Who is standing up for women and girls?

[loveyouradvice]

So far, it looks like some brave individuals, various religious organisations and the newly formed Womans Place, Transgender Trend and FairPlay for women

Where are all the established women's charities, especially those with a strong history of campaigning? Someone to answer Stonewall and others powerfully?

What is the Fawcett Society doing?

Who else is there?

What is the context of these segregated spaces?

Is this the idea that for example a Refuge might have separate rooms for women and trans women?

If this is the case, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the services, nature of support and most importantly, the needs of those using such provision.

Yes it is a refuge R0wantrees, and I quite agree with your point, however it is pretty huge that Snappity has recognised that there is a conflict between the needs of transwomen and women and as such has proposed a solution that tries to meet the needs of both.

My belief is that those who have proposed solutions such as this or that services make 'case by case' decisions have little experience of this sector.

Services and charities such as refuges and homeless projects organically evolved to meet the needs of those they support. It is complex and nuanced work and assessment of risk is ongoing.

The prison service which has access to far greater resources such as pre-sentence reports, ongoing assessments and time have identifed that the service may no be able to keep women prisoners safe. There have been concerning cases already within the female estate under current policy.

Refuges, Homeless charities and other services working with extremely vulnerable people in crisis have less time and fewer resources.

Policy should be made by those within the sectors with working experience and expertise.

Imposition of legislation that hinders effective, safe and supportive working will have a significant detrimental effect.

The Howard League is standing up for women prisoners and is speaking out against male prisoners being placed in women's prisons. They are a well-respected organisation and the Government will listen to them.

I think many people who want to use womens facilities are in for a shock, as they seem to believe they are are well funded.

Some towns now have none at all, they have been closed due to austerity measures. The govt is soon to debate slashing their funding even more by stopping women in shelters being able to claim housing benefit.

DV services have never been under so much strain. Expecting them to be able to take anyone who applies is completely unrealistic.

There's nothing to stop trans people starting their own services, as men have done.

I hadn’t heard of the Howard League before, that’s great that they are standing up for female prisoners.

MissCocker that's brilliant - i didnt know that

The Howard League are VERY well respected - and even better they work for ALL prisoners, and are NOT a "women's organisation"

So fabulous - and first - example I have heard of a mainstream organisation championing sex-segregation - and dare I say it, common sense?

From Daily Mail:
'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'

"Prison reformer Frances Crook said that she was worried that ‘some men with a history of extreme violence and sexual violence against women have found a new way of exercising aggression towards women’.

Ms Crook, executive director of the Howard League for Penal Reform , added: ‘These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration.

'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'

‘Moreover, the process is inherently discriminatory. A woman identifying as a man could not be transferred to a man’s jail because placing a person with female attributes into a prison to live with 1,000 men, all using communal showers and living areas, would put them in serious danger"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html

These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration.

Wow, that is a powerful and damning quote there from The Howard League. Great to hear they are well respected too.

Thanks for digging that out R0wantrees

Bowlofbabelfish
^So "non-trans" it has to be.
The word to use in this scenario is woman.^
For most purposes, the word "woman" is absolutely fine. But where we are trying to discuss the differences between trans women and non-trans women, it is ambiguous. We need words that clearly distinguish between the two groups.
The two conventional prefixes were absolutely fine, until anti-trans activists thought they could shut down dialogue by pretending to be outraged by the essential terminology.

I agree with lemon

Very interesting

RebelRogue
There is nothing ambiguous about using the term woman.
Really? So you agree that as I am a woman, and you are a woman, we both have equal rights to women's spaces.Women need no special.protections in law.

We need words that clearly distinguish between the two groups

Women. Trans women. Sorted.

If we said women and non-women you'd have a shit fit, quite rightly, And yet...saying non-trans you think is fine. Weird how that works.

Happy to go with women and non-women if you prefer though.

twitter.com/ResistersUK

Indeed Rufus
The Howard league and prison governors - who of course are seeing this daily - have raised their heads above the parapet and are speaking out. Very important.

Exactly enough

Weren't prisons one of the first 'groups' to suggest that self ID might lead to problems

There's nothing to stop trans people starting their own services, as men have done.

This. It's also really important to acknowledge that many (most?) women's services were created by women in very difficult circumstances, and those women were often neither powerful nor well-resourced, but broke their backs to create those resources for other women. It's an absolute disgrace that it's seen as a "progressive" act for males, who have structural and economic privilege, to be able to take away hard-won resources from women, who don't have that stuctural and economic privilege.

So you agree that as I am a woman, and you are a woman
Don't think she agreed that at all.

Yes it is a refuge R0wantrees, and I quite agree with your point, however it is pretty huge that Snappity has recognised that there is a conflict between the needs of transwomen and women and as such has proposed a solution that tries to meet the needs of both.

No. I have said that there a some women might have a genuine problem which is more than bigotry. So, rather than segregate trans women from women (trans women are women) we should be looking at which women might need more support than other women and providing it.

For example (and I apologise for being graphic), if a woman had been raped by a drag queen, then clearly it would be appropriate to provide her with additional privacy. For me that is how the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" should be interpreted. It should never be about a blanket exclusion of trans women from a resource. For me that immediately fails the test of proportionality. But equally, if some women, because of particular history, need more privacy than other women, that should be provided.

This. It's also really important to acknowledge that many (most?) women's services were created by women in very difficult circumstances, and those women were often neither powerful nor well-resourced, but broke their backs to create those resources for other women. It's an absolute disgrace that it's seen as a "progressive" act for males, who have structural and economic privilege, to be able to take away hard-won resources from women, who don't have that stuctural and economic privilege.

Trans women are women, not men so this is irrelevant

For most purposes, the word "woman" is absolutely fine. But where we are trying to discuss the differences between trans women and non-trans women, it is ambiguous. We need words that clearly distinguish between the two groups.
The two conventional prefixes were absolutely fine, until anti-trans activists thought they could shut down dialogue by pretending to be outraged by the essential terminology.

In most circumstances though there is no need to distinguish between the two groups of women.

Ms Crook, executive director of the Howard League for Penal Reform , added: ‘These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration.

Ms Crook, executive director of the Howard League for Penal Reform must have evidence of this. It's not the sort of thing a women in her position would say lightly.

In most circumstances though there is no need to distinguish between the two groups of women.

Lol. And what would those be?

The heart attacks, the prostate exams? The ones that benefit the male bodied people perchance?

In that context, using "woman" by itself would be ambiguous

No. As others have said the word 'woman' is perfectly adequate. In this context we would be discussing women and transwomen. No ambiguity.

No. As others have said the word 'woman' is perfectly adequate. In this context we would be discussing women and transwomen. No ambiguity.

Loaded though because you start out by differentiating between "women" and "trans women"