New housing development for LGBTQ people 55+

Do you not understand that if the law allowed this, you could make the same argument in the other direction. Someone could create a housing development and only rent or sell to straight people, or people of a certain race, or ethnicity. Which might be "lovely" but is clearly illegal, whether they are 25 or 55.

Is that really true though? You can have sexual health clinics just for gay people. Yet that doesn’t mean the general clinics on other days are for hetero people only to the extent that they exclude lesbian and gay people. They wouldn’t be able to as that would likely be discrimination without legitimate/ proportionate aim.

Also there are gay/lesbain clubs or support groups that are LGB only. Yet ‘straight clubs’ don't exclude gay people. So yes, sometimes the discrimination can legally go one way only.

I also don't understand the issue with the area being 40% Muslim. Are pp's saying that LGBT people shouldn't live in Muslim areas?
And if an LGBT community can't be safe in numbers in those areas, what must it be like for isolated gay men and women? Surely that proves the need for schemes like this?

One of the reasons I frequent these boards is because I believe that women have a right to assert our boundaries and have our own spaces.
I was also upset that whenever I brought this up in real life, women's experiences of misogyny and abuse were dismissed, minimized or I was told it was just one of those things that couldn't be helped.
To my mind this thread does exactly the same to LGBT people- they shouldn't get their own spaces, their needs are unimportant and if they get abuse or are isolated that's just tough luck.
Abuse in later life and in elder care is a massive issue, and like all abuse will be targeted more against women, gay people, people of different races etc.
I think this sounds like a great scheme. I hope it spreads to women only facilities too, I'm quite sure a lot of sexual abuse goes on in care homes as well.

The Daily Mail shit-stirring again. Here is a link to the actual project.

"The residents will be required to be aged 55 years or over, with the majority of residents being members of the LGBTQ+ community from Manchester. Living alongside allies and other members of the local community, the aim is to provide an open and inclusive, physical and psychological place of safety for the older LGBTQ+ community and a welcome addition to the Whalley Range area.The site will also include a neighbouring separate shared ownership block consisting of around 40 apartments, a mix of 1 and 2 bed apartments, delivering affordable homes to first time buyers and eligible customers, helping to address emerging affordability issues in places such as Whalley Range."

They are a housing association, so they are rented. It's entirely legal to restrict extra care housing to over-55s, and it's entirely legal to discriminate in favour of minority groups if there is a legimitate reason to do so, but non-LGBT+ people are not excluded. Baddenock either doesn't understand equality legislation or is deliberately lying about it.

No, they won't exclude transgender people to appeal to GC people.

https://www.greatplaces.org.uk/?news=great-places-launches-consultation-for-first-of-a-kind-purpose-built-majority-lgbtq-extra-care-housing-scheme-proposals

Most housing for over 55 will have older people of all ages ( late middle age through to very elderly) depending on their needs. Extra care housing ( which is what we are discussing) tends to be set up with carers or at the very least a manger on site for support. Extra care schemes are in huge demand in my locality and we have not nearly enough of them, and most residents will have early stages of dementia or other physical health conditions ( to get a place you would need to show need).

Whilst I have no doubt that many older people have always been tolerant and inclusive of others, it is my experience that there are those who as their conditions progress do not show the same.

I think to be upset by a scheme that would care for and protect these individuals, who I believe are at increased risk of abuse in this setting, is unnecessary.

There are many things that I get frustrated and angry about every day but this isn't one of them.

What experiences do you think that gay or queer people have that straight people dont?

I'm sorry is that a joke?

How about being murdered, raped, assaulted, imprisoned, tortured, denied employment, mocked, shamed and ostracised for their sexuality?

^^All within living memory in the UK btw

Well done for assuming I'm straight, even here on the internet, where you cant even see me.

People say all kinds of shit

why yes, yes they do. And you choose to answer.
Maybe its my resting bitch face, I dunno. But I can walk around with anyone and if someone says anything homophobic, I shrug it off. Because again, I dont care what others think about me and me replying will not make them less homophobic.

One chooses to come out for a reason. I never came out, I just got on with my life. Being queer isnt different. Plenty of queer people out there. It's really not special to be queer or gay. What experiences do you think gay or queer people have that straight people dont?

All the things straight people do, I too have done or am doing.

I don’t really understand this is concrete terms. Is this using public money to subsidize and support the scheme?

If so, I think using public money to subsidize housing should be for those most in housing need, or most in supported housing need, which would not be LGBTetc.

If it’s a purely private scheme, there would be no objection from me.

Which I imagine is this is why they are saying it will be "majority" lgbtq+. They are allowed to target whomever they like with marketing marketing - people can self-select in. I suspect the tricky part will be in how they prioritize applications where the applicants are straight.

