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 think you may be right cromeyellow0
We know that trans activists don't have any compunction about maintaining their perceived rights over those of vulnerable women so it goes without saying that all those mega funded organisations like Stonewall will take on Women's Aid, Rape Crisis etc in a heartbeat in order to pursue their agenda. They wouldn't care at all about bringing these organisations to their financial knees (as they'll see them as full of TERFs).

"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..."

If it was someone arguing that they had the skills, the commitment, they knew the needs and the people well and this was a needless barrier to key work they could be doing..... well I'd listen to them. (Likewise if Lily Madigan showed the faintest interest in women's issues and a committment to representing women I'd have been prepared to listen.) But it isn't. I read on here today (sorry, lots of threads and can't find it) that the TIMs driving this actually are working to a plan of harassing and occupying refuge staff dealing with their tantrums to pull them away from their work. It's THAT childish, THAT shameless.

These men do not give a shit about the women in these places.

They have zero interest in helping them.

They have zero sympathy, compassion or interest in the work.

This is purely about rage at biological women having something they haven't yet appropriated, dominated and forced to centre TIMS, it's about knocking biological women and their needs/issues out of visibility.

#Stepthefuckback

Apparently India Willoughby is going to be discussing this on GMB tomorrow so be prepared for more misrepresentation of women

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/" target="_blank">Rape Relief vs. Nixonn^ - 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.

I think reading about that was my first peak trans moment. How can anyone not question the motives of that man.

Only people born female — or who have gone through the Gender Recognition Act process to change sex — can get a woman’s birth certificate. The government promised to consult on making the process easier, but has delayed the consultation amid growing controversy over the issue.

From the times story, so even currently male people can do this job? Obviously self identification is even worse, but I do think that even those with a GRC should be excluded, as they are allowed to be by law. And no decent transwoman would argue on this. Anyone who is male and would insist on doing such a job that is meant for an actual woman and specifies in the and that it must be a woman...is not a very nice person, at best.

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.

This was the reasoning behind the Canadian courts eventually ruling in favour of Vancouver Rape Relief's right to exclude the trans-identifying man who wanted to work there as a counsellor.

The court ruled that the needs of VRR's clients took precedence over the man's desire to work there, since VRR would not be able to fulfil its service mission if it had to employ men.

Nixon appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously maintained the previous decision by the Supreme Court of BC. They held that Vancouver Rape Relief Society was protected under the Human Rights Code, Section 41. This allowed the society to abide by its women-only policy, based on its rationale and interests in serving women.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

Thanks for all that info DonkeySkin. The postscript is that transactivists, though defeated in court, are still out for revenge against Vancouver Rape Relief, working through trade union federation to defund and blacklist it:
twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/951953059189424128

It really looks like a concerted effort to penetrate women's space.

Also DonkeySkin that was an intriguing suggestion that graduates of Gender Studies might be implicated. Food for thought.

This is just depressing. Refuges are not validation stations! Their purpose is not to reinforce anyone's sense of "identity".

The VRR vs Nixon case in Canada dragged on for years and could have put the organization out of business, so I'd like to spin this as Women's Aid attempting to avoid the same fate but a. I think it's more likely they their staff is full of handmaidens and b. a women's refuge that exposes vulnerable clients to men is useless. It would be bad enough that they admit trans women (super easy loophole for an abusive husband to follow his wife into the system there), but that could at least be justified as, well, abused trans women have to go somewhere (even though it should be somewhere else). This though? This is 100 pure validation. Clients don't benefit, it's not needed, the trans women seeking those positions could find a different job. It's everything to do with women being meant to serve as a backdrop that helps trans women feel validated and fulfilled, and who cares what the impact on the women is?

I'm not a big fan of Piers Morgan but this morning there was an item on this on GMB and he and Susannah Reid stood their ground against India Willoughby on this issue. Piers calling for common sense and insisting that it is not a stretch to be concerned that a predatory male would self identify as female in order to have access to a women's refuge. Susannah focused more on the perspective that for a vulnerable woman leaving an abusive relationship being around a person that appeared male however they identified would be very distressing. IW insisted that any trans woman seeing they were causing distress would 'back off', the damage would already have been done at that point. Why does that trans woman's experience trump that of a woman who has been abused?

I suppose that being recognised and accepted as A Woman for the purposes of accessing a Women's rape crisis centre as a counsellor must be the greatest validation for these men - knowing how unwelcome a man would be to these Women.

