Typically, rape victims actually witness the crime first hand,
If there is a rape to begin with. Calling an accuser "rape victim" prejudges the case because it assumes she is telling the truth.
but an element of he said; she said often gets thrown into the mix, even when there is physical evidence.
Of course it is "he said, she said" as usually it is one person's word against the other. As far as physical evidence, it really depends on what it is evidence of. If both parties agree that there was sex but disagree on consent, then physical evidence of sex is immaterial.
There have long been concerns of underreporting for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) not being believed, being summarily discredited, victim blaming, or being denigrated. I assume the hashtag is #BelieveWomen due to statistical data indicating women are disproportionately affected and due to #MeToo being largely driven by women.
The claims of underreporting are just guesses, and in any case any underreporting does not justify believing the accuser automatically without evidence. There is still presumption of innocence.
Reporting theft doesn't tend to face the same issues, or is at least not perceived to face them.
So evidence should be required for theft but not rape?
#BelieveWomen was a response to how people* reporting rape were mishandled and mistreated and what impact that had.
Which is bullshit. When Crystal Mangum falsely accused those lacrosse players she got a great deal of support and sympathy while her victims were dragged through the mud in the media and even suspended by their own school.
When Jackie Coakley make false accusations of having been raped she was likewise supported. Many continued supporting her even after her claims were shown to be completely made up.
Blasey-Ford was also supported despite her not coming forward for 30 years and not being able to remember when or where the alleged rape allegedly happened. Same with that crazy woman who claimed Trump raped her in the changing room at Barney's.
The issue wasn't limited to getting criminal convictions, but even just to being generally heard, believed and supported.
Bullshit. First of all, the goal should not be to get more criminal convictions. Nobody should be convicted of a crime unless the guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, rape accusers are heard, supported and believed (often without evidence or contrary to available evidence) plenty.
There was a heavy stigma to saying you were raped. Some took that hashtag to an extreme state of guilty until proven innocent. Others did not. I am not aware of a foremost definitive explanation of what it is supposed to mean in effect. I am just talking about what prompted the hashtag and why it exists in connection with rape/ sexual assault, specifically.
It is feminist nonsense. If you say "believe women" you claim in effect that women are trustworthy just for being women. It is sexist at its core.
*I am saying 'people' in recognition of men/ boys and enbies who have faced the same issues. I didn't follow closely enough to know how inclusively most people interpreted the hashtag. I have fuckall interest in debating it one way or the other (nor, on the off chance he's reading along, having metaphor explain it with his particular brand of wtf).
The hashtag is very gender-exclusive.