Women’s Aid considers employing self-declared transwomen [i.e. men] in women's shelters

[cromeyellow0]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womens-refuges-may-get-transgender-staff-3txhcr8mb

The review of women’s refuges, which is not dependent on any government reform, was agreed last week by the board of the charity Women’s Aid, a federation that oversees more than 300 shelters.

Mary Mason, the board’s interim co-chairwoman, said: “We have agreed to start a review of our whole transgender policy, including the possibility of employment for self-declared transgender women without a gender recognition certificate.”

Describing it as “an extraordinarily difficult discussion,” Mason said the review, by Women’s Aid’s director of services, Nicki Norman, would take three to four months. Another board member, Sarah Forster, confirmed the move.

Where did the impetus come from? It shows yet another institution "getting ahead of the law", as a Labour MP would phrase it.

I am not on Twitter but it would be great if someone could respond to a comment on the vicar's twitter @sallyhitchiner:

LeicesterLGBT Centre tweeted in support of the vicar's abysmal newspaper review on BBC Breakfast this morning. Someone replied that "There is a massive problem with anybody who has a penis entering a women's refuge. Women are raped by penises not Gender identities".

In response, someone else has put: "Interesting view point. As a hopefully caring and thoughtful man I find it rather sad that you would judge me or others by my body parts rather than my morals...incidentally, how many incidences of Transgender women sexually assaulting another woman are you aware of"

I googled it and include a link here in case it causes anyone else to peak trans. I couldn't find a Guardian article (funny that), the story was broken by the Times, so behind a paywall, so here's a link from the Pink News. Enjoy the irrelevant bit at the end about how hard done to trans people are by the NHS.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/31/nhs-apologises-for-allocating-trans-nurse-for-smear-test/

It makes it really worrying that Amber Rudd on Andrew Marr today said they would be consulting Women's Aid re safe places for women.

You would think Women's Aid would be the best organisation to consult -but if it really believes in employing trans men then that will be another nail in the coffin of women's rights.

I am going to get a subscription to The Times. They are the only paper willing to stand up for women at the moment, and deserve to be supported.

I think I'm also going to have to vote Conservative, as Labour seem to have thrown women under the bus.

I cautiously stuck my head above the parapet on FB because of this. It did not go well!

I feel like I'm talking a different language for simply saying that these services need to be built around the women accessing them.

Men, women and trans people need seperate trauma therapy and health services.
I cant believe I have to say that despite all the evidence that shows men override and talk over women. Despite the fact that PTSD exists.

Someone earlier mentioned convents
How long before a trans woman demands the right to live in one?
I wonder what that silly cow of a vicar would think of that?
As Jeff Goldbloum said on Jurassic Park ( paraphrase) people spend so long thinking about how they COULD they don’t actually consider whether they SHOULD. Odd quote for this situation I realise but it seems to fit.

Aoife assumpta hart used to be obsessed with becoming a nun. Unsure if that's a tra who is still around

cor, TRAs vs the Catholic Church. A treu clash of religion - who would win?

Morningrunner and Patodp thankyou, there would be a certain irony in following your advice Morning (don't want to say more than that) and I shall be looking at the policy and the H&S regs very carefully.

Maybe we should push for penises in convents and vaginas in monasteries ..
Vaginas for the pulpit!

I can imagine the placards..

Since when do we centre supporters’ rights/feelz over victims’/survivors’. Since when has the empathy gradient turned so completely around?

I think this is the thing. The idea of it being a "human right" to work in a women's refuge strikes me as pretty weird.

I'm waiting for the transagers, a cross over group which seem to be gaining numbers, to start campaigning to be allowed back to school.

Are you a middle age dude who missed out on girlhood, all the fun of the locker room shenanigans and pillow fights at sleepovers? Don't worry just start again as your true, authentic, twelve year old self. It's your human right!

Well, fucking hell. There's literally no point in having something called a women's refuge that isn't a women's refuge, is there?

...what would be the legal position, do you think, if we started a refuge for people with vaginas? Asking for a friend.

I am furious. Can't believe this is even being considered. Despicable.

I don't know... somehow what's popped into my head is shit like this happens not only because of male-focused agendas, but because we don't support each other as women. If numerous women aged 18+ committed to pledging just £1 per month, how much would that raise?