This is all about the men wanting to work in them to reassure themselves that they are Women, or that they have forced others to treat them as Women, and not at all to do with compassion or a desire to support the Women victims.

IW insisted that any trans woman seeing they were causing distress would 'back off'

What, like India did when the female housemates on CBB were obviously alarmed and uncomfortable with India's behavior?

IW insisted that any trans woman seeing they were causing distress would 'back off'

Not if their intention is to cause distress...

But totally agree. Why does a man have to be given the opportunity to cause an already vulnerable Woman such distress. The self centredness is mind boggling.

As someone who has been in a situation of receiving help from WA I'm horrified.
Tbh if someone like India who has fully transitioned had turned up I would not have had an issue. I have friends in the trans community trying to get on with their life quietly.
But for people who self ID to turn up that would have terrified me. More so from the point of view of worrying someone who was not trans self Identifying to get access to vulnerable women. I don't think it's that far fetched to believe it could happen. It already has in Canada.

I also worry about the kind of people who would apply for the job to prove a point rather than wanting to help or the activists who would apply and then kick up a huge fuss about discrimination till they brought these facilities to their knees if they were told they weren't the most qualified for the job.

We were talking about it with teen dd this morning and she said by the time she was an adult there would be truly mixed sex wards because someone will kick up an almighty fuss like the Top Shop changing room issue and everyone would fold to them.

Doctor the danger is that women will just stop availing themselves of these services if they can be provided by men as a means of validating those men.

I tell you, it's a funny old world when Piers Morgan is an unlikely women's ally!

If talking to a rape counsellor means possibly talking to a man who wants you to validate his genderfeels, then women will just stop talking to rape counsellors. Which suits a number of different groups of men, including the AGPs and MRA running the trans movement, nicely.

There's a reason Andi Dier wants Rose McGowan to shut up, and it's not just because of what she said on Ru Paul's show.

I've written to Women's aid outlining what how unethical it is to use rape victims as lab rats in this male-led social experiment.

"Tbh if someone like India who has fully transitioned had turned up I would not have had an issue. "

How would anyone know who has 'fully transitioned'?

Also, a GRC doesn't guarantee someone passes, or is a nice person.

I think that this policy would not only encourage MIT who want to cause distress to women and for validation, but also MIT who feel they are helping, but are blissfully unaware of the upset they are causing. And that's when everyone gets hurt, many MIT don't realise they really don't pass and women are tolerating them, and don't believe that they are women.

'I tell you, it's a funny old world when Piers Morgan is an unlikely women's ally!'

It sure is! You can add Nick Ferrari to that strange list too. Just heard a wonderful conversation on his show between Dr Nicola Williams from Fair Play for Women and a trans activist called 'Amy'. Dr Williams was fab - absolutely adamant that biological males have no place in women's refuges, that the feelings of TIMs do not trump the feelings of women, that this is just biological reality rather than bigotry, and says that she was well aware she will be labelled a transphobe for saying all this. Ferrari backed her completely. I don't often feel cheered by listening to Nick Ferrari's show but today is an exception!

BigDeskBob you can't know if someone has fully transitioned obviously if self ID is allowed. I just meant that the current situation is that those who have fully transitioned and have a female birth cert can already work there (I think) and that wouldn't bother me. It's the self ID side that worries me. L

Oh my life, Piers Morgan AND Nick Ferrari!

I am actually laughing out loud at this because I can't imagine many scenarios more ludicrous than women relying on the likes of these two to be the voice of reason in protecting our rights!!

For the first time in my life, I really have a sense of understanding what "falling down the rabbit hole" feels like. The whole thing is topsy turvy.

Doctor, but the GRC doesn't guarantee that the MOST passes, so can still cause women to feel unsafe. But more importantly, the GRA isn't a certificate of niceness. It does not take away the risk of assault.

Most = MIT

Yeah, the GRC is a red herring in this case. Jane Fae could probably get a GRA easily, would you be OK with him being the person welcoming you to a refuge? From the perspective of the women using the service the key issue is male/female, not has/does not have piece of paper, and expecting them to be OK with male people who have made the effort to get a GRC imposes an unfair emotional burden on them at a time when they're already in crisis.

twitter.com/lisasevern/status/960322924141072384?s=17

As you can see transactivists know full well that the presence of men in refuges traumatises abused women. They just think exceptions should be made for them.