LGBT+ housing in Manchester to be built

I'm inclined to be positive about it but feel it could be a target for attacks. Shared co-housing where kitchens and some communal space is provided will enable older people who would otherwise be living alone to have social contact.

USA segregation was about excluding the marginalised group from the areas the privileged group used, and sometimes using machiavellian techniques in civil planning to do so. For example, a beach was kept white only, by adjusting the height of a bridge over the road used to reach it, so that it was inaccessible to school buses from the nearest black schools.

Even today, spaces that are nominally inclusive to all become default space for the group that holds the social power. We see this with mixed-sex toilets.

So sometimes, marginalised groups want their own services and spaces. And that's alright.

As always it’s the addition of T & Q with their immensely loose and wide ranging definition that brings the problem

How does identifying as a woman a few days week a la Pips Bunce and being lauded to the skies for it equate to the experience of a gay man in his 90s who grew up in a country where sex between 2 men wasnt legalised until 1967

It is human nature to want to be with people who have shared experiences; people don't like feeling like the odd one out! That's why there is a community of British expats living near each other in Spain, and why big cities in America have historic Italian quarters and Chinese quarters.

I can see why there would be a market for a retirement village that was specifically LGBT friendly, and I'm sure anyone who applies to live there will have fully considered the drawbacks.

Just to be clear I am joking.

Once you start looking at the target group, the definition expands to have more or less anybody who identifies , is an ally etc. I doubt whether many lesbians will opt for it. I would dearly love a women only project s an alternative.

I saw an interview with one of the men behind this. He talked movingly about his partner, who needed carers at the end of his life. Some of the carers were horribly homophobic, telling the dying man he was going to hell and treating him contemptuously. It was distressing and made his partner's last weeks harder. This was one of the reasons why the founder wanted to set up a community for older LGBT people. It seems reasonable to me to want to establish a welcoming and supportive place to live.

I think ones for clergy and military is mostly to do with funding, often government funds veterans care in some way and clergy are funded by their church, especially when they are from religions that don't marry

True. I'm not sure how those Manchester ones will be funded. Combination of private purchases / housing benefit and some sort of service charge I guess.

I've been working on delivering one of these, we've dealt with a lot of applications. can't say I've come across anyone suspicious or people clearly relying on self ID so far. it would be quite some game to try and get through all of the applications, assessments, meetings getting a mortgage etc to then go " hahaha I'm not even gay i was just kidding to live here and abuse people"

Not if my sister moved in...

Well you get residential homes for retired police, musicians, clergy etc, I suppose this sort of is similar, but obviously a step down from residential care.
I doubt it would be an oasis of peace either.

Identity politics is pretty much bringing things full circle. There is a reason race essentialists of the traditional kind love it.

Aren't there names for that sort of separatism?

Not sure it will be the Oasis of peace residents will be being sold!

There’s one in London too - for retirees I think.

I think they’ve just done a similar thing in Canada, not sure where I saw this info though.

This sounds like a great idea.

They should make separate housing areas for BAME people too.

Maybe the local councils could make separate schools, libraries, cafes and sections of public transport for different societal groups too.

I don't think it's a bad idea in theory, seeing as it provides care on site as well. But I do think the problems of self ID in the outside world will present there as well due to the T being in conflict with the LGB.

The only solid criteria I can find for the Brighton version of this is over age 55’s.

Only 10% of their residents identify as LGBT+.

As a landlord I couldn’t care less about my tenants sexuality or how they choose to present or identify or whatever. As long as they look after the property, behave reasonably and pay the rent on time.

I’d be interested to see the rent and maintenance fees in comparison to other properties in the area, are they going to be paying a premium.

I don't think its a good idea. My own point of view is that a mixed society or neighbour hood is far better. It would also worry me that the houses would be a target for hate crime.

How do you prove you qualify to live there?

It looks like the Brighton version is not exclusively for those who identify as LGBT+... The percentage of residents identifying as LGBT+ at New Larchwood has doubled (5% to 10%). We expect this figure to continue to increase.

www.housing.org.uk/our-work/diversity-and-equality/case-studies/anchor-hanover--older-lgbt-peoples-needs/