For feminists who are advocating for reduced due process rights for men in sexual assault allegations, you see many labels. Most often "victims' advocate," "anti-rape advocate," "anti-sexual assault advocate," etc.

However, one is not actually a victim if it turns out their claim is spurious. In that case the falsely accused male is in reality the victim. But the "victims' advocate" isn't going to back him at that point, in fact, she'll insist that the accuser is still the real victim. She's not really a victims' advocate, because she is ideologically motivated to ignore real victims when the victim is an accused male, despite the evidence.

"Anti-rape advocate" is also an incorrect use of the term. Everyone is against rape. There is no such thing as a "pro-rape" advocate. What we're really seeing is a difference of opinion on whether an accused man is presumed innocent or presumed guilty, and the burden of proof needed to find him guilty. For the pro-accuser crowd, the accused should be presumed guilty based on accusation alone, regardless of the accused's testimony, and regardless of all the other evidence. Hence "listen and believe," affirmative consent rules for sex on campus, the low burden of proof used to find him guilty, not allowing him to cross-examine his accuser, etc. Basically anything that would help an accused man defend himself is considered hostile to "victims."

On the other hand, most of us in Men's rights would argue that as sexual assault is a serious accusation, an accused man deserves robust due process protections. The presumption of innocence, the right to an attorney and to cross-examine his accuser, a clear and practical definition of the crime, the right to call his accuser's story into scrutiny.

So I feel we should call "victims' advocates" what they actually are: anti-due process advocates. And we should refer to ourself as advocates for due process. Thoughts?