No True Transwoman - transadvocates question whether TW is 'genuine' after said TW sexually harasses women in homeless shelter

[CaitlynsCat]

abc30.com/3514544/

'It says the shelter requires them to shower in groups, and it opened its doors to a person who identified themself as a transgender woman who made lewd and sexually inappropriate comments, and leered at them while they were naked.

"This is the biggest fear they bring up, that you're going to have people who may not even be transgender in bathrooms and settings where people are naked and their privacy rights are being violated," said Peter Kapetan, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the women.

Poverello House administrators tell Action News federal law says they have to treat a person identifying as a woman as a woman -- and there's no way to test whether it's true.'

'
The women say they repeatedly complained to staff members, but were told if they didn't respect the person's decision to identify as a woman, and if they refused to take showers at the same time, they'd get kicked out of the shelter.
'

'Karen Adell Scot, a local transgender advocate, even offered to train Naomi's House employees on how to recognize people just pretending to identify as the opposite gender.'

But I didn't join to talk about my personal life (although issues discussed on here affect us all of course in one way or another)

It's just you seem a bit 'I have my safe spaces - I am alright Jack' about it. I think I've said this before about those that vehemently defend men's rights to access women's spaces on here. It is a common theme.

"That's me in those tweets. The thread was pretty long and his statements were exploded over and over like an egg in a microwave. He blocked me later on so he could start making the same lies over again without being called on it."

I know Oldman. You do good work. I followed you until Twitter made it impossible for me.

I may be extremely naive but isn’t the issue, like most legislation, the exploitation
of loop holes? (Tax avoidance anyone?!)

The issues seems to me to be how do we identify and prevent men or women pretending to be the opposite gender for self gratification/ to harm others?

IMHO this is not the same as stopping self identification.

I personally (as a woman not in need of a a refuge from a specific individual) don’t believe there is a significant risk to allowing mtf transgender persons into ‘female ‘ only spaces - BUT I do expect the spaces to ensure adherence to behavioural rules eg no voyeurism in showers)

Out of interest- what happens now if the sister of an abusive Male accesses tbesame facility as the victim of an abusive Male?

Just to go back to my repsonse to SMG's comment,
"It is when they have a duty of care to all their clients."

I replied:
There is a need for services for all people who are homeless. Individual ones are usually limited eg with a local connection, single homeless people who do not have statutory provision, young people, homeless people with additional needs eg drug and alcohol issues

Most services have historically evolved and become specialised in the support they provide in each facility. This has been good in so far that they are best able to meet the specific needs of their 'clients' or service users.

I would like to add SupermatchGame that in the article in the OP, it explains:
"Poverello House administrators tell Action News federal law says they have to treat a person identifying as a woman as a woman -- and there's no way to test whether it's true."

So what has happened is that a specialist service for adult women who are homeless has not evolved to meet the specific changing needs of its service users. Federal law has required them to do so and some trans women and possibly someone pretending to be a trans woman have wanted to use this service provision. The homeless shelter has been required by federal law to change its provision, to no longer be secifically for adult human females who are homeless.

I don't know anything about the scope of this charity's house, but I can assure you that there will have always been a number of restictions of eligibility. These will have been established to include a range of factors eg age, having young chldren with them, additional needs (drug, alcohol, health, previous stays etc. Women refused or not able to access the service will likely be signposted or referred elsewhere.

In the event that it becomes apparent (through monitoring) that additional services are needed due to unmet needs of its service users, a charity might decide to try to open another house with a different scope, subject to securing funding. A new project may be more specialist, with increased levels of staffing & resources. Alternatively, the local authority could be advised that it has a responsibility to do so or (as is often the case with homeless services) volunteers may start up a new project.

New projects which have service user involvement can be especially innovative.

I have permission to share this story from a private FB group. I have removed the names - although I did verify this as a true story by finding him on some US prisoner look-up site (there were enough other details to work with). I can ask more questions (like, I assume this was some kind of supported accommodation). This is a quote btw, and pronouns as per the original.

