Welsh Women's Aid - Trans Inclusion Statement

[AnitaLovesVictor]

They seem to be upholding the need for women-only spaces under the EA exemptions.

Welsh Women’s Aid’s transgender policy (updated in 2016) commits to supporting the realisation of rights for trans people, and the delivery of trans inclusive services and support, on the basis of self- identification. In Britain, more than a quarter of trans people in a relationship in the last year faced domestic abuse from a partner. Specialist services in Wales receive policy guidance, training and support to ensure trans people who have experienced abuse are supported to access services that best meet their needs. This means that anyone identifying as needing women-only or men-only support services (e.g. refuges) or as needing any form of support and advocacy in the community, should be offered a service that meets their need for support to access safety and to recover from abuse.

Welsh Women’s Aid recognises that all forms of violence against women share characteristics that are linked to gendered social norms and expectations. Providing a gender-responsive service that is sensitive to the gendered dynamics of violence is a crucial component of specialist services. As such, this includes offering women-only services where needed, providing safe spaces that are only accessed by women, and putting all survivors of abuse at the centre of the response provided.

Welsh Women’s Aid recognises the global and national evidence that perpetrators of violence towards women and men are, in the vast majority of cases, men, and that violence against women, including domestic abuse and sexual violence, is a cause and consequence of inequality between women and men. Victimisation and perpetration of such abuse reflects and reproduces the gender order, and is a fundamental barrier to achieving equality between women and men.

Welsh Women’s Aid supports the continuing need for the provision of specialist services that offer women-only or BME-only support, which is vital to alleviating violence against women, as a form of discrimination, and which is lawful under the Equality Act 2010. This doesn’t detract from the need for support, safety and justice for all survivors of abuse.

Good news, I think?

Don't see anything wrong with this statement. I think it's good news, it includes trans people who need the service and upholds the EA which means TRAs are probably going to be all over this. Which would - incidentally - confirm what you're thinking.

The first sentence:

Welsh Women’s Aid’s transgender policy (updated in 2016) commits to supporting the realisation of rights for trans people, and the delivery of trans inclusive services and support, on the basis of self- identification.

Doesn't that mean that they think 'self-identifying transwomen are women'?

Meant to link to the full statement:

www.welshwomensaid.org.uk/2018/04/transgender-inclusion-statement/

That's what's a bit worrying, OldCrone.

Now I've read it again: This means that anyone identifying as needing women-only or men-only support services (e.g. refuges) or as needing any form of support and advocacy in the community, should be offered a service that meets their need for support to access safety and to recover from abuse.

So does that mean that anyone that says they are a woman, can gain access? Or is it leeway to treat on a case by case basis.

It's the last paragraph that is the most important - women-only services and saying this is legal under EA.

"Welsh Women’s Aid welcomes proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act to ensure that current processes to change birth certificates and other identity documents operate as smoothly as possible without pathologising or discriminating against trans people. We are committed to working with our sister umbrella organisations in the UK and with other equality organisations in Wales to ensure that any new processes are appropriate, fair and have no unintended consequences. Trans people’s rights and women’s rights are human rights which intersect, and we stand united against our shared experiences of misogyny and male violence. We support the need for full discussion about the impact of proposed reforms and for consultation with women’s services, including on how proposals will impact on existing exemptions which allow for single sex services and on the need for disaggregated data to monitor sex and gender-based discrimination." (my bolding)

That's the only bit that might mean they back single-sex services. Honestly, the rest of it is woolly enough that it could mean for or against.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that the statement is as supportive as it seems:

"Welsh Women’s Aid’s transgender policy (updated in 2016) commits to supporting the realisation of rights for trans people, and the delivery of trans inclusive services and support, on the basis of self-identification. . . This means that anyone identifying as needing women-only or men-only support services. . ."

This illustrates why the word 'woman' matters.

I agree, there seems to be total confusion in the word 'woman', unless you agree that it's meaningless.

In this case, I think the organisation has decided that women and girls need re-educating, rather than protecting.

