Welsh Women's Aid - Trans Inclusion Statement

RogerAllamsFangirl very true - my youngest was excluded/excl himself. School handled it wonderfully. Kids were encouraged to include him, but there was no lecturing, hectoring, belittling or insulting them. It took effort though. And persistence on the part of the school.

Materialist I fear you are right. And as thebewilderness says it shows the misogynist nature of TRAs clearly.

AngryAttackKittens Not in the UK. According to guidelines by trans orgs they are to be re-educated. Having grown up in a country where that was a thing, this fills me with horror.

Ereshkigal because they do not read trans forums; they have never been confronted with this issue at their kids' school; they assume trans = post-op transsexual; they have never heard what TRAs say and wouldn't believe you if you told them.

That's horrible Charley. What they are advocating is deeply abusive to the girls. Why don't people care? I don't mean misogynists. Of course they don't. Of course they glory in the chance to do this. But self declared feminists and "inclusive" people, female and male.

That's horrible Charley. What they are advocating is deeply abusive to the girls. Why don't people care? I don't mean misogynists. Of course they don't. Of course they glory in the chance to do this. But self declared feminists and "inclusive" people, female and male.

What's the proposed official remedy for those girls who simply refuse to get undressed in front of a male classmate who identifies as a girl? Are they to be disciplined in some way?

Does the WA policy mean that if someone has a GRC they are legally a woman and can access the services?This is still not necessary under the Equality act, so I can only see that all and sundry can now define themselves as women which absolutely contradicts with the sex specific service provisions. Are WA going to be leading on provision of services to the SIDers? No doubt while womens services are being cut, there will be plenty of money for these poor confused men.

It has always been the ultimate male dominance display for some males.
Telling women and girls that if you do not want to strip in front of males you can go home and stay home demonstrates exactly what the intent has been from the beginning for some politicians. They have made no bones about their misogyny.

Exactly.

As I stated on a thread a while back I want the government to listen to and acknowledge women's concerns and be clear to the public that they are going ahead with changes understanding that some women and girls will be collateral damage for the sake of male feelings.

I want them to own this so years down the line they can't claim they didn't know.

Charlie I agree completely but won't reply further as I currently can't do it either calmly or politely.

This is the same weaselly way the government plan to get around this issue, I'm certain of it.

'we don't intend to change the single sex provisions in the EA' (but are very quietly allowing anyone to identify as any sex they like, and getting around it that way.)

In either case: women, you're allowed sex segregation from men for a whole lot of very good, well understood, strongly held reasons. UNLESS that man tells you the feeling in his head is that he's female, and then your feelings and your rights become dust under his feet. Now smile and be happy about it, it's lovely, positive, of course you're not being erased or endangered and if you don't think, feel and say what you're told you'd better watch out.

It's lunacy.

What is needed is a campaign that if the government are going to do this, that they just openly share that they are abandoning sex segregation. Because that's what they're doing, and they need to be honest with voters about it and let them respond accordingly.

I've been worried all along when I found out the new CEO of WA is an ex Stonewall Trustee - or maybe still is. Come back Polly Neate……And the govt will adopt whatever WA say - so their stance is crucial ...

P.S. I'm not naive. Having been a teenage girl myself once, I'm 100% sure these girls will have found a way to make their displeasure with the transgirl felt. Sadly, I know from experience you cannot force kids to accept another kid in their group. It just doesn't work.

The transitioning child would probably have received kinder and more welcoming treatment from their peers if those peers had had their legitimate concerns recognised and an approach to accommodation had been reached that recognised everyone's dignity and privacy. Now the child will be the subject of resentment, which is really unfortunate.

Kneedeepinunicorns: born female? BFs? Or BW for biological women or BBFs born biological females?

This needing to be included is not enough though, is it?

A recent reddit thread made this abundantly clear.

The issue:

A teenaged transgirl given access to girls' locker room immediately after coming out as trans.

First a few, then a lot of girls objected and decided to use an alternate room which is now too small (say it's 20 kids, the room holds 7)

Their teacher posts on this pro-trans reddit asking how to resolve the situation, stressing countless times that none of the girls are being mean, hateful, bullying or otherwise excluding this transgirl.

They just don't want to get naked in front of a male (it's toilet cubicles, and an open shower and changing area).

You'd think they would show some understanding at least for the immediacy of the situation - last month a boy changing with the boys, now a girl changing with the girls (it took a couple of weeks for most of the girls to act on their discomfort, but many were unhappy from the start).

Oh no. Not only was there zero understanding for the bodily privacy and dignity of teenage girls, but they were upset that the girls were allowed to use an alternate room. I mean it was simple, the kids were told:

X is now a girl and has every right to be in your locker room. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

And most, but not all of the girls did go elsewhere. Only that is not what the TRAs can allow. They actually said the school should never have given them an elsewhere and should now put a sign on the alternate changing room saying "Changing room for transphobes" or better still, force the girls to get changed with the transgirl.

So then a male to female transsexual (I got the impression post-op) joins the discussion and tells everyone that it is not reasonable to expect immediate acceptance, especially not from teenagers at the beginning of a transition, most especially not when you look completely male (this kid wasn't yet on hormones). And goes on to explain how these early stages could be handled differently.

