Karen Ingala Smith in Parliament now on single sex refuges

Karen Ingala Smith WPUK speech last year about the Women's sector.
Karen discusses the realities of the assessment process in refuges.

Yes SomeDyke, that is absolutely true.

One class of people says --* great, it's public that means I own it (so I can do what I want).

Another class says-- it's public that means I don't own it/have to share it, so I have to be careful/considerate.*

This is so true!!!

"What is it about public transport that leads so many of these 'advisers' to the government to think it's OK to view sex sites or act out inappropriate behaviour with no thought to the impact on nearby children or members of the public? "

One class of people says -- great, it's public that means I own it (so I can do what I want).

Another class says -- it's public that means I don't own it/have to share it, so I have to be careful/considerate.

Oddly enough, the behaviour of the first group often reinforces the reaction of the second. And the membership of a group is often fairly predictable based on objective criteria like sex. Funny that........

It was a case study of male entitlement and female socialisation in action wasn't it?

Yes. It's rare in a situation such as this for male entitlement to be on display, and so many people are pretending not to see it.

I especially like the Scottish Women's Aid woman saying "what if we phrase it like this?" and KIS saying "no, that is not acceptable because x,y,z"

Love me an assertive, calm, informed, articulate woman with a bloody-good-point, I do.

I watched this yesterday and found it very interesting. Karen was excellent - clear and concise (unlike waffly Janet) and got lots of really important points across. I agree that it's annoying that Diane James was included but it helped to demonstrate what the problems are, especially the complete lack of consideration given by James to the female service users and James' insistence that single-sex provision was essential but this included transwomen. As some of the MPs seemed keen to accept there were no issues, this was useful.

It was a case study of male entitlement and female socialisation in action wasn't it? With James imperiously staring down at Janet as if daring her to step out of line (and who sniggered at KIS during her testimony? Well done her for calling it out)

Whilst Janet simpered away desperate to please wondering who had the authority to determine what a 'woman' is and hand winging about power and coercive control and the 'patriarchy' whilst it glares down at her.

Feminine presentation changes nothing. The power imbalance is still there (and exacerbated where it causes people to completely lose sight of their moral compass [yes, capitulated women's sector - I'm looking at you]).

I am furious that Diana James was even invited to be on that panel. Furious. How dare someone ask for their opinion when it's the thousands of women who need single sex provision that need to be able to give their voices. The elephant in the room was Diana James presence, within 30 cm of Jane, Diana stared at her the whole time. How did we let a fox into the chicken coop?

James said it wasn't uncommon for women in their refuge to fall out and said something about women arguing who has had the worst abuse.

This statement is one among many things that James said that didn't ring true to me. I've worked in refuges for 25 years and, while women have massive arguments about cleaning, disciplining children etc., I have never, ever heard women arguing about who's abuse was worse. On the contrary, women have told me things like "I shouldn't be here...others have gone through much worse than me".

I think I can see why James was picked for this gig though - opposite end of the spectrum to Karen IS with the jelly-belly umbrella org representative sitting between them. WAFE seriously need to step up and pick their side...

Also, if WAFE are having problems working out what a woman is, their membership will be reduced by one when our renewal invoice comes in. It's fucking ridiculous that a supposed women's organisation can't bring themselves to say "adult human female" and commit to their remit of supporting service provision by and for.

Karen was magnificent - no less than I'd expect. Me, yelling at my laptop followed by Karen making the very same point. So measured, so reasonable, fully engaged with the process - and with respect. Jess Phillips' admiration for her was evident and Sarah Champion surprised me somewhat.

Fuck knows what they're going to do with this but, as a woman working on the coalface, I'm going to write to Maria Miller.

Who the f tells vulnerable women to show with strangers even if they are all the same sex? Who does that help?

Surely, gaslighting a committee of women MPs involves some kind of formal repercussion?
The fact that it was a website for women is a thought-stopper for Maria Miller.

There are actually very few women-only homeless shelters in the US, and I doubt I need to tell anyone here about what homeless women experience at the hands of males. There is likely not a demographic more victimized anywhere in the US.

