New housing development for LGBTQ people 55+

It would be unusual to move to an extra care scheme aged 55, even though that's technically the lower age limit. The large majority move to extra care in their 80s, most commonly following bereavement or worsening health. Some may move earlier, while still fit, and the extra care providers would love to have more of them (hence the over 55s marketing) but the reality is mostly elderly people.
I agree with the pp who said they may struggle to fill the places - a lot of older people's housing schemes struggle when they're trying to sell homes on leasehold so need a prospective buying who can afford the price (plus hefty service charge) at the right time in the right please. Adding in a LGBT criteria would no doubt make this harder, though Manchester is a big city, and I would expect they're end to welcoming anyone who considers themselves LGBT-friendly if they need to. B

@OldCrone thanks for that have read it all.

didn't find anything to worry or annoy me in that document, apart from the bit about the feminist movement. (Not as accepting- as they would like patronising bar stewards)

What is missing is any research in to T persons with advanced dementia, and people who care for them including HCP and carers and relatives. It all just negative assumptions.

The thing that has upset me is a person with advanced dementia lives in previous periods of their lives, at first a bit then a lot.

And as my family experience, and advice is, we go with that for the most part. Is where are they believe they are in their lives.

So if Belinda refers to their previous name then carers need to go with that, not some views from T people who don't have a Scooby doo about dementia.

It is just awful

This is the 'research' the document is based on.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309155550_Transgender_Mental_Health_and_Older_People_An_Appreciative_Approach_Towards_Working_Together

Two of the authors (Jenny Burgess and Debbie Roberts) are trans people featured in the document.

OMG i have just read this document from end to end.

Firstly if we are talking about dementia care it is now apparent to me that the T group of people would need specialist care.

My MIL has Alzheimer’s (still at home but getting quite confused now) so it struck a chord.

The document really throws up huge ethical nightmare that is not addressed at all.

For example if the patient begins to refer to themselves as Barry and is unclear and confused as to why they are dressed as a woman, wondering where there genitals have gone, the document seems to suggest you should assert their contemporary status when they may have no interest in that anymore. just to suit none demented TRA’s world view.

They are even suggesting that a demented patient might suddenly develop dysphoria.

There is simply no cited research in this document, it’s just made up bag of nonsense.

My family don't want MIL to go into care until its the last resort because it so understaffed with a lack of qualified staff.

So what are the odds of this document having anti effect at all

Truly a dystopian nightmare

This is the actual document that the 2018 BBC article referenced:

https://www.transvisie.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/supporting-me-transgender-dementia-final.pdf

i haven’t reread the whole thing today but a quick skim suggests it’s a mix of pragmatism and batshittery (no prizes for guessing which bits were written by activists and which bits were written by HCPs!)

There is some emerging evidence that transitioned people are more likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s

https://www.beingpatient.com/transgender-dementia-nonbinary/

(how that breaks down into transmen and transwomen I’m not sure but early hysterectomy also seems to be linked with cognitive decline? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702015/)

This is not my area of knowledge so just chucking some links up, hopefully someone with expertise can comment more!

The Beaumont Society (many decades old club for transvestite and transsexual males) used to campaign on this topic before they switched to the more fashionable gender identity stuff (which if real would mean no transitioned people with dementia would suffer this way as ‘they were born with an opposite sex brain’ so the new body would match).

This article is from 2018:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-43365446.amp

I don’t disagree with you but I suspect MCR council are deliberately shit-stirring.

Very likely. Just like there will be male transpeople who want to feel affirmed by being part of women-only communities.

and there are some trans people who forget they transitioned and need support coming to terms with missing body parts

Good lordy! Can you imagine that? Somebody with dementia waking up one day and thinking "who chopped my carrot off?" 😳

@IwantToRetire No idea. Why not try and set one up and see?

@Winnading let me guess? You are middle class.

Then that 40% Muslim community will just have to accept that the other 60% will be something else.

Really? Well my best friend was beat up everyday in school for being gay. A boy was killed in the park near me for being gay.

