way you can say it is like it's doubt, and those doubts are a reasonable doubt. They're not like monkeys fly out of the sky.

Speaker 1:

But wouldn't a reasonable doubt be based on absence or presence of facts? Who knows? I mean, it can't just be my gut, right? No, no, it is, it is, it is my gut.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, and so it allows for. So like we have legal defenses, right, necessity, duress, self-defense, justification but that is really should be the focus. Can we prove this case? Is there a defense? If not, we believe the victim we should go forward. But instead what they do is they look for reasons that they think the jury won't like the victim and then they use it as a credibility issue and then dismiss the case and don't do anything about it.

Speaker 3:

But the truth is, none of us look credible if we do the things. We had the things happen to us that happened to that victim, and they would also not look credible if they gave over the kinds of things victims do. You go through my phone, you go through your phone, you will find something. The last five days, I am sure. Right, and go delete my phone after this, great, but I've never had someone in a session want to give me their phone and let me look through it. And yet we ask victims to expose and not just allow your body to be a crime scene, but like every piece of their privacy, mental health records. We don't see protection on that. So like it almost reinforces the she's crazy, which also just goes in that credibility category with it, instead of doing it differently and changing practice or understanding trauma, or having humanity and empathy to understand why the victim is doing that thing that you think's a bad thing, without understanding it. It allows them to blame the loss on a victim, not have to change anything about practice, and it really can end up easing their load. Now for prosecutors that frame reasonable doubt. So you have defenses, but right, the other category they have to be worried about is reasonable doubt, and so that's where all of these things can fall.

Speaker 3:

But most of the crimes and violence and sexual violence against women is going to be. Credibility will be at issue. Right and credibility of the victim, yeah, credibility, yeah. And unfortunately, when we look through, the normal model of this is a guilty person who did something bad and we're trying to break them and get a confession. We interrogate them. We have ways that law enforcement will identify deception, like what are those cues? What are the things as prosecutors we use in cross-examination to expose a lie or break them and get a confession? Those are the same tactics they apply to victims.

Speaker 3:

Now, when you've experienced trauma, you aren't going to remember things. Chronologically, you're not going to remember some things. But when you have an officer who you think is helping you ask you a question and you've said three times like I don't remember, I don't know. Then he'll start to suggest some things to you. This is what I see in the cases where women get charged with homicide as well, and it's like you're doing maybe yeah, and then you're pinned down for that amount, Like oh yep, so it was that hand, and ultimately there will be something that is inconsistent with that, but without knowing to protect yourself.

Speaker 3:

Victims do their best to answer the questions and we almost set our own credibility cases up for failure because we're not investigating ways to corroborate the story. We are looking for ways to discredit her story. Now the same doesn't happen so much for the defendants. They feel comfortable enough walking in and saying it was consensual, and I was just talking about earlier today. You know, if he said she said I kind of think it's he said, he said and the other, he is the system, and so you have no chance, it's very difficult for a victim and you know every prosecutor says, when they're picking a jury, like this courthouse is made for all people. Well, it's really not, frankly, on both ends.

Speaker 3:

So credibility is one of those things that if you know how to look at it differently, you can turn that credibility issue, that challenge, into evidence of a conviction. And that's what Russell and I were talking about today. But you just have to look at it. You have to look at it a different way empathize, humanize, and that's where your evidence is. My friend Allison, who's a trafficking survivor, once said about drugs. She said thank God for drugs. I wouldn't have gotten through that without drugs and that made me understand, just with that sentence. I hope that makes other people understand. If you're in the kind of horrible situation like that, I hope I could numb myself right, right, or die or die and they try that too.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I totally get that. Now, I think a really strong example for what you're talking about is when we talk about the words, and actually not only a strong example, but a successful example when we talk about the words choking and strangulation, because you developed a tool related to strangulation, that is, the strangulation supplement, and so let's talk about how we go from what choking is and how that's not the right label to put on when someone puts their hands around your neck and stops your breathing.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, so right, medically it's incorrect terminology because choking is an internal obstruction, strangulation is external pressure on the neck causing that impediment. And the funny thing about asking what the name of it, the strangulation supplement, is, it actually really should be called and I try to do it and my friend Andrea, who does the aquatic stuff asphyxiation assessment, because strangulation is one narrow type of act that can occur that can result in asphyxiation. And what is asphyxiation? So asphyxiation is the process of depriving the body of oxygen and therefore the brain, and there's a lot of things that can cause asphyxiation.

