Women’s Aid considers employing self-declared transwomen [i.e. men] in women's shelters

I'm not a big fan of Piers Morgan but this morning there was an item on this on GMB and he and Susannah Reid stood their ground against India Willoughby on this issue. Piers calling for common sense and insisting that it is not a stretch to be concerned that a predatory male would self identify as female in order to have access to a women's refuge. Susannah focused more on the perspective that for a vulnerable woman leaving an abusive relationship being around a person that appeared male however they identified would be very distressing. IW insisted that any trans woman seeing they were causing distress would 'back off', the damage would already have been done at that point. Why does that trans woman's experience trump that of a woman who has been abused?

This is just depressing. Refuges are not validation stations! Their purpose is not to reinforce anyone's sense of "identity".

The VRR vs Nixon case in Canada dragged on for years and could have put the organization out of business, so I'd like to spin this as Women's Aid attempting to avoid the same fate but a. I think it's more likely they their staff is full of handmaidens and b. a women's refuge that exposes vulnerable clients to men is useless. It would be bad enough that they admit trans women (super easy loophole for an abusive husband to follow his wife into the system there), but that could at least be justified as, well, abused trans women have to go somewhere (even though it should be somewhere else). This though? This is 100 pure validation. Clients don't benefit, it's not needed, the trans women seeking those positions could find a different job. It's everything to do with women being meant to serve as a backdrop that helps trans women feel validated and fulfilled, and who cares what the impact on the women is?

Since when do we centre supporters’ rights/feelz over victims’/survivors’. Since when has the empathy gradient turned so completely around?

I think this is the thing. The idea of it being a "human right" to work in a women's refuge strikes me as pretty weird.

This was the reasoning behind the Canadian courts eventually ruling in favour of Vancouver Rape Relief's right to exclude the trans-identifying man who wanted to work there as a counsellor.

The court ruled that the needs of VRR's clients took precedence over the man's desire to work there, since VRR would not be able to fulfil its service mission if it had to employ men.

Nixon appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously maintained the previous decision by the Supreme Court of BC. They held that Vancouver Rape Relief Society was protected under the Human Rights Code, Section 41. This allowed the society to abide by its women-only policy, based on its rationale and interests in serving women.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

Only people born female — or who have gone through the Gender Recognition Act process to change sex — can get a woman’s birth certificate. The government promised to consult on making the process easier, but has delayed the consultation amid growing controversy over the issue.

From the times story, so even currently male people can do this job? Obviously self identification is even worse, but I do think that even those with a GRC should be excluded, as they are allowed to be by law. And no decent transwoman would argue on this. Anyone who is male and would insist on doing such a job that is meant for an actual woman and specifies in the and that it must be a woman...is not a very nice person, at best.

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/" target="_blank">Rape Relief vs. Nixonn^ - the case in Canada which dragged on for 12 years and although Rape Relief eventually won in the Canadian supreme court, it damn near bankrupt the rape crisis centre.

I think reading about that was my first peak trans moment. How can anyone not question the motives of that man.

Apparently India Willoughby is going to be discussing this on GMB tomorrow so be prepared for more misrepresentation of women

"I really feel I can bring something important to counselling women whose PTSD is so severe they feel triggered just by being in an enclosed room with a male body, and my feelings trump their fears..."

If it was someone arguing that they had the skills, the commitment, they knew the needs and the people well and this was a needless barrier to key work they could be doing..... well I'd listen to them. (Likewise if Lily Madigan showed the faintest interest in women's issues and a committment to representing women I'd have been prepared to listen.) But it isn't. I read on here today (sorry, lots of threads and can't find it) that the TIMs driving this actually are working to a plan of harassing and occupying refuge staff dealing with their tantrums to pull them away from their work. It's THAT childish, THAT shameless.

These men do not give a shit about the women in these places.

They have zero interest in helping them.

They have zero sympathy, compassion or interest in the work.

This is purely about rage at biological women having something they haven't yet appropriated, dominated and forced to centre TIMS, it's about knocking biological women and their needs/issues out of visibility.

#Stepthefuckback

I think you may be right cromeyellow0
We know that trans activists don't have any compunction about maintaining their perceived rights over those of vulnerable women so it goes without saying that all those mega funded organisations like Stonewall will take on Women's Aid, Rape Crisis etc in a heartbeat in order to pursue their agenda. They wouldn't care at all about bringing these organisations to their financial knees (as they'll see them as full of TERFs).

You could well be right about fear of the cost of litigation, crome

Rape Relief vs. Nixon - the case in Canada which dragged on for 12 years and although Rape Relief eventually won in the Canadian supreme court, it damn near bankrupt the rape crisis centre.

Chances are that were such a case to be heard now in Canada, the court decision would go the other way.

