Letter from FOVAS *DAMNING* for Stonewall

@Janie143 That would be the same for anyone who has changed their name for any reason.

I don't know if there are any extra loopholes in these circumstances.

I have been looking at:
Female Only Provision: A Women and Girls in Scotland Equality Report
secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.99/hjn.a49.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FEMALE-ONLY-PROVISION-REPORT-1.pdf

They argue for the Equalities Act to be strengthened to make it easier to maintain single-sex services for women and children where this is proportionate and justifiable, eg. refuges.

It could be argued that there also need to be strengthened provisions in the GRA and/or EA to protect women and children's services that include transwomen, due to evidence of increased risk to women and children.

@Peakpants had some ideas for tightening up the EA in this thread (more than one post):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266960-Daily-Mail-new-story?msgid=78358915

The discussion there is about this article:

"As more trans women who were convicted as men hope to follow rapist Martin Ponting into female wings, prison governors fear vulnerable inmates could be attacked"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html

MoleSmokes What stops a person from answering No to the Any other names question? Also DV service users do not have to undergo DBS checks

@Popchyk Ah! Sorry - I misunderstood!

Would that not be covered by a DBS check? Criminal records for all names are meant to be linked for the purposes of issuing a DBS Certificate.

If they have got a GRC then the DBS certificate should be in their new name.

If there are no previous convictions then, even without a GRC, the person can ask DBS to issue a certificate in the current name.

www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Guidance
Transgender applications
Guidance and information regarding the sensitive applications route for transgender applicants.

Published 21 August 2018
From:
Disclosure and Barring Service

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) offers a confidential checking service for transgender applicants in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is known as the sensitive applications route, and is available for all levels of DBS check - basic, standard and enhanced.

The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate, that could reveal their previous identity.

The sensitive applications team

If you are asked to complete a DBS check and have a previous identity that you do not wish to be disclosed to your employer and/or on your DBS certificate, you should call or email the dedicated sensitive applications team before submitting your application. The team is experienced in dealing with sensitive cases and will advise you of the process and what you need to do.

How to contact the sensitive applications team

To contact the sensitive applications team, please telephone 0151 676 1452 or email [email protected]. Please note, that the telephone number also has an out-of-hours answering machine where you can leave your details, and a member of the team will call you back.

If you are happy to have your previous identity disclosed on your certificate, you do not need to contact the sensitive applications team and can simply submit this information under the ‘any other names’ section of your application.

Please note, an applicant using the confidential checking service, will still complete the same application form as any other applicant.

Published 21 August 2018

MoleSmokes, I meant where refuges already say that they will be trans-inclusive. The refuges say that they will do a risk assessment on all people who are accommodated there. But they won't know the history of the male person with a sex offending or violent past. That's the whole reason that some of them want a new identity in the first place. They'll just turn up as "Tiffany Smith" with no history of offending under that name. Self-ID will make this sort of thing much easier of course.

Karen White was placed in a woman's prison because the risk assessment process was ignorant of the crimes committed under other names.

If prisons, with their supposed robust assessments and security, can't protect women, then what hope have refuge workers got of getting it right?

Of course, some refuges will have male members of staff (who identify as women) making these assessments in the first place. Who will be determined that male transgender people pose no threat to women. That already happens in Scotland. The manager of a women's refuge is a male transgender person who sees no danger from men towards women.

I agree - it’s pretty awful that Stonewall erased vulnerable women (and their children) in this. Aren’t they publicly funded and thus accountable to the public??

We have been notified by a reliable source from one of the organisations interviewed by Stonewall that they chose to deliberately leave out responses about concerns over women’s physical and mental safety.

This is shocking. Are any of these people willing to go on the record as the basis for a formal complaint?

I hope journalists pick up in this, maybe Janice Turner of The Times and Gina Davidson of The Scotsman, Shona Craven in The National (Scottish paper). I know women have tweeted them about it.
The role of Stonewall and other trans lobby groups in enforcing an ideology which seeks to totally transform our understanding of biology, female oppression and enforce rigid stereotyping on girls and women must be investigated. Not that I’m holding my breath.

Reading this made me cry. :(
I still can't believe we have to explain the need for single sex services in 2019.

@HigaDequasLuoff and @Mbwashenzi - I think this covers it, although it does not contain the specific clarification that "case-by-case" means "per service/facility" rather than "per individual".

Someone asked for official clarification and this was confirmed. "Case by case" doesn't mean that all single-sex services have to consider each transwoman on a case by case basis but that each organisation providing single sex services can decide for itself whether its core aims can be just as effectively achieved with transwomen included. Eg hair dressers, nail salons and knit&natter groups - probably fine actually. Domestic violence shelters are such an obvious example where transwomen shouldn't be included that it is used as an example in the guidance.