All a straight couple has to do is say that they’re queer, or pick from an infinite number of genders.

Elaine Miller has talked about this in detail, not only about the distress of the transitioned individual, but the rules for carers that make caring for transitioners with dementia very difficult. I can't do links on phone, but she has done several you tube videos.

Do you not understand that if the law allowed this, you could make the same argument in the other direction. Someone could create a housing development and only rent or sell to straight people, or people of a certain race, or ethnicity. Which might be "lovely" but is clearly illegal, whether they are 25 or 55.

It might be nice if we could rid society of those who think or say things we don't like, but we don't, in fact, have any right to do so. We are not guaranteed a life or neighbourhood or town with only "lovely" people.

I have never heard of a religious organization creating a commercial, or even socially funded housing community, open to the general public, as long as they were straight.

They do have private communities sometimes, owned by the religious groups themselves, where members of the religion reside together.

There are some pretty strict rules about circumstances which allow restrictions on the sale of properties on the general market, or rentals on the general market.

Which I imagine is this is why they are saying it will be "majority" lgbtq+. They are allowed to target whomever they like with marketing marketing - people can self-select in. I suspect the tricky part will be in how they prioritize applications where the applicants are straight..

I don't think there is anything like a disproportionate housing issue that would justify this. There's nothing particular to gay and lesbian people structurally that makes it harder for them to access housing that is appropriate, it's not like people with physical or intellectual disabilities, for example. In so much as this happens it's going to be about discrimination by individuals which is illegal and not remedied by creating specialist segregated housing so people acting illegally can go on doing so.

I suppose I'm also a little doubtful on the face of it from my experience. Many of the older gay couples I know are actually very well off comparatively, many have done very well on the property ladder and have certainly not had high end housing developments or condos do anything other than chase their dollars. Of course that's not everyone, lower income people struggle more, but that's really all lower income people.

I am super-skeptical that they could justify this as proportionate if it was challenged.

There's a couple of these schemes in the south now, ive worked on one.
they're very popular and I'd love to be able to have one near me as and when I get to that age.

@Josette77 And@Winnading i dont want to argue with you i want to give you space to hear you but i dont see how having closed communities break down barriers they create them.

They'll never fill it. Extra Care requires a mix of low, middle and high care needs to work as a community and local authorities can't get the mix right when the flats are open to all. There's a large number of voids in Extra Care housing as people don't understand the concept including a lot of those who work in local authority H&SC. There is no barrier to those from any community accessing EC for all and many LGBT+ of an age where they can access E.C. don't want to be treated any differently. Back of a fag packet idea with no concrete evidence that it's required or will work in practice.

When you're gay or bi or trans people do question you though. Coming out to people is still a big thing.

I'm guessing you're straight since you say you opt not to answer.

Well when you are with another woman you can't just ignore. It's clear as day and people comment. Sometimes people say homophobic slurs. Sometimes people think you need a " real man". People say all kinds of shit.

I'm not sure why that would be debatable?

As for sharing experiences? Yep, being queer is different. We have different experiences and it's lovely to be around people who share similar experiences.

I think this is a lovely idea.

people here are firstly thinking in the here and now, and about much older people with care needs.

And secondly thinking it is for older (needing support and care ) for lesbians and gay men

Neither which is correct.

having read the blurb this proposal is not about the elderly with care needs it is about creating a community for LGBTQ++ and their allies, all of whom must be over 54. So that is anyone 55+ in reality.

So what is the rational behind that?

And are these LGBTQ people going to feel safe slap bang in a predominantly conservative Muslim community.

its a phrase i am not a fan of - virtue signalling, without any concern for the consequences.

Imagine not having to continually explain your life choices and experiences to others you are living with

this come up from time to time. Who has to explain anything? To anyone at all?

I've managed a lot of years not ever mentioning my life choices or experiences to anyone, I've certainly never explained them.
I've been misgendered, I've been asked intrusive questions, I've had my sexual orientation assumed. I've never given a shit. If I'm asked intrusive questions I say oh I dont talk about it. If I'm misgendered, I shrug it off, who cares what someone thinks. If someone mentions my sexual orientation I dont answer, again I give no shits what people think of me. They are welcome to assume i eat kittens alive, what they think of me is none of my business.

So really no one has to explain anything about their life choices or experiences. Just shut that shit down.

As for this housing thing, fine, but dont lose your shit when all other demographics want the same.

Would a similar development of LGB without the T or Q housing be allowed?

My point being once discrimination is allowed, who get to decide what discrimination is allowed or not?

This is another thing. Very different issues and harder to meet others. It’s a lovely idea. I just worry about it being targeted :(