No, "trauma is trauma" is not accurate. There are absolutely varying types and levels of trauma based on the cause and how they affect individuals. There is a reason why sexual trauma is not treated in the same way as trauma from something like an accident.
Yet again, you latched onto the least meaningful part of the comment and proceeded to disregard everything else. You're basically saying 'if I'm courageous enough to go through court trials as a result from an accident that happened to me, then women who have possibly been raped should be able to do the same".
uhhh WHAT??? By definition, Hazing is in itself a bad thing. It is literally a crime with many states having anti-hazing laws. For someone who was so intent on telling me earlier "those words have meanings" you don't seem to be paying much attention to the ones you're using in almost any of your comments.
After trying to admonish me, you go on saying hazing isn't a bad thing and that a rookie having to foot the bill for dinner is 'just as despicable' as kids being sexually assaulted or forced into situations where it's reasonably likely they could die...
This is why I refer to the victim/survivor going through the legal process as being
re-raped, rather than
re-traumatized.
One hockey game, I took a shot to the foot and it really hurt. Then later in the game I got slashed there. Hurt even more. My foot was re-traumatized. In both instances, there was no intent to injure me, it was purely accidental.
In my view, a rape is a
deliberate and
malevolent violation of a person
by another person or persons.
Also in my view, the legal process as it currently stands demands a
deliberate and
malevolent violation (character assassination) of a person (victim/survivor)
by another person or persons (defense lawyers; also prosecution or plaintiff lawyers are forced to do the same to the victim/survivor, to coach the witness to be prepared to be deliberately and malignly violated all over again by supposed "honourable" people - one can imagine the joy a victim/survivor experiences, of being
re-raped by the people who are supposedly on the victim/survivor's side, just to prepare them to get
re-re-raped by defense counsel). I know, the prosecution is not doing it malevolently. I just wanted to get
re-re-rape on record. My point stands, as the victim is not going to be splitting hairs as to malevolency at this stage of the multiple deliberate violations.
"Re-traumatized" implies that the violation of the victim/survivor by the legal process as it currently stands is an unavoidable byproduct of our legal system without malice - nay, it is benign - and hides the fact that it is another deliberate and malign violation of their person, their emotional well-being.
As a wise poster wrote, those words have meaning.
