TRA Policy capture in Bristol's... well, everywhere

[EmelyTheRagingGranny]

If someone could explain to me whats going on with the Bristol third sector, that would be great. Here's a detailed account of how the public sector in Bristol has handled this issue. Subject was going to be 'TRA policy capture in Bristol's charity sector' but it looks like its everywhere, including the local authorities and the universitites.

From Elsa Egret, who did the expose of the TRA police training:

"In April 2018, We Need To Talk held a public meeting at Bristol’s Jam Jar. Dozens of masked activists invaded the venue, planning to let off smoke bombs. They physically blocked the speakers on the stairs, screamed abuse at them and set off the fire alarm, while the police (six cars and a dozen officers) stood by. One of the speakers, Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans (who was expelled from the Women’s Equality Party for speaking about medical transition in children), wrote afterwards: ‘I feared the injuries I might sustain if pushed downstairs; I looked down on myself being obstructed from speaking by a man almost young enough to be my grandson’.
The meeting chair, Jeni Harvey (who was expelled from the London Radical Bookfair for handing out pamphlets entitled ‘Sex, Gender and Women’s Rights), wrote: ‘…trapped on this stairwell with masked protestors both in front and behind me, I found myself in fear of my physical safety. Unsettling images of my children having to deal with the news that someone had hurt me — and hurt me deliberately — because I wanted to talk about how women and girls stood to lose their sex based protections, came unbidden and unwelcome’.
A list of shame for Bristol.
Local equality and hate crime charities SARI, The Diversity Trust and Bristol Zero Tolerance were quick to respond — in June 2018 they organised a meeting in the City Hall and invited local politicians, police, representatives of the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England, and, of course, women’s organisations. The problem had to be dealt with.
The problem being… the women who dared to assert that women and girls have sex-based rights in the UK. The women on the receiving end of harassment, threats and intimidation. The women whose democratic rights (to participate in discussion on an issue about to be opened to public consultation by the government) were being seriously threatened.
The three organisations decided that what they really needed to do was ‘to defuse the atmosphere of distrust being created around Bristol’s trans community as a result of the recent upsurge in anti-trans activism’."

Clicky link (fingers crossed): medium.com/@elsaegret/stitch-up-bristol-fashion-f1eb298e28da

medium.com/@elsaegret/stitch-up-bristol-fashion-f1eb298e28da

This explains a LOT! Thanks for posting - I'm a bit lost for words tbh.
This is the same organisation, SARI, that wrote the trans NHS guidance I have submitted FOIs about. Will link the thread...
I have written to my MP about the NHS guidance, when I get reply I will raise this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3755711-Help-FOI-request-trans-guidance-in-NHS-in-South-West

Is there any way to access the funding for these organisations? As in how much money the receive and from whom. Thank you for doing the FOI on the guidance, @anotherFOIrequester

The Diversity Trust is a CLIC, but I can't download their accounts for some reason

beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08141031/filing-history

SARI is supposed to be focused on racism!!!

Bristol City council are worth checking as funders. Womankind (the Bristol women's counselling services) and Next link (Bristol domestic abuse Freedom Programme) are funded by the council and provide mixed sex 'women's' services services open to male transwomen.

Vulnerable women who need single sex services are now effectively excluded or self excluding if they are traumatised around males, especially if their abuser was a transwoman - don't know where they go instead for help.

I wonder if these are the sort of 'women's organisation' that Sari approves of consulting? And if these are the 'women's groups the NHS will now consult with on the Bristol trans guidance referred to above?

Diversity Trust? A grand name, but iirc it's run by a handful of people including a tra who bangs on about 'terfs'. Very unprofessional.

Oh I missed this...have posted it all on the regulatory capture thread.
Getting an anti-racism org to do the policy-laundering definitely fits the 'attach to something with much more support' template.

I was looking at the policies of the 'approved women's groups' and I found something really, really disturbing.

A few weeks ago I went to a talk on prostitution given by Julie Bindel in Bristol. A local woman spoke from the floor about how she had been groomed into it as a young teenager, it was very moving and reiterated how important it is to support the campaign to clear women's prostitution-related offences from their criminal records. She described it basically as hell that noone would choose.

One of the Bristol women's orgs involved with/trained by SARI and the Diversity Trust is One25. They are well regarded and provide a drop in centre and other services for women in street prostitution. Men cannot be volunteers with the servuce users.

This is their equality policy: one25.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/One25-Equality-and-Diversity-Policy.pdf

It says ''We offer our
services to trans-gender service users presenting as female.''

It also lists the EA protected characteristics incorrectly, lumping sex and gender reassignment together as 'gender/gender reassignment' and using gender instead of sex throughout.

I cannot think of a more vulnerable group of women and a group more in need of a male free space, but no, the male presence MUST be imposed by the 'betters' of the women at the bottom of the heap.

I'm actually really shocked by this.

An example of 'direct discrimination' given in the policy is 'Not allowing transgender
sex workers to access our
outreach service / casework'

That's horrible severn. As I said, I have a recollection that DT isn't the most professional training org on the block, but that is absolutely appalling.

The dick. Always important and must be served every where

To get funding now must include the dick

2020 the year of the dick. And the rise of it

Just this once I think I disagree. Anyone - male/female, natal woman/transwoman - would need access to those services. For once I'd agree that transwomen who are involved in prostitution are vulnerable.

Of course ideally there would be separate provision for them, but realistically that's not going to be the case.

That's a fair point re service users alias and I agree, but the policy states that employees 'must present as female' (because service users are vulnerable women).

No.

This is lying to the service users and gaslighting them. They are the most vulnerable women imaginable, almost all have experienced CSA/grooming, almost all are addicts.

This was set up as a single sex service and the occupation requirements were invoked to exclude men. If they decide to change to mixed sex, then change to mixed sex and say so, but this is just lying. To women with no other option.

Policy is referring to service users 'presenting as female' btw not employees.

If a male turns up, would women be excluded for knowing his sex and stating it?? Are they expected to deny reality? How can you force this on women who've been lied to and exploited their entire lives and then go home to admire your diversity awards?

severn it's both, see under Employees.

I respect your opinion severnboring.

Sorry Purported you're absolutely right. Insanity.

If only Vancouver Rape Relief had had this policy, poor Kimberley Nixon wouldn't have had to sue them for decades.

What do they even mean by 'present as female'?

The most important question is, do service users even know about all this? They still say they're 'for women, women only' etc.

Present as female

The most ridiculous, most patronising, most unwanted, unworkable and downright insulting policy criteria ever.

And suddenly, absolutely central to diverse and accessible service providers to the most vulnerable.

If employees 'must present as female', isn't the policy then discriminatory towards men who present as male? Or do they hand out wigs and dresses?
Obviously the main issue, and it's a big one, is that you are inviting men who get a kick out of being around vulnerable women to come and work with them. All they need to do is 'present as female', whatever that means.
This is incredibly naive from the organisation in question. As for the motives of those who 'helped' write this policy...?

you are inviting men who get a kick out of being around vulnerable women to come and work with them.

Yes the naiveity is off the scale, especially given the area they work in. Motives - my guess is 'wanting what will be best for the vulnerable female service users' is way down the list.

If I'd paid for training on equality law and the result is a policy this full of holes - not even listing the characteristics in the law correctly! - I'd be demanding my money back.

'present as female' - this is gender horseshoe theory in action. You can't get a fag paper between that and 'women must wear lipstick and heels to work'.