Trans paedophile stays in women's refuge for 10 weeks

I posted the statement from Leeds WA on the other thread and it is clear they are talking about deception because of name and "identity" provided, not about being trans. So this links to the thread about how prisoners can use this loophole as well.

But I have just checked their listing on Women's Aid directory www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-directory/ and unless I have missed it, they dont say their service is open to trans women, which I thought they were meant to do.

However, I suspect this is despite some feeling that there has been a positive advance in saving sex based services, gender id is now so imbeded in women services, that it is going to be hard to get rid of this erosion of women's rights.

I was reading a list of forthcoming Reclaim the Nights as part of the 26 Days of action against violence against women, many organised by Rape Crisis Centres, and most if not all talk explicitly about being "gender inclusive".

Which makes me think no amount of court cases, public meetings, or even conferences said to be about women's rights, is going to fundamentally change to loss of women's sex based services, unless more of us are prespared to work, volunteer or join the MCs of those services. And it will be difficult to shift the focus back on women, and the next generation coming will nearly all have been through an education system which at the very least has "be kind" to the concept that you can actually change sex.

(Just as a side note, there are no women's "shelters" in the UK, they are Refuges. I believe that they are known as shelters in the US.)

It's come up a few times in this thread that TW offend at the same rate as other men. Some evidence suggest that they commit sexual offences at a far higher rate:

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

(stats from: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/&ved=2ahUKEwj85-jWn5r7AhVVkFwKHbK_A5YQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1nfGy7VvUMk_Nrwv81ai3h - triggers download)

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6

Aside from the fact that this is wrong, how on Earth did you get from “transwomen are 0.6% of men” to “transwomen commit less than 0.01% of sexual crimes”?

Also this supposes that this specific group of males are completely representative of the wider male population in terms of offending risk. I'm not saying they aren't, but I think your certainty that their offending rate is the same is misplaced.

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6

No, the estimate the government use as given by trans organisations is 1%. It's based on a study of which percentage of a supposedly representative sample of the population was gender incongruent, so it can be scaled up or down for any number of people according to said study.

I'll just be rude back

Go ahead. I've not seen any reason to take what you say seriously. You keep flip flopping your position to suit your argument and "misunderstanding" when it suits. Like when you responded to Prion and said she was "cruel" for saying that male trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's shelters ever.

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6
Trans women = obviously less than that as the above figure includes trans men and non binary people.

100 men = less than less than one of them will be a trans woman. Most people have never even met a trans women let alone know one. Most abuse is by people you know, friends, family, coaches, etc. meaning the percentage goes even smaller. Pulled out of a hat maybe, but I know where the biggest risk lies and it's men in general including trans women. That's why we have safe guarding. Doesn't protect against family and friends, wouldn't have protected against mine.

Now I'm going to watch a film with my children. I'll come back if people are prepared to be civil and not slag me off on other threads and accuse me of things I haven't said. Otherwise, happy echo chambering.

Relying on Wikipedia to understand the kind of theories favoured by those who are most likely to edit the site, isn't a great idea. If you are going to do that though, read the talk page.

Here's what one user wrote in 2020:

As above, there's been concerns over this article for years, and its state before I stubbed it was complete nonsense, with no clear definition of queer theory and several contradictions, along with chronic journal spam- in fact, the entire article just seemed to be a series of nonsensical fringe theories. If someone is planning a rewrite, please make sure it doesn't become the nonsense it was before.

Yeah from these threads over the last couple of days, it seems there are activists on 'both sides' telling big porky untruths. It does no one any favours.

Yeah that what's 'presume' means, have a problem with English too? I've been nothing but polite on these threads despite provocation and I won't be bullied. I'll just be rude back, don't like it just ignore, I'll be watching a film in a minute so you can play be yourselves.

I have no idea what you're saying. It's basic probability there are significantly fewer of them. Not zero risk. Just because I haven't read about queer theory yet as I've been out with my children, doesn't make me stupid. I could say the same about you not getting basic maths but whatever.

What "basic maths" was I missing by saying that the 0.01% figure you pulled out of the air was likely to be untrue?

I have no idea what you're saying. It's basic probability there are significantly fewer of them. Not zero risk. Just because I haven't read about queer theory yet as I've been out with my children, doesn't make me stupid. I could say the same about you not getting basic maths but whatever.

Well you’d think they’d say ‘ don’t tar them all with the same brush’ if they meant…don’t tar them all with the same brush

rather than ‘it never happens’ which rather suggests that they dont think it ever happens

but I appreciate that i am, to coin a recent phrase, ‘old school’ and believe that words matter

I presume that rather than saying the 'it never happens' they are actually saying don't tar them all with the same brush.

You "presume" quite a lot, given that you have no idea. You presume wrongly in many cases. I've lost count of the amount of people who say these male people pose zero increased threat to women in a female space, and that there have never been problems with having them in women's spaces.

I'm willing to bet less than 0.01 % or none of that was by a drag queen or trans woman.

I think you'd lose that bet. They are just male, there's nothing special about them, unless you are using some narrower gatekept no true Scotsman definition.