I want to share more details about my homeless client who was murdered in November 2015. Her name was D-- and she was in her early 60's. She befriended an idividual in shelter in his 40's, who is a man named "C" that identifies as a woman. He had no surgical interventions and there was nothing 'feminine' about him. My job entails helping women in shelter find housing, then visiting them at least once a month until they are on their feet. D and C were neighbors and developed a close friendship. In fact, he was present when I went over safety planning with her. Having worked with the homeless population since 2005, there is little that phases me. However, C was overly vulgar, crude, vile, and just downright disgusting, as he enjoyed talking about graphic sex acts he likes to do to other men. I happened to be working one Sunday when I suddenly thought about D and called her. She did not answer and I considered going to her apartment, but decided not to. I found out the next day that she was BRUTALLY murdered by C about 45 minutes after I called her. I am told he stabbed her at least 7 times and slit her throat. Neighbors reported hearing her screaming and as she was dying, C stole her keys, locked the door, and went back to his apartment like nothing happened. There was no mention of any of it in the media and everything was swept under the rug...like she did not matter. Attaching his mugshot. Yes, he is serving a long sentence, but D-- is still dead and maybe she wouldn't be if a man had not been allowed into a woman's shelter.

So it can be a lot more than pervy behaviour, even more than sexual assault. These are the safeguards we are fighting to protect. So you pro-self-IDers can go shove it. Shower curtains stop nothing.

and this is highlights exactly the point I made earlier. That those talking about 'case-by-case risk assesments' know nothing about how homeless services work or the people they support.

"Having worked with the homeless population since 2005, there is little that phases me. However, C-- was overly vulgar, crude, vile, and just downright disgusting, as he enjoyed talking about graphic sex acts he likes to do to other men. I happened to be working one Sunday when I suddenly thought about D-- and called her "

These are the women to listen to because they listen, have experience, expertise, understand and care. Its beyond outrageous that the woman D---- 's experience counts for so little.

So similar to those women in UK prison estates eh?

This is a voice to listen to:
(from WPUK)
"I’m writing as a feminist who has devoted over two decades of my life to ending violence against women (VAW). I’ve worked in frontline services in both domestic abuse and sexual violence services across the country and now I head up a VAW sector charity.

I love my job, I am so lucky. It often surprises people when I say this, as they expect this type of work to be depressing, but that’s not how I look at services like ours at all.

The VAW sector supports women as they try to move away from abusive and violent perpetrators, working with survivors to break the silence that abusive perpetrators impose on them. There is nothing to compare to the moments when these women get their voices back and break free – and that’s why I love my job.

Unfortunately, in recent months the changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the incredibly toxic debate around the issue of ‘gender self ID’ has left many more women under a heavy veil of silence, particularly for those of us who work in the VAW sector. The dark, uncomfortable irony of this silence is not lost on me, nor is it lost on the many women in the sector I have recently spoken to about this issue.

As someone who has worked with many survivors of violence over the last two decades, I am terrified – both professionally and personally – about the impact of self ID on ensuring safe spaces are available to women who have experienced and are escaping male violence. Even without the legal changes to the GRA, gender inclusive policies are already happening in many areas, these changes are ahead of the law and already upon us. Moreover they do not appear to be slowing down... continues

womansplaceuk.org/the-silencing-of-feminists-silences-survivors/

"I have permission to share this story from a private FB group."

I'm not following. The victim is dead, and the perpetrator is in prison.

Why are you censoring the details?

Even more chilling, R0wan, and I am trying not to break the confidentiality of the group I am in, but the support worker who posted that account says that her days are numbered where she works, because there is some transwoman 'gunning for her'. Not sure if in direct relation to 2015, or independently of that. It probably does not matter. This is what they are doing to women-only services and service workers.

Why are you censoring the details?
Because it was from a private FB group, and actually, I don't want to be posting anything that may identify the support worker (see my comment just above). It is about protecting her.

She is right that there was little coverage of D's murder, I did manage to find more coverage of C's trial.

It's no longer generally accepted that vulnerable people should be protected. People used to disagree about how to protect them, not whether to protect them. Now it's perfectly normal to argue that vulnerable people don't need protecting.

LaSqrrl
I would strongly recommend that you contact Louise Casey with these details.
I saw her at work in the early stages of her career when she was involved with homeless services. She spoke a lot of sense then and will hold her own position.