I have lost family members since being with my partner, I have volunteered in homeless shelters with a disproportionate amount of gay youth who were kicked out of their homes.

I have had people threaten to rape me in order to straighten me out.

How are you are as a gay person not aware of these things? And sure you can ignore questions but when you are out on public in a gay relationship it's not really something you can hide.

So yes it would have been given permission if it was not for LGBT people

I was saying would they get permission for an LGB project, or would they insist it has to be LGBTQI+ - that is why my comment referenced the LGB Aliance.

As mentioned there are many community housing projects around the UK based on some common factor, age etc., so was surprised at anyone questioning it.

But given this is FWR, the question is would an LGB housing project get planning persmission or would all the TRAs pile in with objections?

@IwantToRetire there are lots of new developments in manchester for housing complexes for older people. So yes it would have been given permission if it was not for LGBT people.

I totally agree with this.
55 is young. But plenty of evidence of people aged 70 plus suffering homophobia from other older people in older living communities.

Gay clubs which are open to the public can't generally discriminate against serving anyone on the basis of their sexuality either. People will self-select in, but they can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of sexuality.

In a lot of cases where there really are "rules" of that kind what you really have is something more like a private club type situation. Those can admit, or not, whomever they like, whether it is legitimate, or sexist or racist, or whatever.

You can sometimes have situations where discrimination is seen as being proportionate for a legitimate aim, such as in a clinic, or sometimes age based communities.

Things like "being around people who are similar to you" does not really fall under that. The thing to remember is that with protected characteristics, the exceptions can potentially apply on both sides - it's not weighted to try and redress some kind of balance. Every individualI is protected for discimination agsinst them on the basis of their sexuality, be it in a bar, or buying a house.

And following from that, if straight people had specific health needs that would best be managed by having a special clinic, it would be totally legitimate to have such a thing under the exceptions.

If just wanting to live in a community of people who share your sexuality is legitimate reason for gay and lesbian people which justifies discriminatory renting policies, it is also legitimate reason to have a straight community for people who just want to live with other straight people.

Yes, if they wanted to. Though it sounds like it's not going to be required, as such, to be non-straight.

My question was, how would the people running the place weight the applications, so that they would end up with the people they want, without falling afoul of regulations.

Sorry, have not read thread, but from posts I have seen am perplexed as to some comments.

There are already schemes like this up and runing, one is in London.

As there is one for older women.

The issue is that as someone has pointed out it isn't social housing, it is for those with money. (I think in giving planning permission there was some feeble statement about a % being social housing.)

There are many groups who have found ways of creating community housing, so not sure why this has caused comment.

Although as an individual I wonder if planning permission would have been given if the community it was aimed at creating by LGB. I bet it wouldn't.

Maybe LGB Alliance could start one. They do have some wealthy backers.

The blurb does say” …and allies” so I wonder if that’s how they’re getting around the restrictive intake. This basically opens it up to all.

Social needs are not the same thing

Living in a housing complex with like minded people is about social needs as well.

@Str8talkin Wanting to hang about with or have a community of people who have similar interests is just fine, my point is that does not constitute a “special care need”

“care needs” range from food provision, to getting someone out of bed, personal intimate care etc. So my question was what special care needs do LGBTQ++++ have that differentiates them from the rest of us.

Social needs are not the same thing

Secondly this is not a homophobic post just because you don't like the line of questioning.

Thirdly I personally believe that we should be able to live in the wider community, whomsoever we are. Without ridicule and fear, with one condition only and that is that whatever life you choose to lead does not impinge on other reasonable rights

The placement of this project is cause for concern not because it is wrong but because it could cause more civil and social problems, i don't believe in tribal communities and i mean any kind of segregation be it race or identity. It does not help anybody.

That’s a different issue though. It is legal to have a lesbian only group and exclude straight women. It’s not going to be legal the other way round. Eg a women’s friendship group excluding gay women.

Interesting isn’t it.. what about the straights!

It’s very difficult to have a lesbian only club nowadays. Most of the groups I know have gone underground to avoid the shit they get from homophobic transactivists for being single sex.