Beyond the Stereotypes: An Overview of what I’ve Learned from Day 1 of my MSc in Psychological Trauma

In my blog titled ‘It’s time to change the narrative on child sexual exploitation’ that I published in May earlier this year, I wrote about how stereotypes of victims and perpetrators hide whole groups of survivors from view. Since then, I’ve been studying more about trauma and inequalities, and I want to share some of what I’ve learned in plain language.

A very short history of trauma

People have always lived with trauma, but the way professionals have talked about it has shifted dramatically over time. In the 1800s, women reporting distress after abuse were dismissed as “hysterical.” During the First and Second World Wars, soldiers with what we now call PTSD were labelled with “shell shock.”

It took decades for the medical world to accept what survivors knew all along: trauma is real, it can last a lifetime, and it is not a sign of weakness.

“It took decades for the medical world to accept that trauma is real, long-lasting, and not a sign of weakness.”

The 1990s brought another breakthrough. Researchers in California discovered that early experiences of abuse, neglect, or violence at home could shape health right into adulthood. This became known as ACEs, Adverse Childhood Experiences.

What are ACEs?

ACEs showed the world that childhood experiences matter. If children are exposed to harm or chaos at home, they are much more likely to struggle with physical health, mental health, and relationships as adults.

But there’s a problem. The original ACE list was limited. It didn’t cover things like poverty and homelessness, racism and discrimination, being in care or moved from placement to placement, or surviving war, migration, or community violence.

So a child might live through unimaginable hardship and still “score low” on the ACE checklist. On paper, they might look fine. In reality, they could be invisible to the very services meant to help them.

What is Intersectionality?

The word intersectionality was first used by an American law professor, Kimberlé Crenshaw, in the 1980s. She noticed that when people talked about racism, they often meant Black men. When they talked about sexism, they often meant white women. Black women, who lived with both racism and sexism, were being ignored.

Intersectionality simply means that people’s experiences are shaped by more than one factor at the same time.

“Looking only at one part of someone’s identity doesn’t tell the whole story.”

Think about it: a boy of colour in care. A disabled girl living in poverty. An older woman from a migrant background. Each faces overlapping challenges. If services only look at one part of the picture, much of the reality gets missed.

What is Mainstreaming?

This was a new word for me. Mainstreaming means building systems from the ground up so they don’t just fit the “average” person, but actually work for everyone.

Instead of saying, “This treatment works, so it must work for all survivors,” mainstreaming asks: does it work for men as well as women? For people of colour as well as white people? For disabled or neurodivergent survivors? For people in poverty or from migrant backgrounds?

If the answer is no, then the research has to be honest about its limits, instead of pretending the evidence applies to everyone.

“Mainstreaming means designing systems that fit everyone, not just the so-called ‘average.’”

Why does this matter for survivors of sexual exploitation?

Because when systems are built only with one stereotype in mind,  “young white girls” everyone else slips through the cracks. Boys, women of colour, disabled survivors, people trafficked as adults, migrants… all risk being doubly invisible: once by society, and again by the very services meant to help them.

This is what I’ve been saying all along: stereotypes are dangerous. But now I see it in a bigger frame. It’s not only about who society believes, but also about how our research, policies, and services are shaped.

A bigger picture

• ACEs show us that trauma shapes health, but they don’t tell the whole story.
• Intersectionality reminds us that overlapping inequalities make every survivor’s journey different.
• Mainstreaming says we should design systems that fit everyone, not just a narrow stereotype.

“If you only look for one type of victim, you’ll miss the rest of us.”

 

A note from me

I’m studying trauma formally as part of my professional training, and I have to be careful about what I share here. If I publish too much detail, it could overlap with work I later submit for assignments, and the university system might flag it as plagiarism — even though these are my own words. So for now, I’m sharing just the bigger ideas, explained simply. My hope is that this helps more people see why survivor voices and professional knowledge need to come together.