Oh my, big mistake. All the TRAs piled on this one M2F and shouted them down.

The whole thread made me realise it's not really about safety for those adult TRAs, or inclusion in social life (because this transgirl was otherwise included in school and taking part in girls' sports) or even acceptance and affirmation (coz that's what the school and the wider school community did).

It's about validation. As long as we do not suppress our knowledge that a biological male does not magically become female just by saying so (or ever), they will not be satisfied.

And it was chilling in one other aspect - they were discussing the law. The teacher was talking of her US state having a loophole in place that would actually allow the girls to complain which would then result in the transgirl being moved out of their locker room. (Yes, "loophole" that's what this female teacher called it).

So they cited a few cases, and the case law made it clear that at least to some jurisdictions in the States, trans rights trump sex-based rights. Even though the law as written, actually was about sex-based rights (or sex-based discrimination as it were).

That is where we may be heading.

P.S. I'm not naive. Having been a teenage girl myself once, I'm 100% sure these girls will have found a way to make their displeasure with the transgirl felt. Sadly, I know from experience you cannot force kids to accept another kid in their group. It just doesn't work.

Do people know about the Plain English Campaign?

I am so fucking sick of doublespeak.

This illustrates why the word 'woman' matters. < Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Either they're sex-selective services, or they're not. Like GGUK.

"If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation."

This is a worrying line. It could mean that if a transman uses a refuge (since they are female), then others who are discomfited by having someone who presents as male will be educated....just as would someone who had issues with a butch dyke, or BME woman, or a muslim woman. Which would be fair enough. But could also mean that any woman who objects to having a male-bodied TIM in the refuge will also be re-educated.......................

Are they being deliberately obscure (to confuse or deflect criticism?), or is it just that if you try to write a policy that accepts the current trendy meaningless non-definition of woman, then this meaningless nonsense is what comes out? They are clear about ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, but nowhere clear about sex, gender identity, or gender presentation.

Sex matters, here more than almost anywhere else, yet they seem to have totally avoided mentioning it, and just waffle on.............

If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

Wait, what? A woman turning to Women's Aid Wales who has PTSD related to the male body derived from surviving DV - a very common presentation - will be educated? Who knew? The treatment for PTSD is a bit of education! Tell the NHS! Huge savings on budget available!

*their not there

surely women's aid know how trauma works?

surely they know that humans intuit sex from a distance and that if a traumatised woman has a fear of men (for the sake of clarity - because she has been repeatedly raped / beaten / controlled etc by a man or men), her body will react to men with a fight / flight / freeze response outside of her cognitive awareness.

the freeze response is so often overlooked ("why didn't she fight back?" "why didn't she scream?") and i imagine could be contingent with the fact men are usually physically stronger and more likely to be in positions of power and authority.

any amount of "education" simply cannot fix the body's traumatic response. education works with the cognitive, rational part of the brain. years of therapy aren't even guaranteed to fix trauma, unless very specifically designed to do so. exposure to male bodied persons in a place a woman has been told is for women is potentially re-traumatising and a violation of trust, consent and boundaries.

many of those women accessing refuges will have experienced multiple trust and boundary violations before they even get there. some of those women may not have ever experienced a relationship with healthy consent and boundaries. women's aid should be leading the way not colluding with the dismissal of the needs and concerns of traumatised women.

they should also write there policy in clear language that any person could understand.

Not good. All the skirting around the issue without giving a simple straight answer.

So they can seperate by sex as per the EA but that is pointless if men can say they are women and they have to be allowed in.

And we still have to pay the tampon tax.
The govt should introduce a similar tax for men to pay. In the interests of equality and all.

It gets ever more depressing.

I can see this going the way it did originally: biological women will fund and set up refuges for biological women because there will be biological women no longer able to use shelters because TIM insist they are a higher priority than everyone else. The difference will be that biological women will have to start using specific language about the group serviced by the shelter, such as people with ovaries.

(I know, I know, cue the cries of 'are you going to do an ultra sound on the door' - as if it would be needed.)

Not good news at all. Woman means anyone who was born female PLUS anyone who self- identifies as a woman.

"If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation"

ie if you are a female bodied person who objects (or is terrified of) to a male bodied person in a refuge, then the problem is with your bigoted attitude, not our policy to allow anyone who self-identifies as a woman into our refuge.

I'm certain Women's Aid have the common sense to exclude male presenting people. I have heard of no evidence to the contrary.

this is very much in line with the letter i received back from women's aid when i wrote with my concerns. it did not make sense because it was impossible to work out what they meant by the word "woman".

also the phrase "transgender people" is misleading because the whole crux of why this issue matters for the safety and dignity of women and girls rests upon whether or not a transgender person was born male or female.

with reference to the equality act..... are they saying: "we see the bit that supports sex based discrimination for women and we support that and by the way that definition of woman includes trans identified males / trans women". and "we see the bit that says there must not be a blanket ban on transsexual people accessing services for the sex they identify with and we have decided that that also applies to anybody who identifies as transgender too"?

it would be completely lawful to interpret those two parts of the
equalities act differently, surely?