Speaker 3:

For whatever reason, strangulation got identified and I think the reason, the basis for those laws, was the research that Dr Jackie Campbell did, dr Glass, where they identified that in the context of domestic violence, a non-fatal strangulation of a woman who's being abused made it seven times more likely that she would get murdered. So we've known for a long time that there's something real bad and dangerous about it and predictive of homicide within the domestic violence universe. And then over time it was identified that it wasn't well identified by law enforcement, it wasn't treated or documented well by law enforcement, the legal system or the medical community, and so the answer really to that problem became pass legislation. Well, the problem is like a lot of legislation that's well-intended, we pass really narrow legislation and that legislation at least in Texas and a lot of states, is only in domestic violence. So it is something in domestic violence and that's great, it can manage those. But then we miss it in child abuse, we miss it in sex crimes and trafficking because people think it's just a domestic violence issue.

Speaker 3:

And then in turn we have narrowly defined laws in a way that we're missing other types of asphyxiation that can be criminal, because we don't even know they exist, because we don't see it, because we don't understand it, we don't ask for it and we don't listen for it. So what I encourage is law enforcement one. The reason they use choking is that's kind of a layperson term, like I got choked out. You know that can come from like jiu-jitsu, where they do choke you out and it's like a rear naked chokehold. Same thing with law enforcement use of force. That's like vascular neck restraint chokehold. So I think that because that terminology was being used in those areas and also it's the terminology most people use when they have experienced it, because I think it's become, just like you know, a layperson's term.

Speaker 1:

And you may feel a similar sensation to what you feel when you are choking, like literally something internally stuck in your throat or you have a, you know something aggravating your throat and obstructing your breathing. It could be from natural causes, right, obstructing your breathing. That could be from natural causes. Uh right, you know, like anaphylactic, anaphylactic type reactions can kind of restrict the, the um the throat and cause, make it hard for you to breathe and you might start coughing and then you might start panicking. So it feels like choking. Quote unquote. But it's not necessarily the same sometimes happening for the same reason.

Speaker 3:

Right and like if an officer comes and it's like what happened, like if you can tie it up in a word I was joking, or he was joking.

Speaker 3:

Right, right, right Rather than he placed his hands on mine. Like that, they feel the feeling, and so I think that's an example of I really care less about, I don't really care what term is used. What I need is people to identify it and understand it, treat it seriously, know how to document it and know how to support the trauma associated with it and prevent the homicide that will be connected to it Right Because, to your point, it is an indicator of lethality 100%.

Speaker 3:

And what we are. You know, the more I do work with Andrea, the more we see that abusers and predators who have started and begun to use strangulation, often they're using it because it works for whatever reason a lot of different reasons but also that they get away with it because of the lack of injury.

Speaker 2:

We don't identify it.

Speaker 3:

Even if they report it probably won't go anywhere. But what we're seeing is that these perpetrators who have identified this is a powerful use of abuse, not just violence, it's abusive, it's psychologically terrorizing, it causes trauma and, as you mentioned, it's a lethality indicator. So there are really three huge roles that strangulation plays. What we're seeing is that perpetrators who use that form of asphyxiation seem to be using other forms as well and it makes sense. They figured out the key. So suffocation, for instance, and in a non-fatal strangulation I will see a lot of. It's actually three different kinds all in that act. If they're sitting on them and straddling them and they can't get air all the way in their lungs, that's a type of asphyxiation. If she starts to yell or say something and he covers her mouth and nose to get her to be quiet, that's another form. So they kind of have the synergistic effect. So you know, asphyxiation is a longer word In strangulation.

Speaker 3:

It's another example of we made a law right and then we made it defined this way and so that's how people identify it. So I really encourage officers and this is, I think, plays a huge role in how we identify in child abuse particular, because children may not know the term choke out. So the kinds of thing a child might say is he pushed me. Well, that could be pushed on the leg, it could be pushed by the arm, or it could be pushed by the neck up against a wall. And so teaching officers, people who are in charge of identifying crimes, what the acts are that can cause it to me is more important in expanding the definition of it, you know, not just narrowing that focus on domestic abuse and domestic violence. And then you brought up another. I think it's important to mention the media. So the media.

