Posie putting her money where her mouth is. Lets do this.

[Fallingirl]

Posie is planning to re-build the women’s sector, starting with crowd funding for a women-only refuge.

@Cleanandpress

There aren't many white guys (assuming you mean men) building on hate and exclusion here on mumsnet *@statsgeek1* and "progress" can mean many different things.

Your comment misses the point. We've had single sex exemptions for 10 years in the Equality Act. Female only services ARE PROGRESS.

I think the only thing that needs to be said about interpretation of the EA guidance was said in court a few weeks ago. It really did happen, the judge really did infer that it is not the 'norm' to exclude trans women and suggested that to say different would require an individual case.

People involved in assessing DV victims for many years are well aware of those that may need to avoid a trans woman. Well established risk assessments are in place.This has been stated by those involved in support services.

If you want that to change, even with the current support a minister of state it is still likely that you will have to vote for party that explicitly discriminates against trans people in their manifesto. The Tories aren't quite there yet, probably as a result of the dumping of Trump in the US. I'm always really surprised that so called GC people need to support the right leaning authoritarian, patriarchy supporting folk to gain some traction.

Still, progress can mean many different things, as you say!

@JoodyBlue

She often says feminism left her because feminists would not allow her to articulate clearly what a woman is. As for not collaborating, she obviously does collaborate with Venice, with Julia Long, with Sheila Jeffries, with many other people who will not slate her for telling the truth as she sees it.

That truth is uncomfortable for many. But this is the point. We should be able to hold uncomfortable truths and disagree with each other in a democracy and we cannot.

She continually calls out women who are standing for the same cause who undermine each other. Sadly @howtocomplain it feels like this is what you are doing.

I think, on past evidence, she would be quite likely to take advice, counsel, and collaboration with women who work in this sector. Maybe contact her to find out?

Does she?

Since when?

@statsgeek1

I'm listening to BBC news right now with some white guy explaining how ethnic minorities need the likes of him on side to make any progress. He's mistaken and I believe Posie is too. Progress is built on support and empathy and something built on hate and exclusion is unlikely to serve best those intended.

You have just drawn a parallel between the "likes of him" and most woman here, and gone on to imply "hate" for the fairly basic expectation that the legal single sex exceptions can be used.

I think your opinion of women is quite extreme. Would you care to elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that women are the same as the "likes of him".

You can start with how women using single sex exemptions are the same as this man and take it from there.

People involved in assessing DV victims for many years are well aware of those that may need to avoid a trans woman. Well established risk assessments are in place.This has been stated by those involved in support services.

This all sounds lovely.

There are women on this thread explaining their experience that has led to them not being able to access support because there is no female only provision. There's a long term MNetter who spent months living rough because there was nowhere she could go that did not demand she accepted mixed sex spaces. There are MNetters who were refuge users at the time who have attended a meeting to explain to refuge leaders how they needed female only provision and not only were ignored at the meeting but the leaders afterwards denied the meeting had not taken place. There's a well known senior person who has just been made even more senior in the field of women's rape crisis provision, who is on video laughing at the mention of female people who are excluded from mixed sex spaces.

Gaslighting really does not help anything here. And this has nothing whatever to do with the basic need right now for female people in desperate need to have somewhere safe to go, and there being someone willing to do some fund raising for this.

Ok so we have finally reached Trump as an argument.

@Cleanandpress

The lady from Cambridge recently went to court to ensure support for exclusion of trans people in general with regards to the EA being the norm.She wasn't successful. In fact it was declared she had little point and her argument was absurd. I know the mainstream press did not report on this but, it did happen.

You are talking to people who paid for that case and watched the live tweeting very closely. Your summary is inaccurate.

So, did the judge suggest in their summing up that the lady from Cambridge had a case to go forward to JR? A case that suggested she had an argument that suggested that the exemptions in the EA should be widely and generally used as oppose to being used sparingly when it was decreed a single situation was proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim?

I don't doubt you paid for that case and I don't doubt its result wasn't what you hoped for. However, as a result of that judgement, I'd be quite surprised if any judge would take it as a green light to discriminate against a trans man or woman without it being proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim. Some call it Stonewall law but, as it stands it appears to be just the law. Perhaps that will change in future and no doubt there will be further challenge.

@NiceGerbil which bit were you asking me about? All of that post comes from listening to her speak online over the last couple of years.

Oh this is so dull.

Women can give money to whoever and whatever they like. However little or much to however many things we like.

That's good, isn't it!

The women who set up the refuges in the first place did it from scratch. Were they rubbish? No.

Who says she isn't taking to people?

Who knows what her actual plan is?

She is excellent at publicity. The fact she is asking for donations to start new independent refuges because the current system is being defunded, altered dramatically, places going for decades are having funding pulled etc etc.. It gives her an opportunity to talk. Raise awareness. Raise publicity.

What will she do with the money? Well that comes down to do you trust her not to Imelda Marcos it. I believe she is honest. I believe she genuinely cares. So whatever happens in the end I have no doubt whatever raised will go towards the stated aim- female only refuges.

The case was based on the Code of Practice from the EHRC.

The judge determined that there was no automatic inclusion, and the EHRC agreed. On that basis there was no need to go to a full JR as the full JR case was that EHRC were implying full automatic inclusion and he agreed that wasn't the legal position.

Which is good news. We are repeatedly told automatic inclusion is the law. He said it wasn't. And actually prior to the judgement as a result of Ann's work the CoP was changed.

There are many circumstances when it is a legitimate aim. Do you genuinely believe female only services should always be in the gift of males, it is their choice first and ours second?

Explain how that is progress?

So, did the judge suggest in their summing up that the lady from Cambridge had a case to go forward to JR?

