PinkNews has heartwarming story about trans woman being saved by a refuge - thus disproving that refuges should be women only - but fails to mention the refuge was a trans inclusive one!

[stumbledin]

No surprised that PinkNews should try and slant real facts to suit their agenda, but this is just ridiculous.

They are getting so desparate because they fear the Liz Truss line about the EA protecting women only spaces that they have resorted to trying to make out a trans woman staying in a trans inclusive refuge means the women only provision of the EA isn't needed. Rather than celebrating that there are refuges providing different services, and all they need do is respect those who chose and want a women only refuge.

Quote: " ... Some in the women’s sector argue that trans women should not be allowed to seek safety in women’s refuges, just as a small but vocal group of transphobic campaigners contend that trans women should be excluded from women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, sports teams and prisons.

Yet despite their insistence that allowing trans women into these spaces would be dangerous, anti-trans campaigners fail to see the obvious: trans women have always been in these spaces.

And this includes trans women fleeing domestic abuse and seeking safety in women’s refuges. ... "

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/09/sarah-savage-trans-author-womens-refuge-domestic-abuse-transgender/

And then in another article they re-hash the evidence given at the Women and Equalities Committee in 2019 to say no evidence was provided about trans women being a threat, and its all because feminsts dont recognise that trans women are women (do you think they realise that that is it exactly) and disrespect Karen Ingala-Smith for saying that if trans women are in a refuge it is no longer a women only space.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/08/trans-women-refuges-domestic-abuse-myth-debunked-womens-aid-diana-james/
.

I'm just posting this because I think it shows how they think they are going to "win" the arguement. Realising they can no longer rely on just shouting "transphobe" but are constructing "evidence". ie other news sources will use these articles to inform their coverage. ie there is no equivilent to PinkNews for Gender Critical Feminism and / or the Women's Sector.

These articles are typically biased as we might expect from the Pink News school of fabrication. So in both articles they centred a trans woman's experience of refuges (Sarah Savage was a service user who is a trans woman and Diana James is an employee who is a trans woman).

The people they should be surveying are the females who comprise 99% of service users in women's refuges.

Staff whose budgets depend on following funding requirements (such as government funding requirements to house trans women) can't be relied upon to give an accurate picture of service users' views.

Also they never ask - why not campaign to fund and volunteer in refuges for trans people that can meet trans people's specific needs?

Women had to get off their arses to set up womens' refuges, why can't all the trans allies give up some of their money and their free time they typically spend abusing women on twitter to set up and volunteer in trans refuges?

Exactly!

Diana James is an employee who is a trans woman).

Yes.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3593346-DV-Select-Committee-contributor-wants-to-browse-adult-sites-on-train-wifi

We know those passionately proclaiming male inclusion in the female-only therapeutic environment does not harm female victims don't actually ask the wonen in the refuges before making these claims.

We know that women who needed refuges to flee male violence have repeatedly rejected these claims. Even going so far as to publish open letters to the sector doing just that.

And we also know that frontline staff themselves have attempted to raise issues after problems arose but been rebuffed by their libfem bosses.

By now, many more of us know these male inclusion policies cause problems to female victims and staff because

a) more and more of the women involved, whether staff or residents now speak about this online, often anonymously,

b) many of the new grassroots women's rights groups that have sprung up to defend women's spaces and explicitly reject male inclusion policies have been founded or co-founded by women negatively affected by trans inclusion policies either as staff or residents and have members who are either or both,

c) a number of women working in the VAWG sector gave evidence in a closed session in the Scottish Parliament about the many issues these policies cause and many other women have done so across the rest of the UK and

d) we have several surveys showing the vast majority of the women concerned not jut prefer but need a female-only therapeutic environment and will be forced to exclude themselves from mixed-sex spaces and last but not least

d) we also have research, that is decades' worth of peer-reviewed research into trauma recovery and empirical data on the needs of female victims of male violence which shows that and why 99% need a female-only space to recover.

Anyone who continues to argue that expecting female victims of male violence to recover in the presence of males is just fine against the weight of evidence proving otherwise is demonstrating just how utterly uninterested they are in the needs of female victims.

But we know this, really. Women come last. Always.

Especially the most vulnerable.

Can't spell and can't list anymore

Women, not wonen
And
d) and e), not d) and d)

The repeated insistence that TW have always used these spaces anyway, I can only assume they would be referring to TW who pass very well. Otherwise we would have heard about it. So why change anything? The current push for these "rights" seems to be more about accomodating men with fetishes who stand out like a sore thumb and make women feel very uncomfortable in intimate or vulnerable spaces.

This is a movement with billionaires funding it. Put some of that money toward providing refuges for TW based on their specific needs.

They don’t even try anymore.

Some in the women’s sector argue that trans women should not be allowed to seek safety in women’s refuges

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t think e.g. Karen Ingala Smith has ever argued against refuges that accept transwomen.

All she has said is that the law also needs to protect provision of single sex refuges.

Regardless of what anyone on these pages thinks if Pink News honestly cared about women’s refuges they would be explaining who could be turned away on the basis of being a man, but they aren’t so they don’t.

Regardless of what anyone on these pages thinks if Pink News honestly cared about women’s refuges they would be explaining who could be turned away on the basis of being a man, but they aren’t so they don’t.

It's not news, it's propaganda.

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t think e.g. Karen Ingala Smith has ever argued against refuges that accept transwomen.

None of us ever have argued that. It's the typical lies about our position.

We reject self-id in law and policies for the legal consequences on women's rights, but we're accused of not allowing people to self-id in their private lives and wanting to force them to be gender conforming.

We state the issue is that males as a class pose a risk to females as a class, but we're accused of saying all those who identify as trans are a risk.

We say that males who identify as trans and who are victims of violence should be helped seperately from female victims of male violence who need a female-only therapeutic environment to recover, and we are accused of demanding that these males should not be helped at all.

And no matter how often we reiterate our actual position, they will keep on misrepresenting us. It's far easier than engaging with our arguments because they have nothing to set against them that doesn't lay the misogynist nature of the ideology bare.

I posted the articles because to me it seemed to show that they have recognised that their shouty shouty we are the victims here hasn't really worked.

So now they are trying the we are so sweet and reasonable it is just the mad shouty shouty terfs who are trying to make us suffer for silly ideological reasons.

But of course the real issue is, is that if they are so attuned to being a woman why would they want to inflict themselves on women who dont want to share a space with them.

As mentioned above, why aren't they campaigning equally for women only refuges and trans refuges?

But the worry is that Pinknews is used as a source of "information" by lazy journalists and researchers.

And not the same issue, there was an article on how wonderful the new sex education lessons will be for children. And who did the quote? Stonewall.

.

Archived links;
link 1
archive.is/3mskI

link 2
archive.is/LsXSc

That article is awful. It just rehashed the awful article in refinery 29 which upset me a lot at the time. The screening test which means no cis male can get in is your own word z and you don’t even need to have taken any steps to transition.

I do have a lot of sympathy for Sarah and I am pleased she was able to access a refuge.