Speaker 1:

I've gone back and forth so many times because they always use the word choking and it makes me frustrated because I feel like it minimizes what happened and it's also just wrong and I think there are certain words and Erica Olson and I talked about this too is like the ones that are more difficult to hear, like the word rape is hard, for it can be traumatizing. I think she said to an audience but if your audience is a jury.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I know if your audience is a jury or people who really need to know that this person is a rapist. But to say, on the news, I'm trying to imagine this like being in my living room hearing you know, Mrs Smith was strangled. It just seems like such a foreign word in a way, to hear that someone you know you don't normally hear. The word she was strangled or words she was strangled, Choked to death, I think is more of our society's expression, Right, and the media has. But then again to Erica Olson's point, that removes the actor in the situation. So Mrs Smith was choked to death. By whom? Probably Mr Smith the choker.

Speaker 3:

Right, the person who choked her. She's really the chokie. Poor Mrs Smith, I shouldn smith the choker, right the choker she's really the chokie. Uh, poor mrs smith, I shouldn't be laughing. Yes, um, miss smith, if you're listening, please call the domestic violence hotline. Yeah, but media, the thing is that like here is the crux of why I think that happens and it is. There's an association with strangulation, that it's fatal and yes, yes you.

Speaker 1:

That's, that's exactly right. That could be the only outcome, for, yeah, I mean, as far as we know, yeah, there's a solution to that.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, non-fatal strangulation, right, right, I mean, it's that easy, right, and this is something that's kind of universal in media. It's something where I would love journalists to know more and understand more, because they all default, like to their editors, that default to like certain apia, like guidelines, and so I haven't had the time to go talk to the person in charge of the guidelines in journalism yet, but if you're out there, we'd love to talk, but that's kind of the thing.

Speaker 1:

It's another example of these terms that get used widespread law enforcement, media and really the impact it has on society and everybody that is one of the points here right Is that the effect of these word choices have an impact on everyone, and so by soft selling it or toning it down, or judging it. Yeah, so that the audience has a better response, or is more amenable to the fact that something happened to a victim that's not necessarily telling the whole truth.

Speaker 3:

For sure, and it discourages victims from coming forward because if me coming forward which is already going to be difficult and I don't really want to do, but mainly a woman is doing it in abuse so she doesn't die, and women who are sexually assaulted often do it to protect other women. It's a pain, like it's a lot, to go through the process of reporting a sexual assault, and so the last thing they want to feel like is they did the wrong thing. They think they're helping society by reporting, so then when they are labeled accuser or complainant, you know, to me that is some of the language.

Speaker 3:

If I could change two things, one would be uncooperative, right, which we're working on the website, and the program and empowering and kind of changing what that word means, or at least making people think twice after they hear it and start a conversation about what that means. Because it's really, as we've discussed, the uncooperative system. But by using the language it's like, oh, you're complaining about your sexual assault. Like, stop complaining which I don't know about you.

Speaker 1:

But like I don't like to complain I don't want people to see me as a complainer well, if it's a, it's only a complaint. If, like, maybe it's how you see it or I mean, we're not talking about your feelings about something. Yeah, if you, if you've been raped, then that's it's not a complaint. That complaint, that's an act of violence.

Speaker 3:

I'm a complainant on a lot of things. I'm a complainant on I wish my kids did chores better. I'm a complainant on why someone didn't write this the right way. I can complain but that is that term and so to associate it with someone who is strong and willing to stand up and say I have identified an offender, to keep our community safe, Well, exactly.

Speaker 1:

I mean, I'm just sitting here thinking about the phrase file a complaint, so I'm not filing a complaint. I'm accusing you of a crime. For God's sake, I'm not accusing you.

Speaker 3:

You did it, I'm telling you, I've chosen to tell it to you, I've chosen to tell everyone. Yeah, I've chosen to tell everyone, yeah. But you know, it's just, it's the very. From the very beginning the responsibility is on the victim right To identify, be willing to report, willing to cooperate, risk her life, risk her body and then be judged by the communities, who then then rely on the outcome of a criminal case which is really good to then speak the truth of the case. And it's funny because, you see right, we have a constitutional right for defendants and that is to be presumed innocent. That doesn't mean society has to presume innocent. That is within the criminal legal system. But what happens is somehow that right gets transferred to all of us and it's just not the case. It's like we can't let her be raped and give her her support until we are allowed to call them that, and we can't do that until there's a conviction. So it's almost like a survivor's reliance on that criminal outcome combined with society's reliance, and the negative consequence of an outcome sets it up from failure from the beginning. Her identity is so attached to that criminal case as opposed to moving past it and finding some other kind of pathway to get justice because, as we've discussed, that's not the justice intended in the criminal system and that's really what's been the touch point for developing the programs and the initiatives within Respond like taking that power back and also spreading awareness that this system, that is not what. We should just say, oh there's a problem, call 911. I'm not saying we shouldn't call 911 or engage in the system, but like there have to be other solutions out there whether a survivor chooses to report or not, because when they do it's going to be a whole nother process and that needs support and if they don't, they still have to have access to resources and process that trauma. But right now we focus all of our resources within systems as opposed to finding ways to help people who don't want to identify themselves right but are still experiencing the trauma hearing the judgment.