Is it worth starting a crowdfunder? Maybe fund a legal challenge to this?

The law allows exemptions, in limited circumstances, for organisations to employ only women for a particular role where it is a general occupational requirement. This can include TIMs who have legally changed their sex. As far as I am aware, there is no provision in law to restrict a role to women only 'plus a few men that we have decided to let apply'. Either the role is for women only (including TIMs with a GRC) or it is open to all men.

I'm sure I read that the exemptions allow even TIMs with a GRC to be excluded.

I think Solace are women only. And Nia.

Also Freedom Programme Charitable Trust. They've tweeted this today
twitter.com/columbascave/status/960123174297001984.

...what would be the legal position, do you think, if we started a refuge for people with vaginas? Asking for a friend.

Under the Equality Act women do already have a legal right to women-only spaces and services. There are exemptions in the act and also in the original GRA (which women fought for and won in 2004) which mean that even a TIM with a GRC can be excluded if it is to achieve a proportionate aim i.e. in this case safety and privacy. The problem is that many organisations aren't applying these exemptions. They are actually breaking the law.

Article on Fair Play
fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

And this
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/handout_EA2010.pdf

girlscout 72, I have made my first ever complaint to the BBC thanks to your link.

Refuse

Good for you! I intend on doing a google of their trans coverage of late and submitting several complaints, I know if you do a written complaint online, it's circulated the following day in summary to ALL producers within the BBC. I have heard a whisper that they are swamped with complaints and are reviewing their 'balance' of trans reporting. Seriously, if you see something and know it's inaccurate, COMPLAIN. We need to speak up.

Thank god for the freedom programme though eh? What fantastic tweets!

To the best of my knowledge, this is not about funding. There was a trend a few years ago to make government funding for refuge and outreach support conditional upon providing services for men too. This trend has gone away as a) most outreach services have always offered support to men b) lack of funding means that dispersed properties are often used rather than multiple occupancy refuges which are suitable for male victims anyway c) men very, very rarely need refuge accommodation. Trans has always been included in the LGBT classification as a minority group requiring special effort to engage and support.

I haven't seen any bids conditional upon employing men or trans women.

My hope and sense is that WA are applying due process and will make a good decision. But maybe I'm being naive.

I have now spent the day catching up with wtf has been going on!
The world has gone mad.
I am not a CIS
I am a woman, I have boobs and a vagina . A woman doesn't have a penis.

The problem is that many organisations aren't applying these exemptions. They are actually breaking the law.

are the exemptions a legal requirement on certain services and organisations - or do they offer an option for those services if they choose to apply them?

The AWS are different, as the law was specifically written to define those - but as I understand it, the exemptions in the EA are there to be used by organisations as they feel appropriate, I didn't think that they required to, iyswim.

"Since when do we centre supporters’ rights/feelz over victims’/survivors’. Since when has the empathy gradient turned so completely around?"

"I think this is the thing. The idea of it being a "human right" to work in a women's refuge strikes me as pretty weird."

Yes to this, a hundred times. It is so bloody obvious. (Or should be). Our local refugee aid charity in my small town states very clearly that they only want people with certain qualifications (e.g. TEFL) for actual volunteer work, but that people without those qualifications who feel strongly are welcome to help out by fund raising. No-one turns round and says "but that's non-expert-exclusionary". If they genuinely care, they help out in the way that is most appropriate, given what the charity needs.

But somehow this common sense gets suspended in the face of the all-conquering trans jugernaut. "I really feel I can bring something important to counselling women whose PTSD is so severe they feel triggered just by being in an enclosed room with a male body, and my feelings trump their fears..."

What could be driving this is fear of litigation. Although women's refuges would be the most compelling case for exemption under Equality Act, I doubt that any shelter would be able to afford the many tens of thousands of pounds in fees. A big organization like Stonewall could easily force them to concede.

You could well be right about fear of the cost of litigation, crome

Rape Relief vs. Nixon - the case in Canada which dragged on for 12 years and although Rape Relief eventually won in the Canadian supreme court, it damn near bankrupt the rape crisis centre.

Chances are that were such a case to be heard now in Canada, the court decision would go the other way.