Not women only shelters.....

[alwaysreadthelabel]

Sorry for the fail link but just read this and I find it unbelievable that people still don't see the issue with this. Words fail me.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6894599/When-man-called-Mark-locked-threatening-kill-mother-child.html

The fact there are only NINE pre moderated comments on the article is telling in itself.

Last time I saw they'd been up voted 700 odd times too.

And the article shared over a thousand times...

I'm not on twitter anymore, couldn't take the stress. How are they all reacting there?

I haven't RTFT so apologies if this has been pointed out already but this isn't the first incidence of a trans woman being housed in a female only despite clearly being a risk to women and girls. Remember www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/832849/warning-as-transgender-sex-offender-placed-in-womens-hostel/amp/ ? Katie not only abuses a child in a supermarket toilet but then disgracefully, was housed in a female only hostel. These 2 cases are the ones that have leaked out into the news but I'll bet there are more.

In both of those cases the housing provider knew full well the individuals posed risks.

I leafleted the NUT conference last year and was told repeatedly by seemingly senior Trade Unionists, that this would never happen. Risk assessments would ensure other women would be kept safe, they would never accommodate a trans women who posed a danger to others. Well quite apart from the fact that women need female only spaces to recover, risk assessments are only as robust as the person making the risk assessment. I worked in this sector for many years and I can tell you that unacceptable risks were taken. My view of a risk and another person's view would not always align. Inability to foresee danger or a willingness to take the chance anyway is not uncommon. Furthermore, many times authorities would refer and withhold hold key information. I found these responses naive in the extreme. In the case of St. Mungo’s and the Scottish hostel, this is irrelevant anyway. They had the info and took the risk anyway. There is no excuse. Personally, regardless of risk, I think males should be excluded from housing which is intended for women only. Introducing a male in this scenario is a colliding of the rights or women who will have at least one protected characteristic.

I can't believe this is where we are now, it's crazy.

The problem is that the ‘poor minority’ will always be elevated to victim status which trumps, well actual FM victims. Once they aren’t the shiny new minority then their day will have passed and they won’t get their own way. It won’t be a ‘crime’ to ask for woman only spaces for women to recover from male violence/rape.

Women have been the advocates for the minorities and overlooked. Who fought for the AIDs victims - who looked after them, visited them, bathed them and attended their funerals? So many were women.

And women won’t forget this, nor the individuals or agencies who have allowed this to happen.

DM not FM.

If the Equality Act was being applied fully there would be no violation by any men of any girls' and women's boundaries, since that law provides exactly that protection for females in all relevant circumstances.

The question that needs to be raised here is why are all these organisations / public institutions ignoring the Equality Act 2010 and choosing to fail to protect the female sex in accordance with UK law? Why are they choosing to violate the boundaries of females?

Its not just EA, its duty of care, safeguarding & good practice.

The specialist homeless services eg single sex for women, drug & alcohol, young people etc have evolved to meet specific identified needs.

To be honest, I don't think there will ever be a situation where the TRAs / *trans community would ever mobilise to help their own. They are too busy trying to colonise women's spaces and promote their insane ideology. If they spent even half their energies in directing their voices for something good, rather than the ridiculous crap that goes on in Twitter, talking about golf clubs or having rows with Caroline Farrow, perhaps people might take notice and start setting up 3rd space provisions. There is certainly money floating around. I mean if the Lottery Fund can give you-know-who a few hundred-thousand pounds, there's hope for anything!

I cannot even begin to fathom the trauma that women have had to endure to even end up in a shelter to begin with, but putting an xy chromosome body in there, no matter what surgery or documentation that body has, is not the answer. Women's shelters need to be for women only. Not trans women, not for those with magical pink fairy gender essence but the biological kind only.

It was mentioned that trans shelters would be under-utilised and potentially near empty. I'm not sure if there are reliable statistics out there to even begin to ascertain how many would be needed. However, it would take the fun out of the AGPs pitching up in women's shelters if all the residents were trans themselves. Saying that though, I'm not sure that if I needed a refuge (and there were trans ones) that I'd want to be in there with a bunch of AGPs, fetishists and the like.

This issue is a bit close to me, as I took in a female friend for a little while who was escaping her abusive bf, while she set herself up to move elsewhere. The only option for her was provision some 100-odd miles away, which says to me that female spaces are limited anyway without *trans women using valuable resources.