Women in a US homeless project started legal action last year after being forced to shower with a male transperson who allegedly sexually harrassed them there:

abc30.com/homeless-women-harassed-in-shower-lawsuit-says/3514544/

I rather think the Women's & Equalities Select Committee is going to experience some embarrassment about accepting "Diana James" as a witness to its endeavour to explore the use of the Equality Act 2010 and its exceptions for single-sex spaces and services.

"Diana" complaining about not being able to access certain sex related sites on his train journey to the Select Committee meeting?

Surely, gaslighting a committee of women MPs involves some kind of formal repercussion?

This rolls back an Obama executive order issued late in his second term wherein any shelter accepting federal funding had to admit TW into women-only shelters. The guidance the Obama WH issued stated that shelter operators could know a TW was a women by their “appearance, behavior, and mannerisms.” Thus codifying female stereotypes as the definition of who was a woman. I’m quite sure this was a payback for Pritzker support at important moments in his rise.

There are actually very few women-only homeless shelters in the US, and I doubt I need to tell anyone here about what homeless women experience at the hands of males. There is likely not a demographic more victimized anywhere in the US.

Proposed US legislation which Diana James (witness at today's meeting about Women's services) thinks,

"This will lead to the deaths of trans folk, this is not an exaggeration or hyperbole, our brothers & sisters will die, and this seems to be the aim, not a by product of disinterest or the collateral damage of legislation but pure deliberate murder."

twitter.com/dianalouisej/status/1131283713231413248

from embedded link:
"Abstract:
This proposed rule provides that grant recipients, subrecipients, owners, operators, managers, and providers (Shelter Providers) under HUD programs which permit single-sex or sex-segregated facilities (such as bathrooms or temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities with physical limitations or configurations that require and are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or bathing facilities) may establish a policy, consistent with state and local law, by which such Shelter Provider considers an individual’s sex for the purposes of determining accommodation within such shelters and for purposes of determining sex for admission to any facility or portion thereof. The proposed rule permits Shelter Providers to consider a range of factors in making such determinations, including privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs, any relevant considerations under civil rights and nondiscrimination authorities , the individual’s sex as reflected in official government documents, as well as the gender which a person identifies with. The proposed rule does not dictate a required basis for making determinations other than that they be consistent with an overall policy. The proposed rule continues HUD’s policy of ensuring that its programs are open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2506-AC53

The volunteer co-ordinators of the Cornish refuge services may wish to consider training needs and review of policies.

I wonder, Jacky. [Scratches chin thoughtfully.] Nope, no idea at all. Drawing a complete blank here.

The serious question here surely is why does a man want to volunteer to have access to vulnerable women?

Andy from GWR is a star, short sharp and to the point.

James can take their fetishism elsewhere GWR has standards and cares about safeguarding even if James doesn't.

Thank you GWR.

I found this very interesting (but the player thing very annoying: couldn’t listen in background and forgot my place every time I used the browser for something else).

What is it about public transport that leads so many of these 'advisers' to the government to think it's OK to view sex sites or act out inappropriate behaviour with no thought to the impact on nearby children or members of the public?

As the point that Karen Ingala Smith made at the end, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that male-pattern behaviours are affected by assumed gender identities.

So flashing, bowsing porn on public transport, voyeurism, rape, etc

I am confused by Sarah Champion. I previously thought she had come out as the TWAW crowd, but I thought she said there that she's heard organisations "across the country" saying there are issues/they need guidance? (I think that's what she said).

Plus her having no truck whatsoever with Janet's "we haven't got round to finishing our draft of EA guidance in 9 years".

Has she recently switched on to the issues?

What is it about public transport that leads so many of these 'advisers' to the government to think it's OK to view sex sites or act out inappropriate behaviour with no thought to the impact on nearby children or members of the public?
Grim

However most of this is a toddler stage lash out against any boundaries, at all, ever. No one ever saying no, about anything. Any boundary creates a tantrum, no one else is allowed to have any need or justification for a boundary.

Yes, this.

But also I think the tweet is a message to GC women. James must have known that this debate would drive some GC women to check out their twitter.

If you were that desperate to peruse butt plugs on the train then you would have just switched to mobile data. Somebody wants women to know that they can scatterspunk their sexual prédilections where ever and when ever they like. The faux complaint about shaming is nothing but obfuscation and reframing because anything else would be to obvious as a sexual dominance display.