The policy position of most trans rights activists is zero limits, acceptance without exception. They see it as a virtue. That's the foundation of the queer theory position you were having issues grasping earlier, but thought Wikipedia was the best source for.

No it is you that's misunderstood. That particular shelter takes trans women. That's what this whole thread is about because they wrongly allowed a convicted paedophile trans woman to stay there for ~weeks. The shelter stated it was wrong not because they were a trans woman or they mistakingly thought it was a natal woman. But because of the conviction.

I completely understand you think it should only be for women or transitioning/transitioned women, but that's not what they are funded for. It makes no odds to me as long as their are enough funded places for the people who need them. That's probably not the case as someone on here said there wasn't a place when they needed it. However there would be even fewer places if they hadn't accepted that funding that's obvious, no matter what your opinion. Take it up with the shelter if you disagree.

I've also already stated that all accommodation needs to be secure separate and safeguarded. If you like, I can list all the security processes and systems I would put in place, it all takes money though. These women are sometimes fleeing awful abusive stalker men. Security must be paramount.

I don't get what you don't understand, I couldn't be any clearer but for the benefit of doubt: that shelter takes men when they are transitioning or transitioned to trans women. They don't take men who aren't or haven't.

You may not 'believe' in it and have specific views which are different to mine, that's fine. I've stated I don't believe trans women are women in the sex sense, if they are women they are in the gender sense. You probably don't believe in gender. That's fine, I don't 'believe' in Christianity I still recognise it exists and that other people believe it.

I believe women and girls need to be kept safe from men. And I also know that most abuse is by men the women and girls know: family, friends, coaches. Every other thread on here is drag queens or trans women. That's not where the biggest risk is. A survey at work said 1 in 4 women had been sexually assaulted in their life time. I have. I'm willing to bet less than 0.01 % or none of that was by a drag queen or trans woman.

I'm aware trans women have done horrible things, this thread is just one of them. 99.9% of the horrible things are done by plain old men, so common place it doesn't even reach the news, that's if it even gets reported. I didn't report mine. And do you know why? Because the odds of it getting to trial let alone a conviction is minuscule.

I'm not the enemy here and I'd appreciate not being treated like one.

Because I don't agree that a funded separate trans shelter for trans women should exclude trans women

This is fundamentally a misunderstanding on your part. This is a women’s shelter with a section for trans(itioning) people who are women and therefore of the female sex. It is not a trans women’s shelter because those you choose to call “trans women” are men.

Safeguarding the women in the shelter involves excluding those men you want to have there, but you want them in there anyway, even if you are still prevaricating and trying to dance around it by claiming they are and aren’t women at the same time.

Anyway, you haven’t said anything interesting or different. You haven’t explained on what grounds you think a women’s shelter should shelter men, nor how you would properly safeguard the women in the shelter from the men you want there. You think men should be in a women’s shelter and can’t see beyond that.

Try some logic. Either they are women in your eyes, in which case separating them is transphobic, or they aren’t, in which case they shouldn’t be in a women’s shelter. There is no middle ground.

Right. Because I don't agree that a funded separate trans shelter for trans women should exclude trans women I'm arguing in bad faith. What because I don't agree with you? Newsflash people have different opinions to you, it doesn't make it 'bad faith'. Come on you've seemed reasonable up to now.

As I've said before, women transitioning or transitioned would still need to be safeguarded in a refuge. I don't have an issue with that why would I?

I don’t think Yelena is arguing in good faith. He/she is trying to ignore the fact that this is a women’s shelter. Any “trans wing” should therefore only house women, i.e. those transitioning FtM. If you place any males in there, no matter what identity they claim, or restrictions to access you put in place, then it is no longer a women’s shelter.

Agree with all points.

You stated that I had claimed trans women are women. I had not, so I said so:

I do not recall saying trans women are women. But if I were to say that it would be on the basis of gender not sex which plenty of people on here don't even believe in.

Tran women are clearly not the female sex, however lots of people believe there to be a gender called woman which includes trans women. I specified that lots of people on here don't believe in it, hence GC. It makes no odds to me what people call themselves, just that appropriate safeguarding etc. is in place.

And yes, a trans wing of a women’s shelter should be for transitioning or transitioned women.

Do you disagree? If so, which part do you disagree with and why?

So you believe the trans accommodation they specifically received funding for in a women's shelter would be for trans men only.

You want to put men in a women’s shelter then as you’ve already insinuated you don’t believe trans women are women - to quote you, “I do not recall saying trans women are women.”

Or are they women enough for the purposes of accessing spaces that state they are set aside for women, but not women enough to share a space with women?

Perhaps you could actually tell us what you believe as you appear to be prevaricating.

@Chersfrozenface my point was that NI are asked for in a DBS check which the poster said they weren't. NI numbers originally came up because someone said criminal checks couldn't be accurate if an offender had changed name or GRC. As NI numbers don't change that's obviously not true. And that point came up because I suggested the criminal checks the hostel had done obviously weren't done properly or at all. The article I read suggested they wouldn't have admitted them if they had known, I suggested criminal checks should be done if that's a rule.

There's no information if it's for trans people in general. If it includes trans men then surely they should be separated from the trans women for safeguarding. And yes it shouldn't have a shared garden.