I might have a go at sending out some of those letters on the other thread and writing to my MP as I'm a tad ragey after reading that article.

As for Stonewall doing anything, there's more chance of me going to Mars and having tea with Elvis.

It was mentioned that trans shelters would be under-utilised and potentially near empty. I'm not sure if there are reliable statistics out there to even begin to ascertain how many would be needed.*

As Lang mentioned previously there are a number of different supportive accomodation services which seem to be often conflated:

Bail hostels

Homeless Shelters
& supported housing

Refuge

The first three will be needed for both sexes and also may also meet additional specific needs eg under 25's, sex, drug alcohol issues etc

Refuge & Women's services have a particular history. They were set up by and for women at risk and fleeing male abuse & violence
I'm not aware of refuge srvices for any males (regardless of gender identity)

there are some specific LGBTQ+ homeless services eg lgbtiqoutside.org/the-project/

Trans Aware supported housing for trans people:
www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42909606

Sorry R0wan. I was meaning refuges for female survivors of domestic violence. I wasn't very clear.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/male-domestic-violence-victims-refuges-mankind-initiative-a8540346.html I think there are 20 beds for men according to this article.

I'm not sure if there are reliable statistics out there

And this is another thing that enrages me. No there aren’t reliable statistics, I think the figures have been being corrupted for at least a decade, probably longer.

How can we possibly plan for anybody’s needs without adequate data? It affects so many things prisons, refuges, sports, medical care, pay gap.

Again seriously damaging to women, children and transsexuals.

May benefit predatory men though if statistics cease to show who’s doing all the mudering and raping though

The article isn't clear, Hamster!

It's most annoying because if we are to advocate properly, we can't be getting this stuff confused.

A homeless hostel (in which many women will have histories including DV) is not the same thing as a DV refuge (in which women are at imminent risk of violence). The former aren't secret or hidden; the latter are. Different again is a bail/probation hostel, which houses released prisoners either with nowhere else to go or who require constant supervision for a period.

Not that it really matters in the sense that all such services are better for women when organised by sex segregation. But it does matter for campaigning when the providers are not the same and the funding is not the same.

Aah ok Lang. It mentioned "female only refuge" and I assumed. I am now suitably educated as I wasn't entirely clear on the differences.

Not your fault! I said upthread somewhere the article was confusing.

The aggressive trans person in the article was allowed into a homeless hostel/support service.

The article also talks about Women's Aid, which runs DV refuges, having policies that might possibly allow male trans people to be accommodated with women.

No surprise everyone's getting confused.

What?? But this literally never ever happens. All trans women are innocent victims in need of protection from a hateful society full of transphobic ‘cis’ women and TERFs whose harmful thoughts are literal violence

I must have imagined reading that article because trans women threatening vulnerable women in female-only spaces literally never happens and there is no evidence of it.

The telling thing is that the people who USED the Trans Aware supported housing got BENEFIT from it being in effect a 'third space' which they would not have got in a women's setting. That's one of the things they most liked about it - everyone there was in the same boat. They needed somewhere like that as it allowed them to feel safe and secure.

Yet you have the likes of Helen Belcher blabbering on about how no, its discriminatory to have a third space service. I note Helen ISN'T a service user. Helen is a political figure. That's not really representating is it? Helen SHOULD as a minimum be saying 'well some trans people who have very complex and crucial service needs, really benefit from a third space, but that's not suitable for all' to be reflective of the ACTUAL needs of the most vulnerable in the trans community.

The reality might well be that even that might not be accurate either, and actually the most vulnerable do just need trans only spaces.

However that would be an admission that Helen isn't that vulnerable. Helen is however, inadvertently admitting that they don't know the actual needs of the most vulnerable in the trans community, by saying they belief validation is more important. And that reeks of privilege. Privilege within their own community and privilege within society itself.

What matters here are the people who use and need services. Not those who use them as political footballs.