Speaker 3:

And it's interesting, the complainant thing. I did a post on our Instagram once that was like language matters and I put interesting, the complainant thing. I did a post on our Instagram once that was like language matters and I put like this is how we define victims, right, complainers, accusers and then how we label the defendant is, you know, the accused, the alleged, and just that title, from the very beginning, gives a lens of judgment, like you know, all the women, we make those things up which, right, is statistically inaccurate. And then that's where I came up with the replacement and it really is that easy is bringing society, giving them the awareness of what they do every day, that they've never questioned because we all do it, and then giving them a replacement and in the end that allows conversations. And I can't actually I don't know if everyone on earth listens to the podcast yet, but, right, we need everyone to understand this and change their language because survivors hear it.

Speaker 3:

I had a client that we did a hearing and it was like within a Title IX system, and she'd seen my post and I didn't even know that, and she, the entire hearing, they and that's what in Title IX, it's complain it and respond it. Like I'm just responding to that complaint and for the audience, I just flipped my head. It was really good, it was appreciate that, but the entire hearing, that's how they will the complaint in this. And afterwards, you know I brought it up, I was mentioning not what happened in the hearing, but she said you know, I read that post and I was so happy because every time they said that in this hearing, I would have heard it very differently if I had not known that language and why they do it. I would have like they internalize it, and so that's just one more contribution to them and a reason why they don't want to engage.

Speaker 1:

Definitely I have to let you go because we're just about out of time, but you mentioned a couple of words to me in the show and then previously when we spoke uncooperative is one and uninterruptible. Tell me why those words are so special to you.

Speaker 3:

Sure Well. So uncooperative is kind of the branch of respond, where we turn things on their head. We use the experiences and fuel change through the stories of survivors, through the experience of practitioners, and build new solutions. So let them drive themselves. And so uncooperative was really in response to the term I hate most.

Speaker 3:

I've been asked that multiple times and in particular I was working and helping a woman on a case where she had been the prior victim of a sexual serial killer but they had not accepted her case for prosecution, or the investigator. Let me say it didn't even get that far. The investigator didn't move forward with it and she had marks on her neck he had strangled, he had raped her and the detective didn't even identify the scratches on her neck, which are survival injuries. He said they were from the jacket. Now, over the course of the next 10 years, multiple women get strangled and raped and two are murdered. And in having my conversation with Melissa I asked her. I said what is the thing that has I use another term but like made you mad over the last 10 years the most? And she said that it was every time I read an article about these homicides and there was a lot of media coverage. It always said there was a previous victim in Plano who wasn't cooperative.

Speaker 1:

And she was cooperative. She was I know, I know what case you're talking about 100%, they said she was uncooperative Yep and I said that's the thing, I hate that phrase.

Speaker 3:

I don't even think they knew what they were saying. So we have to educate the system. Who is really criminals? Like that's the only people who use this term. And so that's when I thought, well, I wonder if that website's available and started to build that. And that's just where I've kind of pushed back.

Speaker 1:

So wait, what's the website?

Speaker 3:

Dungcooperativeorg Okay, and respondingagainstviolenceorg will get it to you, and so what we're starting to build is initiatives under that. And so I see these categories of ways that victims get treated in the system and they're either unseen or there's not a nonprofit about it and it kind of has. Well it has. It is an empowering moment. It is doing things that usually you know we don't get a step out of line and survivors, certainly when they're going through a criminal case, cannot step out of line. But I don't mind stepping out of line, I like stepping out of line if it's going to push back and make change. So that is where I feel like whenever I talk about it, I don't think there's anyone that'll bring it up to. That's why we have stickers that won't hear it the next time someone says it and think differently and, in my hope, say something about it, Because then ultimately, the use of that word that they use so freely will become their own training tool. And then the other things are about programs as well Uninterrupted, I think we talked about in a prior podcast and that's how I found writing and helping victims write allocutions in court, which was the only enforceable right I could find how it made them feel to be able to do that. And I actually had a survivor. When asked by the media how it made her feel, she said it was so nice to be able to speak how I felt to the DA's office and do that. And she paused and she said uninterrupted, and I was like that's what we call this alacule building and unsilencing and telling stories, Right. And then the final one that we have, some of the little fidget toys here today is untangled and that is as a result of another case. All of these were driven by my experiences with survivors. I wasn't just like, oh, this might work, they were accidental, Right. But then I realized they apply everywhere. And so I had these little fidget toys in my car one day when I was helping a survivor with a deposition and I handed it to her kind of just out of instinct to give her something tactile. And throughout the course of that deposition which is horrible she untangled it and about four months later, when she had to go to trial, she came in and she told me that the night before she just didn't think she could do it again. And then she said and I looked up at my mantle, which is where she had what I think is like the most gorgeous sculpture on earth. She said I looked up there and I said, yes, I can. And so the moment she said that, I was like we have to make, because now I give them out everywhere.

Speaker 3:

Practitioners like they are a two cent solution to trauma and what we need is for victims to be able to communicate to us. So what is the little item? Yeah, so these are little acupuncture rings. It literally came in a variety pack of fidget toys that my daughter, like two years ago, was obsessed with, and this was not like the puppets, this was this, and she didn't care about it, so she like threw it in my cup holder. I happened to have it in my cup holder when I drove up to Madison's case, and so he handed it to her.

Speaker 3:

And I'm a creative art, I love any kind of that type of process, and I also know that tactile tools is something that when you were a survivor of trauma, or you're nervous, like you're about to testify, or you have anxiety which we like all do in this field that you need something tactile, and that's something I learned from advocates.

Speaker 3:

But right, it really does also represent how their minds function, and so anything tied to that we're going to put under Untangled and that's the justice for her, the case not great, but the justice to be able to pass this on. I think we've given out over 2,000 at the conference and we hope to get follow-up from all of those agencies, and it's just to me a lovely way to serve and provide a healing tool to help others going forward, which really is the ultimate way to heal. And then the last one is just I notice myself processes through art and I see a lot of survivors do that as well, and it's another way just to occupy their time, so they have a distraction, and so for that we're going to call anything associated with that type of art, or any art or healing art as unglued, Because it really does then make a play on women being crazy and unglued, and I think it empowers that which we are not.

Speaker 3:

We are not. We are not or are we uncooperative, but we are now. We will be unglued if something doesn't change. Sorry if I interrupted you. We will, something doesn't change. Sorry if I interrupted you. Oh, we will come in blue if something doesn't change.

Speaker 1:

No, I was just being a joke About interrupted. Sorry if I interrupted you. Well, all of this has been serendipitous. Thank you, kelsey, for being on the show. Thanks for taking me Attention. Spanish-speaking listeners Listen to the end of this podcast for information on how to reach a Spanish-speaking representative of Genesis.

Speaker 2:

Atención hispanohablantes escucha este podcast hasta el final para recibir información de cómo comunicarse con el personal de Genesis en español.

Speaker 1:

If you or someone you know is in an abusive relationship, you can get help or give help at genesisshelterorg or by calling or texting our 24-7 crisis hotline team at 214-946-HELP 214-946-4357. Bilingual services at Genesis include text, phone call, clinical counseling, legal services, advocacy and more. Call or text us for more information. Donations to support women and children escaping domestic violence are always needed. Learn more at genesisshelterorg slash donate. Thanks for joining us. I'm reminding you always that ending domestic violence begins when we believe her Genesis.

Speaker 2:

el podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles en Genesis Women's Shelter, esupport. Si usted o una conocida está en una relación abusiva, puede recibir ayuda o dar ayuda a genesisshelterorg, o por llamar o mandar mensaje de texto a nuestra línea de crisis de 24 horas al 214-946-4357. Genesis Bilingual Services include text messages, calls, counseling, legal services, advice and more. Call us or send us a text for more information. Donations are always needed to support women or children escaping domestic violence. Thank you for joining us. Remember that ending domestic violence begins when we believe in the victim. El terminar la violencia doméstica empieza cuando creemos a la víctima.