If you read their Transgender Policy, it sets out what they include in the 'transgender definition' including 'poly-gender', 'cross dressers' and 'other ways of identifying gender'.

It then states: "The Equality Act 2010 highlights that single sex/gender specific services can only provide a different service or refuse a service to transsexual people under exceptional circumstances and these circumstances are individual to each case - it is illegal and not acceptable to instate a blanket ban.

Whilst this legislation only applies to transsexual people, this policy extends to all who identify as transgender.

If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation."

Not good news then.

Woman has officially lost it's meaning. If women's aid are on board with the new world order it makes me seriously worry that I have got this all wrong. Someone please explain to me why we're not wrong and bigoted in refusing to accept that men are actually women...

Considering they don't let male children over a certain age stay in refuges - but have introduced a policy where a 6ft fully male bodied man identifying as a woman gets in?

Or would they exercise the exemption then?

this is very much in line with the letter i received back from women's aid when i wrote with my concerns. it did not make sense because it was impossible to work out what they meant by the word "woman".

also the phrase "transgender people" is misleading because the whole crux of why this issue matters for the safety and dignity of women and girls rests upon whether or not a transgender person was born male or female.

with reference to the equality act..... are they saying: "we see the bit that supports sex based discrimination for women and we support that and by the way that definition of woman includes trans identified males / trans women". and "we see the bit that says there must not be a blanket ban on transsexual people accessing services for the sex they identify with and we have decided that that also applies to anybody who identifies as transgender too"?

it would be completely lawful to interpret those two parts of the
equalities act differently, surely?

I'm certain Women's Aid have the common sense to exclude male presenting people. I have heard of no evidence to the contrary.

Not good news at all. Woman means anyone who was born female PLUS anyone who self- identifies as a woman.

"If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation"

ie if you are a female bodied person who objects (or is terrified of) to a male bodied person in a refuge, then the problem is with your bigoted attitude, not our policy to allow anyone who self-identifies as a woman into our refuge.

It gets ever more depressing.

I can see this going the way it did originally: biological women will fund and set up refuges for biological women because there will be biological women no longer able to use shelters because TIM insist they are a higher priority than everyone else. The difference will be that biological women will have to start using specific language about the group serviced by the shelter, such as people with ovaries.

(I know, I know, cue the cries of 'are you going to do an ultra sound on the door' - as if it would be needed.)

And we still have to pay the tampon tax.
The govt should introduce a similar tax for men to pay. In the interests of equality and all.

Not good. All the skirting around the issue without giving a simple straight answer.

So they can seperate by sex as per the EA but that is pointless if men can say they are women and they have to be allowed in.

surely women's aid know how trauma works?

surely they know that humans intuit sex from a distance and that if a traumatised woman has a fear of men (for the sake of clarity - because she has been repeatedly raped / beaten / controlled etc by a man or men), her body will react to men with a fight / flight / freeze response outside of her cognitive awareness.

the freeze response is so often overlooked ("why didn't she fight back?" "why didn't she scream?") and i imagine could be contingent with the fact men are usually physically stronger and more likely to be in positions of power and authority.

any amount of "education" simply cannot fix the body's traumatic response. education works with the cognitive, rational part of the brain. years of therapy aren't even guaranteed to fix trauma, unless very specifically designed to do so. exposure to male bodied persons in a place a woman has been told is for women is potentially re-traumatising and a violation of trust, consent and boundaries.

many of those women accessing refuges will have experienced multiple trust and boundary violations before they even get there. some of those women may not have ever experienced a relationship with healthy consent and boundaries. women's aid should be leading the way not colluding with the dismissal of the needs and concerns of traumatised women.

they should also write there policy in clear language that any person could understand.

*their not there

If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

Wait, what? A woman turning to Women's Aid Wales who has PTSD related to the male body derived from surviving DV - a very common presentation - will be educated? Who knew? The treatment for PTSD is a bit of education! Tell the NHS! Huge savings on budget available!

"If circumstances arise in relation to other service users’ discomfort around sharing services with transgender people, services will work to support and educate them in the same way as they would around equality issues generally, such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation."