The example here is Changing Rooms:

fairplayforwomen.com/changing_rooms/

I am not copying and pasting because that page includes in-line links and images so best to view directly. It applies to single-sex provision and also the legal basis for exclusion of transgender people with or without a GRC at service level.

It's just so shocking to ignore the needs of the most vulnerable women in their society to prefer the men's "feelz".
This just reminded me.... they've stolen this and twisted it round in typical DARVO style.

The Lancaster pride video has someone in the crowd holding "Trans lives over Cis feelings".

It's just so shocking to ignore the needs of the most vulnerable women in their society to prefer the men's "feelz". Ugh. I hope the charity commission will act.

Ruth Hunt, this is YOUR legacy. We won't forget.

That is really good.

This bit really struck me

but now women are somehow to be taught that their trauma responses are not only irrelevant in the face of a mans feelings just because he believes he is a woman but are actually some kind of bigotry we can be educated out of.

risk assessments to "reasonably exclude" from services under the Equalities Act (whatever the wording, sorry bit dozy at the moment) were not at the individual level but at service level, ie. in relation to the purpose of the service. Refuges were mentioned as an example.

Yes this is right. Someone asked for official clarification and this was confirmed. "Case by case" doesn't mean that all single-sex services have to consider each transwoman on a case by case basis but that each organisation providing single sex services can decide for itself whether its core aims can be just as effectively achieved with transwomen included. Eg hair dressers, nail salons and knit&natter groups - probably fine actually. Domestic violence shelters are such an obvious example where transwomen shouldn't be included that it is used as an example in the guidance.

@Popchyk "So we're expecting women's refuges to make risk assessments, but crucially the refuge will not know the person's former name and crimes committed under that name. It seems unlikely that the person will volunteer that information. "

There was clarification, I am sure posted on Mumsnet somewhere but I might be wrong, that risk assessments to "reasonably exclude" from services under the Equalities Act (whatever the wording, sorry bit dozy at the moment) were not at the individual level but at service level, ie. in relation to the purpose of the service. Refuges were mentioned as an example.

Does this ring any bells with anyone??

This is heart-rending. I hope those better informed in how you report Stonewall's corruption will do so. I imagine just framing the complaint will be quite a process.

I have never worked in the area so am a total amateur.

It was published yesterday stumbledin but good point. Will ask for a date to be added

And this passage, on page 9 of this 31-page document by Stonewall, nearly made me throw up:

Several participants expressed concern that there are trans survivors who are being let down when seeking support, with some likening their experiences to the struggles faced by many black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) women, lesbians, bi women and disabled women seeking support.

So why don't Stonewall work to benefit said "black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) women, lesbians, bi women and disabled women seeking support as well, then?

Lesbians seem to be having a particularly grim time with Pride, at the moment.

The original Stonewall report, to which the OP response refers - is it this one available here?

www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/stonewall_and_nfpsynergy_report.pdf

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving

Thanks - I dont want to sound picky but it can be really important when trying to use evidence in support of a campaign.

And this needs to be shared.

I am astounded and relieved by the honesty and integrity of this report - in a good way. It feels like so many organisations are just being pressured to bow down to the thoughts, expectations and opinions of men these days, I'd forgotten how forthright women could be. And we need to be. These are desperate times for vulnerable women. This feels like second wave feminism again - centering women and children - it could not be more important.

Thank god for FOVA. Thank you to all the women who contributed to this. It's amazing. It shouldn't be necessary for women to have to fight for this all over again.

Having listened to so many govt officials, Penny Morduant, Nicola Sturgeon, Mairi Black, Maria Miller, MPs, children's charities, rape crisis centres and so on, officially tell us that self ID will not impact on women, I cannot tell you all how happy I am to read this - even though it is disgrace that it needs to be said

Any male who wishes to be in a refuge and have his identity as a ‘transwomen’ validated by vulnerable women and children has failed the values part of safer recruitment procedures and therefore should not be there.

Yes, totally.

stumbledin I'm not sure when it was written exactly but it must be recent as it quotes from Karen Ingala Smith at the Women and Equalities Committee in May of this year. She just shared it on Twitter a few hours ago so I'm guessing it's pretty recent.

Yes to what everyone else has said. Still just about halfway down that page.

This quote: It is a basic of safeguarding that children should not be used to validate the identities of adults.

That is really to the point, as well as all the previous points raised by pp. Heartbreaking, when women and children get used.

I'm carrying on reading. But bloody hell, it's a powerful and grim reflection on Stonewall by women survivors of male violence.

Does anyone know when this was written. I cant see any date.

It's just if forwarding it to MPs etc., it usually helps to say this is recent ie directly addressing something recent, rather than saying please see this report from last year.

Thanks