Talk

Flip

1 2 3

AIBU?

To ask you to write to St Mungos and Women's Aid about this

52 replies

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASavings · 07/04/2019 13:20

I understand that a lot of people would rather these discussions stay off the main boards. I also appreciate that publications like the daily mail are easily dismissed as goady and sensationalist. But I would urge everyone to just read this article and decide for yourselves if you think it's acceptable. For those who don't want to click on a daily mail link I'll post the relevant bits here:

" a transgender ex-prisoner and convicted domestic abuser, who made chilling death threats to the mother of his child, has been allowed to come and go from a female-only refuge after he changed his name to Melissa. (...) St Mungo's, which operates 27 sites across London and the South of England, allowed Addis to gain 'almost daily' access to a women-only hostel in East London despite knowing about her criminal past."

"Another charity, Women's Aid, which oversees 300 shelters managed by smaller charities, also said its policy is to allow transgender women to live at the refuges, regardless of whether they have undergone sex-change treatments.(...) In its anonymised report, one shelter manager stated: 'If we have a client who wants to come in that identifies as female, they can come into our refuge or any part of our service.'(...) Another interviewee added: 'We would never ask for evidence of someone's sex or gender because we're open to women on a self-identifying basis.'"

This is not about bigotry or transphobia or any of the other words currently being used to shut this conversation down. If you believe as I do that men who are not legally recognised as transwomen but merely self-identify as such should not have access to these spaces, and that allowing this access is a violation of women's right, please write to St Mungos and Women's Aid and let them know. I've included template letters below for anyone who wants to use them.

OP posts:

Report

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASavings · 07/04/2019 13:20

Letter to St Mungos:

Dear Madam/Sir,

I have recently learned that you are allowing men who identify as women to access your women only hostels, even if these men are convicted perpetrators of domestic abuse. The fact that you have seemingly not considered the impact of this on vulnerable women is frankly astonishing. The danger these men pose to women is self evident, and I am disgusted that an organisation that claims to support the most vulnerable in our society is complicit in putting yet more barriers in place against women seeking safety and support.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind of the following relevant legislation:

Regarding provisions for transpeople, only gender reassignment is legally recognised as a protected characteristic. Neither "gender" not "gender identity" are recognised.

The Equality Act 2010 states that:

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

This does not mean that a person is able to self identify as the opposite sex, and expect to be immediately treated as such. The Gender Recognition Act is very clear than in order to be considered "undergoing" or "proposing to undergo" gender reassignment, and thus be eligible for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), the person must meet all of the following criteria:

(a) has or has had gender dysphoria.
(b) has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made.
(c) intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death.

This means that by law a man who does not meet these requirements should be treated as a man for the purposes of providing sex segregated services (see below).

The Equality Act 2010 makes it clear in Schedule 3, part 7, paragraph 26, that:

"A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified."

It also says that single sex services are permitted (amongst other reasons) if:

"they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa)"

Clearly permitting men, especially men with a history of violence towards women, into a women's only hostel renders the service less effective. Clearly women who are vulnerable and likely to have suffered trauma at the hands of men will object to the inclusion of men in your services, even if (as many won't) they do not feel empowered to voice this objection.

The act even gives hostels for women facing homelessness as a specific example of when this exception should be applied:

"It would not be unlawful for a charity to set up separate hostels, one for homeless men and one for homeless women, where the hostels provide the same level of service to men and women because the level of need is the same but a unisex hostel would not be as effective."

Clearly the provision of sex segregated spaces in this case is fully justified.

To conclude, a man who self-declares himself to be a woman, but who cannot provide evidence of a GRC or who does not meet the eligibility criteria for an application for a GRC, must by law be considered a man and not a woman. Admission of such individuals to single sex service provisions, such as hostels for women facing homelessness, is in contradiction with the Equality Act and a violation of the rights of women to be afforded special protections on the basis of their sex.

I would be grateful if you could respond to this email detailing how you propose to address this situation in a manner which prioritises the safety of vulnerable women.

Yours faithfully,

OP posts: