Transmisogyny in women’s shelters.

[Whatdoyoudowhendemocracyfails]

A year-long investigation has concluded a “cohort of powerful feminists” is deliberately freezing out transwomen from accessing services for domestic violence victims.

Didn’t realise we had so much power

gal-dem.com/transphobia-sexual-violence-sound-like-a-man-hang-up-vawg-investigation/

I suppose it is progress that we've shifted from "There is no problem at all for female people with mixed sex women's shelters, you're making it up!" to "All right, there is a problem, but it's all female people's fault!"

The obvious solution of course is to designate some shelters mixed sex and others single sex, and for some additional LGBT+ shelters to be provided. Opportunities abound there. But will never be allowed, because these apparently women centred facilities believe it is better for some females to have no provision at all than for males to have to face that a space exists that does not centre meeting male needs as the highest priority.

How sexist does this need to be to be challenged?

Wait, the website says Vanessa?

Not Vanessa - Veronica.

Rachel McKinnon's going by "Veronica Ivy" sometimes now.

(And yes, it definitely is McKinnon. There's a picture from a car dealership in an awkward pose being congratulated on the purchase of a new van for the business).

The people who work there know exactly what they are facing and can best judge vulnerability and from whom....and indeed any risk of a trigger.

You ask for empathy, Mishy, but you show none yourself. Your very words reveal that you don’t listen to the women you’re supposedly helping.

As a survivor of rape and other violence, I used to wish I’d had a refuge or rape-crisis centre available at the time. They are only available now because so many women campaigned and fundraised and gave our own time and money to set them up.

We don’t begrudge help to others who need it. But don’t intrude on women’s need to be away from men for a while. And don’t try to validate yourself at women’s expense.

@ApplesinmyPocket

"I think what this investigation shows is shocking and sad. I work in a frontline women’s organisation tackling violence against women and I’m happy that the organisation I work for is fully inclusive of trans women."

Let's do that thing where we turn off the gaslight words: "I work in a frontline women’s organisation tackling violence against women and I’m happy that the organisation I work for is fully inclusive of men."

Of course it would be more accurate still to say "and I"m happy that the organisation I work for puts men first"

@NecessaryScene1

Wait, the website says Vanessa?

Not Vanessa - Veronica.

Rachel McKinnon's going by "Veronica Ivy" sometimes now.

(And yes, it definitely is McKinnon. There's a picture from a car dealership in an awkward pose being congratulated on the purchase of a new van for the business).

Oh good golly.

@SurvivalIsInsufficient

i work in a frontline women’s organisation tackling violence against women and I’m happy that the organisation I work for is fully inclusive of trans women

If you work in a refuge or similar and you are happy that women are being forced to have men in that space, you should quit. Now.

I thought it was (mildly) interesting that the organisation wasn't named.

So we know that victims of DV, CSA and sexual abuse are much more likely to be female, we know that perpetrators are much more likely to be male (was it 98% of convicted sex offenders that are male?) We know that males commit much more of our crime and violent crime. We know males are physically, on average, bigger and stronger. We know males in shelters are less likely to have children with them. But even on a feminist thread we’re being scolded and guilt tripped for not prioritising support services for males.

Why can’t we create more provision for groups rather than open every single one up to everyone.

Is there honestly not room, in a population of 66m people, for a few female shelters?

Everyone’s banging on about their unique identity and how individual and special they are but somehow they all need access to women’s stuff, just in case.

Well, I'm flummoxed.

MishyJDI and sweetpetrichor have demonstrated extraordinary, beyond the usual bounds of dedicated refusal to understand the situation. Really special levels of whatever the opposite of empathy is.

And as for Rachel Mckinnon's change of name and entry into a specifically female job agency (if I've understood correctly)- that is incredibly deceitful.

I'm as close as I've ever been to earning a deletion, I think.

Why is misgendering a deletion offence, but mis sexing isn't? Surely referring to someone with a penis as 'she' is mis sexing? Why is that ok?

Where do women’s refuges get funding from? Government, NHS & grant making trusts all of whom have been told by stonewall that single sex spaces are illegal

And so when they apply for grants they have tj say they acknowledge they can’t provide single sex services & outline how they will include trans women. No includy, no money so even if they don’t agree they could never say

But Women's Aid have been given opportunities to highlight the problems of the male-inclusive approach from service users' pov - including in front of the women and equalities committee, and they just sit there in silence.

^01Biscuitsanddoombar
Oh cara definitely exists
www.benjerry.co.uk/whats-new/2019/07/cara-english^
In that piece Cara says:
"I don't believe people are generally transphobic or hateful, I believe people don't really care about how others live their lives as long as it doesn't affect them."
Yup, Cara, with you there. We just object to the stuff that does affect women - like allowing men into rape shelters.

"Transmisogyny" what a meaningless term

@SunsetBeetch

"Transmisogyny" what a meaningless term

On the contrary. I don't think it's a meaningless term, it is (as pointed out upthread) a deliberate act of appropriation.

We are not allowed to retain a word describing specifically bad actions directed at us as a group using the identifying factor of our biology, by members of a separate group identified by their biology. We can't be allowed to name our oppression.

they just sit there in silence.

And what will happen if they don't?

This is what Liz Truss has to address. Single sex exemptions are legal. But any service trying to say this one thing is for females only gets a humungous, noisy tantrum and flying accusations of hatred, unkindness, prejudice, yada yada yada

With no one pointing out the absolute unwillingness of the male people leading this and the female people supporting their view that male needs must be centred by every single woman thing there is even if this disadvantages and excludes some females from having anything at all . There is nothing kind or inclusive or unprejudiced about what these male centred people are trying to do to female people and their resources.

They cannot allow anything to be female only, even when their own needs are being fully met. It's full on dog in the manger.

This has to be unpacked. If inclusion and intersectionality and kindness and diversity means more in this than just 'do what male people want', these values must be extended by TW to females. Mixed sex services do not work for all females. If there is no willingness for male born women to offer this to female women voluntarily then they're proving, female only services must be ringfenced and protected. Females are not a subordinate race.

MishyJDI and sweetpetrichor have demonstrated extraordinary, beyond the usual bounds of dedicated refusal to understand the situation. Really special levels of whatever the opposite of empathy is.

Someone on this board linked to an academic article last week about the phenomenon of "motivated ignorance". I think that sums up what those posters have come out with.

Everyone’s banging on about their unique identity and how individual and special they are but somehow they all need access to women’s stuff, just in case.

This. I'm barely out of the demographic targeted by the woke and yet I can't keep up. So very many different gender identities (over 100, the BBC tells my kids) and yet you're either a man or you use the women's provision; be that toilets or swimming ponds or changing rooms or shelters. Despite the fact that men don't even need single sex provision for safety. (Of course it's quite legitimate for them to want it for privacy)

@MichelleofzeResistance

they just sit there in silence.

And what will happen if they don't?

This is what Liz Truss has to address. Single sex exemptions are legal. But any service trying to say this one thing is for females only gets a humungous, noisy tantrum and flying accusations of hatred, unkindness, prejudice, yada yada yada

With no one pointing out the absolute unwillingness of the male people leading this and the female people supporting their view that male needs must be centred by every single woman thing there is even if this disadvantages and excludes some females from having anything at all . There is nothing kind or inclusive or unprejudiced about what these male centred people are trying to do to female people and their resources.

They cannot allow anything to be female only, even when their own needs are being fully met. It's full on dog in the manger.

This has to be unpacked. If inclusion and intersectionality and kindness and diversity means more in this than just 'do what male people want', these values must be extended by TW to females. Mixed sex services do not work for all females. If there is no willingness for male born women to offer this to female women voluntarily then they're proving, female only services must be ringfenced and protected. Females are not a subordinate race.

If they don't, they'll be defunded. It really is as stark as that, especially in Scotland where applicants for the VAWG have to show that The proposed work must be demonstrably inclusive of lesbian, bisexual, trans and intersex (LBTI) women.

There is a tiny footnote about single sex exemptions but the intent is clear. For an awful lot of services, it's include or die.

If they don't, they'll be defunded. It really is as stark as that

Cannot be said enough.

Gynephobia is built into the system.

@AllCatsAreBeautiful

I think what this investigation shows is shocking and sad. I work in a frontline women’s organisation tackling violence against women and I’m happy that the organisation I work for is fully inclusive of trans women.

I have worked/volunteered in a community charity for over 20 years. 2 years ago, when our local refuge had its first transwoman client arrive, there was a short and decisive meeting with the then residents. All voted no and the transwoman was signposted elsewhere. That has set the precedent since. Total transparency and the women directly involved having a say.

To date all of the clients, and staff, have decided that they do not want a man in the refuge. Not as a client, a volunteer, employee, window cleaner, painter and decrator, etc etc etc.

They are not inclusive of transwomen, They are a single sex service for traumatised women. And use the EA 2010 as intended.

Have you ever asked the women in your service? As in given them a totally unguided, free voice? Did you start off with TWAW and we should be nice?

If they don't, they'll be defunded. It really is as stark as that Sadly that was the reality here too. I think, but could be very wrong, that as there is another refuge that is for men and women about 10 miles away, we provde transport to them, we have so far escaped the wrath and the defunding. But suspect it is only a matter of time!

And as for Rachel Mckinnon's change of name and entry into a specifically female job agency (if I've understood correctly)- that is incredibly deceitful.

To clarify - Rachel has set up their own one-person remodelling business. There's no "specifically female" claim here necessarily, but this would be a business that would be working in people's homes.

So the question arises - if someone decided to hire them rather than someone else on the assumption that they were female (given the name, pronouns, and stock female photo) - and that seems possible - how would McKinnon respond if that customer said they were not expecting/happy with letting a male in?

If McKinnon wasn't McKinnon, with McKinnon's personality, I would be a bit less worried about the potential outcome here. This isn't quite as stark as the ball-waxing case, but it could cross into that area.

Are you allowed as a customer to select female service providers, and turn down male provision? (Taxi drivers are the more commonly discussed, but tradespeople visting homes are surely similar).

Still, this is getting off-topic. My fault for bring it up. (But I fear a separate thread would get nuked anyway).

SweetPetrichor

You totally lack any empathy for women, you should be ashamed of yourself. I would say there is something terribly wrong with any male bodied person who seeks to gain entrance to any female safe spaces.

All voted no and the transwoman was signposted elsewhere. That has set the precedent since.

For more background - how hard was it to find somewhere to signpost to? Did they have to go miles away?

A lot of the "include transwomen in women's shelters" sorts seem to imply "there's nowhere else for them to go", but how true is that?

Have you ever asked the women in your service? As in given them a totally unguided, free voice? Did you start off with TWAW and we should be nice?

Of course AllCats hasn't. That's the whole point of strategic ignorance. So long as they don't ask, they can say with a straight face "well none of our users has ever expressed a problem."

In fact I suspect the opposite may have been done - identify women at a low, vulnerable point, who are in desperate need of help and will do anything not to compromise getting that help, pick out the people-pleasers (not hard to do in a therapeutic environment) and ask them deliberately leading questions "We have a trans-inclusionary policy, and it's such a shame that we occasionally have to ask people to find alternative provision if it turns out they can't respect this policy... Of course you're not bothered by this lovely transwoman are you?"

@JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown

What strikes me is 1) none of the people mentioned seem to have much understanding of the vawg sector. It's well known that its common for heavy breathers to call rape centres or for abusive men to try find the locations of shelters. Its not rare at all. Having strategies for managing that is part and parcel of the day to day running of them. It makes me wonder how much experience these anonymous commentators actually have. It reads like they're volunteers who've come into a complex sector they don't really understand and tried to throw their weight around. And 2) why on earth aren't they fundraising for trans-inclusive services if they believe they are so badly needed? As others have said upthread, I'd be more than happy to contribute to a shelter for trans women. I've never seen trans activists campaign for this. All of their 'activism' is always so destructive. It's never campaigning for more funding or extended services, its always about removing funding from those they deem not worthy or removing rights from women to have sex-specific spaces or female rape examiners. I remember a little time back, seeing someone proudly display how they'd removed Vancouver Rape Relief posters and how others had disrupted one of their fundraising events handing out fliers to tell prospective donors not to donate. Imagine if those people had put that considerable passion and energy into fundraising for trans-inclusive shelters instead? I can't help thinking that if they tried building instead of destroying, we wouldn't need to have this argument at all.

I can't help thinking that if they tried building instead of destroying, we wouldn't need to have this argument at all.

Absolutely, and I think it needs repeating over and over.
This type of 'activism' is destructive...and evil when you think of the focus of their destruction. It's basically nothing more than a branch of MRActivism.
It needs calling out more, and tbh I can't understand why it isn't called out and put a stop to.

How many mixed sex DV shelters take children?
I just can't imagine celebrating taking life saving services away from women and children who are the ones at most risk.