She did the Rotherham report?

Yes that's her. She's done quite a lot since being involved specifically with homelessness and some things I've seen her do and say have surprised me. She does though have roots in homeless services.

I think I've said this before about those that vehemently defend men's rights to access women's spaces on here. It is a common theme.

I'm definitely not defending men's rights to access women's spaces. I think I've been quite clear about that.

The former integration tsar, Dame Louise Casey, has attacked the government for doing “absolutely nothing” about community cohesion a year after she published a study on ministers’ failure to tackle the problem.
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/05/louise-casey-ministers-have-done-absolutely-nothing-about-cohesion
re Louise Casey:
Her criticism comes just two days after the government’s social mobility commissioner, Alan Milburn, resigned in protest at Theresa May’s failure in her own pledge to build a fairer Britain.

Speaking before a scheduled appearance before a House of Lords committee, Casey echoed Milburn’s charge that the government was too focused on Brexit negotiations to tackle domestic problems.

I've always assumed Supermatch is a man who would probably identify as 'cis' . Gosh it has only just occurred to me he/she might be a woman.

R0wan the murder of D was in the US. As are the many cases of assaults etc in women's shelters - because parts of the US are behaving like self-ID is sufficient (it's not), plus the bigger population of the US is a case study of 'how things will be' as a logical conclusion to self-ID. I guess that women's homelessness shelters are the first to experience the problems, given they will feel sorry for all sorts in a non-judgemental way and take them in.

SarahCarer, yes me too! LOLSOB.

LaSqrrl yes I understood that. I don't think its just about them feeling sorry though. As the article said, the shelter was required by federal law. Homeless services are run on a shoestring. They always have some limitations if they have accomodation (rather than say street support).

A federal law which means they can't work as they would otherwise has really serious implications.

Thanks for the additional detail R0wantrees

I'm not sure if the exact same situation would occur in the uk as the exemptions in the equality act would mean that a pre op trans woman would not have to be accommodated in that exact way in relation to showers etc. As you probably know Women's Aid have initiated their own review into trans staff in refuges and have supported trans service users on an individual risk assessed basis in the past. I have reasonable confidence that the women who manage and run these spaces would be able to risk assess and screen out inappropriate presentations (what you described as men pretending).

With regards to specialist new services I would assume, although I don't know, that there wouldn't be sufficient homeless trans people to warrant third spaces in that way as they are such small numbers. Despite LGBT being over represented in the homeless data. So one way or another they are going to have to be accommodated somewhere.

Most of the documentation I've seen around ensuring homeless shelters are trans friendly, recommend that 'bodily privacy' should be afforded to all service users and single use showers should be made available where appropriate.

I'm definitely not defending men's rights to access women's spaces. I think I've been quite clear about that.

Maybe the issue which hasn't been acknowledged is that being born male may not be able to be included in some risk assessments.

In the US, they have a lot of 'by state' in their laws, so things vary state by state (sometimes by a lot). I just mentioned the US part, because I thought you may have overlooked it (sometimes I do that, LOL). But most people assume that what happens in other similar countries won't happen at their home country, because reasons or something, and therefore don't take it on board as to what is happening elsewhere.

The shelter of the OP, had a flowery cross symbol, so I assume it is some 'hip' independent church-run thing. I don't have any idea about the grant/charity system in the US. I guess the staff are more moderny-christians, and a bit more open to the T thing? Just my assumption though, and cannot be bothered to look up the state legislation around the OP.

'As more trans women who were convicted as men hope to follow rapist Martin Ponting into female wings, prison governors fear vulnerable inmates could be attacked'

(extract)
"But one governor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: ‘My fear is that this could make it much harder to control the transfer of born-male, transgender prisoners to women’s prisons.

‘This could lead to vulnerable women being intimidated – and even attacked.’

The warning came as the Ministry of Justice confirmed that dozens of ‘trans-identified male’ prisoners are living as women in jails exclusively housing convicted sex offendenders"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html

How do you mean

As I think you do. Someone may or may not be trans. They may or may not abuse someone sexually. The second one doesn't change anything about the first one. People who say it does are trying to pull a No True Scotsman. I suspect we're agreeing with each other.