Trans paedophile stays in women's refuge for 10 weeks

That's irrelevant anyway as it's the individual who applies for a DBD check.

Not a prospective employer or service provider.

Do you really think a DV service provider will demand a DBS record from a client?

What exactly is this trans accommodation in Leeds Women's' Aid? Is just for trans women or also for trans men? How is having a shared garden not a safeguarding risk?

I see. So you believe the trans accommodation they specifically received funding for in a women's shelter would be for trans men only. Right. So you admit to excluding the trans woman even though the shelter is funded for that purpose and if the accommodation is made safe. Perhaps you will be emailing the shelter asking them to return the funding. Seems illogical and will hurt other women but okay.

need NI number for DBS?

If you have a National Insurance number, we must have this information to complete the DBS application. current address and your previous address(s) to cover the complete 5 year period. All Proof of identification must be the original document.

People keep saying this and I don't know if it's genuinely believed or if it's just politeness, or if it's a fear that telling the truth could be weaponised by TRAs. But the fact of a man wanting into women-only spaces is one of the clearest possible indications that he's a risk to women. Decent men don't want to infiltrate the spaces where women are vulnerable.

Yes, I apologize for my previous blanket statement. My intended implication was related to the study which showed that even men who went through medical transition continued to show male patterns of offending and therefore presented no less risk to women than any other man.

Of course things have moved on from there and we are now living through a period when men have received the message from governments and activists alike, that women can no longer exclude men from their spaces. Women have begun to object and any decent man listening has realised that, however much he wants to use women’s spaces, he should not do so as it causes alarm and distress. Those men who still insist on using women’s spaces with this background are very likely to be men who don’t care about women and their boundaries, safety and comfort, and in particular, predatory men who will use any loophole.

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.

The whole point is that the probability of any individual man being a predator is unchanged by the claim that he is female,

People keep saying this and I don't know if it's genuinely believed or if it's just politeness, or if it's a fear that telling the truth could be weaponised by TRAs. But the fact of a man wanting into women-only spaces is one of the clearest possible indications that he's a risk to women. Decent men don't want to infiltrate the spaces where women are vulnerable.

It's weird how the discussion gets all caught up in the validity of their identities or whatever, when all of that is totally irrelevant. The only important facts about these men are a) that they're men, b) who want into women's spaces. And b) makes them more likely to be dangerous to women than other men.

The refuge stated the accommodation was completely separate therefore no access, albeit with a shared garden, for safeguarding I would make sure no access at all including garden. As stated previously on the thread NI numbers don't change.

This isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is. NI numbers are not like social security numbers (and you clearly don't seem to know the difference) and you aren't asked for your NI number in a DBS, nor are they recorded against criminal convictions.

A shared garden is still an opportunity for assault. And it's not just about assault. It's about trauma and healing from that trauma in a single sex space.

Men don't belong in women'a refuges. Full stop.

Hmm “transwomen are women” should have been in quotation marks. It’s a mantra after all, not any kind of statement of reality.

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I would exclude all men from women’s shelters and that is what I have said consistently throughout. Criminal status is irrelevant to whether any given man is given access. All men are excluded.

If you don’t believe transwomen are women, why do you think they should have access (however limited) to women’s shelters?

Or are you saying all shelters should be mixed sex?

Your position is very unclear, perhaps because your use of language is unclear.

It sounds like me as if you want to have it both ways. Men are sometimes women, except when they’re not.

That's not what you said and you know it. You specifically excluded a trans women irrespective of conviction status from the shelter which was separated and therefore safe (apart from the garden which I've said should also be separate). You said that.

Single sex spaces are not transphobic as they are protected by the equality act. They are not excluded because they are trans, they are excluded on the basis of sex which is completely legal. 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.

I have said men should be excluded from women’s shelters and you are accusing me of cruelty.

If transwomen are women (as you claim) then excluding them from women’s spaces can only be on the basis that they’re trans. And if you exclude them because they are trans, then you are deeply transphobic.

I repeat, Trans accommodation is completely separate in the refuge. No access to single sex spaces.

This thread is about a woman's shelter. Which you have repeatedly said they should be excluded from, irrespective of their conviction status. Don't accuse me of things, it's an unpleasant tactic, in your words.

No I don't agree with excluding vulnerable with no convictions trans women from domestic refuges specifically funded and set up for them which are completely separate and with no access to other areas. How cruel must you be to think that.

I specified women’s shelters. Don’t try putting words in my mouth. It won’t work. Lying about what I said is an unpleasant tactic.

The probability of an individual is not the same as probability overall, that's not how probability works and I've already stated that. Yes I agree risk is the same at an individual level, I already said that and the stats back that up. That's why I said safeguarding for all. Yes I agree with single sex spaces. No I don't agree with excluding vulnerable with no convictions trans women from domestic refuges specifically funded and set up for them which are completely separate and with no access to other areas. How cruel must you be to think that.

The refuge stated the accommodation was completely separate therefore no access, albeit with a shared garden, for safeguarding I would make sure no access at all including garden. As stated previously on the thread NI numbers don't change.

However the probability is smaller because the number of trans women is extremely small in comparison to the number of men

The whole point is that the probability of any individual man being a predator is unchanged by the claim that he is female, or even undergoes medical transition.

Being fewer in number does not decrease the potential risk from any given individual. That’s like saying there are fewer professional football players than there are men who do not play football professionally, therefore the risk from football players is smaller.

And the whole argument only matters BECAUSE those in the articles I linked are 100% arguing that these men don’t present a risk and therefore must be allowed in women’s spaces. If you agree these men should not be in women’s spaces, then you presumably agree that they present more risk to women than other women?

So you agree then, that for proper safeguarding, men should be excluded from women’s shelters, even if they are given separate accommodation, thus the criminal record of this man is irrelevant because, as I originally argued, he shouldn’t have been there because he was male?

They didn't have access, the trans accommodation was separate. If trans accommodation is funded and set up why shouldn't they use it if they fit within the criteria, in this case no criminal convictions. They need to check that like they would anyone else. It seems they weren't checking anyone, natal women in the shelter could have been thieves or whatever they wouldn't have known because they weren't checking.

He had access because he was in a women's refuge. Even in a separate accommodation, he was still in a women's refuge.

How are they supposed to check criminal convictions when men can legally change their name and don't have to declare previous prosecutions?

Agree the risk percentage of a man or trans women being dangerous is the same, no one disputes that there are stats, hence why safeguarding still applies. However the probability is smaller because the number of trans women is extremely small in comparison to the number of men. In addition most abuse is by a man the women (or child) knows. However safe guarding must apply to all and single sex spaces protected.

Um I literally said it was fine, twice.

Risk is based on probability. That's how a risk calculation is done, more men higher risk. In addition most abuse of women is by men they know. I don't agree with men accessing women single sex spaces, however small the risk is.

transwomen are a subset of men, hence they are (should be) subject to the same assumptions re risk as the rest of men

its so bloody simple I don't get why people can't see this

How is that tone policing

You are tone policing the women on this thread. The other is irrelevant to that fact.

the biggest risk is and always will be men who make up 50% of the population (not all men are dangerous) not trans women who that article said make up 0.3% of the population

Can you tell me why you think men who claim they are women present less risk to women than other men? Or is your argument that there are very few men who claim they are women and therefore only a few women will be hurt if those men access women’s spaces?

I was furious reading this. This should never happen