"Since when do we centre supporters’ rights/feelz over victims’/survivors’. Since when has the empathy gradient turned so completely around?"

"I think this is the thing. The idea of it being a "human right" to work in a women's refuge strikes me as pretty weird."

Yes to this, a hundred times. It is so bloody obvious. (Or should be). Our local refugee aid charity in my small town states very clearly that they only want people with certain qualifications (e.g. TEFL) for actual volunteer work, but that people without those qualifications who feel strongly are welcome to help out by fund raising. No-one turns round and says "but that's non-expert-exclusionary". If they genuinely care, they help out in the way that is most appropriate, given what the charity needs.

But somehow this common sense gets suspended in the face of the all-conquering trans jugernaut. "I really feel I can bring something important to counselling women whose PTSD is so severe they feel triggered just by being in an enclosed room with a male body, and my feelings trump their fears..."

The problem is that many organisations aren't applying these exemptions. They are actually breaking the law.

are the exemptions a legal requirement on certain services and organisations - or do they offer an option for those services if they choose to apply them?

The AWS are different, as the law was specifically written to define those - but as I understand it, the exemptions in the EA are there to be used by organisations as they feel appropriate, I didn't think that they required to, iyswim.

I have now spent the day catching up with wtf has been going on!
The world has gone mad.
I am not a CIS
I am a woman, I have boobs and a vagina . A woman doesn't have a penis.

To the best of my knowledge, this is not about funding. There was a trend a few years ago to make government funding for refuge and outreach support conditional upon providing services for men too. This trend has gone away as a) most outreach services have always offered support to men b) lack of funding means that dispersed properties are often used rather than multiple occupancy refuges which are suitable for male victims anyway c) men very, very rarely need refuge accommodation. Trans has always been included in the LGBT classification as a minority group requiring special effort to engage and support.

I haven't seen any bids conditional upon employing men or trans women.

My hope and sense is that WA are applying due process and will make a good decision. But maybe I'm being naive.

Thank god for the freedom programme though eh? What fantastic tweets!

Refuse

Good for you! I intend on doing a google of their trans coverage of late and submitting several complaints, I know if you do a written complaint online, it's circulated the following day in summary to ALL producers within the BBC. I have heard a whisper that they are swamped with complaints and are reviewing their 'balance' of trans reporting. Seriously, if you see something and know it's inaccurate, COMPLAIN. We need to speak up.

girlscout 72, I have made my first ever complaint to the BBC thanks to your link.

...what would be the legal position, do you think, if we started a refuge for people with vaginas? Asking for a friend.

Under the Equality Act women do already have a legal right to women-only spaces and services. There are exemptions in the act and also in the original GRA (which women fought for and won in 2004) which mean that even a TIM with a GRC can be excluded if it is to achieve a proportionate aim i.e. in this case safety and privacy. The problem is that many organisations aren't applying these exemptions. They are actually breaking the law.

Article on Fair Play
fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

And this
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/handout_EA2010.pdf

I am furious. Can't believe this is even being considered. Despicable.

I don't know... somehow what's popped into my head is shit like this happens not only because of male-focused agendas, but because we don't support each other as women. If numerous women aged 18+ committed to pledging just £1 per month, how much would that raise?

Is it worth starting a crowdfunder? Maybe fund a legal challenge to this?

The law allows exemptions, in limited circumstances, for organisations to employ only women for a particular role where it is a general occupational requirement. This can include TIMs who have legally changed their sex. As far as I am aware, there is no provision in law to restrict a role to women only 'plus a few men that we have decided to let apply'. Either the role is for women only (including TIMs with a GRC) or it is open to all men.

I'm sure I read that the exemptions allow even TIMs with a GRC to be excluded.

I think Solace are women only. And Nia.

Also Freedom Programme Charitable Trust. They've tweeted this today
twitter.com/columbascave/status/960123174297001984.

Well, fucking hell. There's literally no point in having something called a women's refuge that isn't a women's refuge, is there?

...what would be the legal position, do you think, if we started a refuge for people with vaginas? Asking for a friend.

I'm waiting for the transagers, a cross over group which seem to be gaining numbers, to start campaigning to be allowed back to school.

Are you a middle age dude who missed out on girlhood, all the fun of the locker room shenanigans and pillow fights at sleepovers? Don't worry just start again as your true, authentic, twelve year old self. It's your human right!

Since when do we centre supporters’ rights/feelz over victims’/survivors’. Since when has the empathy gradient turned so completely around?

I think this is the thing. The idea of it being a "human right" to work in a women's refuge strikes me as pretty weird.

Maybe we should push for penises in convents and vaginas in monasteries ..
Vaginas for the pulpit!

I can imagine the placards..