And as for the old 'well no one complained' line; for many, many years on very different subjects which do not relate to trans, have made the argue that just because there are no complaints doesn't mean there isn't a problem. The most vulnerable people have a number of social, economic and power related reasons where they don't complain if they have a problem. They don't feel entitled to, they don't have the ability to, they don't have the financial means or independence to, are too ashamed to or are simply too frightened too. And it's always the responsibility of authorities to look out for those reasons and build them into their safeguarding policy. 'But there are no complaints' is an acknowledgement that an agency knows there is a duty of care issue that they are failing or its pure ignorance and neglegiance of the vulnerability of those they are charged with the care of. Either way its a dereliction of duty.

One of the failures of that middle class privilege brings is its unwillingness to acknowledge things put of its range of sight and the desire to hide it by using methods of measure which erase the experience of those of the very bottom through a lack of an appropriate classification or a question which might produce an uncomfortable result. If you can't see a problem, you don't need to address a problem. If you aren't looking for, and don't know where a hidden problem might lie, then why waste the time and effort on it? Safeguarding 101 - know which rocks to look under through understanding patterns of problems in vulnerable people.

This is institutional failure. Which Lisa Muggeridge talked an awful lot about, and I've certainly seen glimpses of in my life experience.

MN has highlighted a few over the years too.

Sorry R0wan. I was meaning refuges for female survivors of domestic violence. I wasn't very clear.

No apology neccessary.

One of the basis for the St Mungos single sex homeless service for women was recognition that domestic violence/abuse was a key factor impacting women who were homeless. Although they weren't 'fleeing' & so not in need of refuge, there was a clear recognition of supportive services which addressed the impact of this.

The majority of people who are homeless will have a range of needs in addition to housing. It can often take time for people to feel secure enough to be in a position to start accessing the range of support that is appropriate.

This was a key driver in the formation of the East London Women's Project currently being run by St Mungos referred to in the Mail on Sunday article:

(extract)
'Women’s homelessness is under-reported and frequently linked to experiences of abuse.'
"Rough sleeping is the starkest form of homelessness and it is often the most vulnerable female survivors who sleep rough during their escape from abuse. Women sleeping rough also experience domestic abuse in their relationships on the streets, where specialist gender-specific services to address their particular needs are few and far between.

Reports from Homeless Link, AVA, St Mungo’s and Crisis, amongst others have highlighted the hidden nature of women’s homelessness, its links with domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG). These findings call for specialist women’s sector organisations to collaborate with the rough sleeping sector to deliver a gender-specific approach to rough sleeping that is responsive to women and men’s different routes into and out of homelessness. It is rarely a single incident or experience that results in women rough sleeping; more often it is a series of circumstances and events that lead to women losing their home, or being unable to return to their home due to the threat and fear of abuse. Women’s Aids’ study from the No Woman Turned Away project reported that 11% of women in the study slept rough and 40% stayed with family or friends during their escape from domestic abuse.

When arrangements with family and friends break down, women may find themselves with nowhere to stay and no other option but to sleep rough. This is particularly so for the most vulnerable women, those with mental health or substance use issues and women without dependent children." (continues)
www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Womens+Hidden+Homelessness+01032018092500?open

There is a similar pattern of high levels of male violence/abuse recognised in female prisoners and so by consequence for women in Bail Hostels.

What matters here are the people who use and need services. Not those who use them as political footballs.

This really cannot be stressed enough ^^

Policies should not be made from top-down by people with no insight into the services and needs of the people using them.
Especially not by those with no understanding of Safeguarding frameworks.

Especially not by those with no understanding of Safeguarding frameworks.

Or those unable to tolerate or accept the need to assess impact on others, and that everyone's needs must be equally met.

Is there a large charity or voluntary org left that hasn't completely lost sight of its service users?

I despair, I really do. People talk about a military-industrial complex but we seem to find ourselves in a third sector-industrial complex, with many of the larger orgs actually harming the people they're supposed to be helping.

Great big gravy trains with a revolving door of nepotism and cronyism at the top.

If a self-identifying trans woman in one of these hostels did assault a woman living there, would there be any kind of legal liability on the part of the hostel given that self-ID isn’t actually law? The hostel must have a duty of care towards its residents surely?

Is there a large charity or voluntary org left that hasn't completely lost sight of its service users?

Why do people talk about politicians being out of touch? They are often advised by the same people.

Institutional failure.

Is there a large charity or voluntary org left that hasn't completely lost sight of its service users?

twitter.com/stmungoslgbtq?lang=en