This is a worrying line. It could mean that if a transman uses a refuge (since they are female), then others who are discomfited by having someone who presents as male will be educated....just as would someone who had issues with a butch dyke, or BME woman, or a muslim woman. Which would be fair enough. But could also mean that any woman who objects to having a male-bodied TIM in the refuge will also be re-educated.......................

Are they being deliberately obscure (to confuse or deflect criticism?), or is it just that if you try to write a policy that accepts the current trendy meaningless non-definition of woman, then this meaningless nonsense is what comes out? They are clear about ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, but nowhere clear about sex, gender identity, or gender presentation.

Sex matters, here more than almost anywhere else, yet they seem to have totally avoided mentioning it, and just waffle on.............

I am so fucking sick of doublespeak.

This illustrates why the word 'woman' matters. < Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Either they're sex-selective services, or they're not. Like GGUK.

Do people know about the Plain English Campaign?

Kneedeepinunicorns: born female? BFs? Or BW for biological women or BBFs born biological females?

This needing to be included is not enough though, is it?

A recent reddit thread made this abundantly clear.

The issue:

A teenaged transgirl given access to girls' locker room immediately after coming out as trans.

First a few, then a lot of girls objected and decided to use an alternate room which is now too small (say it's 20 kids, the room holds 7)

Their teacher posts on this pro-trans reddit asking how to resolve the situation, stressing countless times that none of the girls are being mean, hateful, bullying or otherwise excluding this transgirl.

They just don't want to get naked in front of a male (it's toilet cubicles, and an open shower and changing area).

You'd think they would show some understanding at least for the immediacy of the situation - last month a boy changing with the boys, now a girl changing with the girls (it took a couple of weeks for most of the girls to act on their discomfort, but many were unhappy from the start).

Oh no. Not only was there zero understanding for the bodily privacy and dignity of teenage girls, but they were upset that the girls were allowed to use an alternate room. I mean it was simple, the kids were told:

X is now a girl and has every right to be in your locker room. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

And most, but not all of the girls did go elsewhere. Only that is not what the TRAs can allow. They actually said the school should never have given them an elsewhere and should now put a sign on the alternate changing room saying "Changing room for transphobes" or better still, force the girls to get changed with the transgirl.

So then a male to female transsexual (I got the impression post-op) joins the discussion and tells everyone that it is not reasonable to expect immediate acceptance, especially not from teenagers at the beginning of a transition, most especially not when you look completely male (this kid wasn't yet on hormones). And goes on to explain how these early stages could be handled differently.

Oh my, big mistake. All the TRAs piled on this one M2F and shouted them down.

The whole thread made me realise it's not really about safety for those adult TRAs, or inclusion in social life (because this transgirl was otherwise included in school and taking part in girls' sports) or even acceptance and affirmation (coz that's what the school and the wider school community did).

It's about validation. As long as we do not suppress our knowledge that a biological male does not magically become female just by saying so (or ever), they will not be satisfied.

And it was chilling in one other aspect - they were discussing the law. The teacher was talking of her US state having a loophole in place that would actually allow the girls to complain which would then result in the transgirl being moved out of their locker room. (Yes, "loophole" that's what this female teacher called it).

So they cited a few cases, and the case law made it clear that at least to some jurisdictions in the States, trans rights trump sex-based rights. Even though the law as written, actually was about sex-based rights (or sex-based discrimination as it were).

That is where we may be heading.

P.S. I'm not naive. Having been a teenage girl myself once, I'm 100% sure these girls will have found a way to make their displeasure with the transgirl felt. Sadly, I know from experience you cannot force kids to accept another kid in their group. It just doesn't work.

P.S. I'm not naive. Having been a teenage girl myself once, I'm 100% sure these girls will have found a way to make their displeasure with the transgirl felt. Sadly, I know from experience you cannot force kids to accept another kid in their group. It just doesn't work.

The transitioning child would probably have received kinder and more welcoming treatment from their peers if those peers had had their legitimate concerns recognised and an approach to accommodation had been reached that recognised everyone's dignity and privacy. Now the child will be the subject of resentment, which is really unfortunate.