This case not going to JR doesn't mean another, more obviously about actual harm caused to the claimant, would not succeed. It's not a binding legal decision on the subject.

And I believe the EHRC is withdrawing and changing some of their documents, and as we know, has publicly withdrawn from Stonewall Champions programme, and intervened for Maya Forstater in her appeal.

I'd be quite surprised if any judge would take it as a green light to discriminate against a trans man or woman

This thread has nothing to do with trans people, it is about female people who cannot access mixed sex spaces and so are being left without provision. And what, as females, we can do to help other females stranded in this situation.

The issue: the needs of female people.

Oh balls lost long post.

Brighton established women's refuge lost funding to group who's main focus is social housing

www.theargus.co.uk/news/19107670.brighton-hove-council-defend-rise-contract-decision/

Sorry for getting diverted, we have a poster suggesting that women are like racists for using the Equality Act single sex exemptions. I got waylaid. It is the way it goes when women talk about women.

Scottish council women's aid lose funding to group whose focus is
'About Sacro
From providing conflict resolution that prevents disputes from escalating to supporting prisoners on release, we'll work with you to repair harm and reduce conflict and reoffending.'

www.heraldscotland.com/news/19117594.womens-aid-appalled-north-lanarkshire-council-defunds-domestic-abuse-services/

Oh I missed that clean!

The problem I see with anyone trying to set up s single sex service is being vulnerable to legal stuff around equalitied etc.

Whoever does it will not be able to set up as a charity nor have the councils etc know their details.

In reality they will need to be totally secret and word of mouth only, surely?

Existing services can't do that. They are generally charities and are well known.

[quote Cleanandpress]@statsgeek1

I'm listening to BBC news right now with some white guy explaining how ethnic minorities need the likes of him on side to make any progress. He's mistaken and I believe Posie is too. Progress is built on support and empathy and something built on hate and exclusion is unlikely to serve best those intended.

You have just drawn a parallel between the "likes of him" and most woman here, and gone on to imply "hate" for the fairly basic expectation that the legal single sex exceptions can be used.

I think your opinion of women is quite extreme. Would you care to elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that women are the same as the "likes of him".

You can start with how women using single sex exemptions are the same as this man and take it from there.[/quote]
I'm not comparing women in general to him, I'm absolutely happy to compare his exclusionary opinions and their results to those held by Posie Parker. It's well documented and she certainly isn't ashamed of it. I would hazard a guess that many trans people are at least somewhat happy to see her open intolerance. Dog whistles are always disappointing and she can't be accused of that.

I wouldn't think outside of the Mumsnet FWR that it is an opinion that would be considered extreme.

Single sex exemptions as stated in the EA are welcome for services to enforce when they deem that a particular situation such that it is proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim. Despite a strange silence in the media it has recently been to a hearing which suggested arguments to the contrary just were not sufficient to proceed to judicial review.

A man who would use his personal experience in order to suggest his particular opinion of that law was valid, without test, at the expense of another demographic is not in any way totally in opposition to Posie.

Of course, if she was to go about her business and create a new refuge for the support of vulnerable women then I'm sure she'll be well supported and I for one say good luck to her. I'd imagine if she was on the off chance looking for an EA test case there won't be many takers. Vulnerable people aren't normally up for being used as tennis balls.

Agreed Artichoke. Let's keep this thread focused on vulnerable women. So pleased to see so many women and men donating.

What do sensible women who are already fighting the good fight think about this? For example, and I apologise for singing her out, Karen Ingala Smith. She has a lot of experience in this area. She understands the problem and has to deal with it every day. She is doing the job already and I think she needs our support. If she’s up for it then yes I’m happy to donate. If not then perhaps someone can explain why.

The "dog whistle" you are referring to is adult human female.

You think outside of mumsnet that is considered a "dog whistle"?

Do you not think it is a bizzare situation when you can happily tell women that describing saying we are adult human female is a "dog whistle"?

[quote JoodyBlue]@NiceGerbil which bit were you asking me about? All of that post comes from listening to her speak online over the last couple of years.[/quote]
Sorry joody! Trying to catch up and was interested.

'She often says feminism left her because feminists would not allow her to articulate clearly what a woman is'

I must admit I've only seen her thing with harrop and of course the posters etc.

When she was on here though she was always clear that she was not a feminist.

The arguments with her about feminism were long and heated.

On the feminism board she was someone who posted very often in opposition to what others were saying. She liked to tell us we were wrong iirc.

I'm really surprised if between then and now she started saying she was a feminist as she was always so clear that was not something she subscribed to.

In short she had her own views and refused to sign up to a particular label, as it were.

I'm not saying she was like an MRA or anything but she certainly had contraversial views on some things. That she was happy to engage on and argue about (for hours!).

It just seems like an odd about turn.

@Cleanandpress

There are women on this thread asking for help and there are others griping with each other about....well about what?

No wonder women can't get help when this shit goes on. The ratio of bitching to helping is completely wrong.

Sorry still catching up.

Bitching, eh?

And this is a chat board. The idea that women can't be doing anything useful because they're talking, sorry bitching, on here is bizarre.

It's a bit like the way women have always been told
It's not your place to think
It's not your place to have opinions
You don't really understand
It's too complicated for you
Why don't you stop doing this and focus on the things you're supposed to do?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

So, did the judge suggest in their summing up that the lady from Cambridge had a case to go forward to JR?

This case not going to JR doesn't mean another, more obviously about actual harm caused to the claimant, would not succeed. It's not a binding legal decision on the subject.

You're right and as it stands individual cases will have to be used to say that it is proportionate in a situation to exclude a person from a service based on a legitimate aim. The question is, what happens to the excluded person? We already know that a trans woman can be excluded, the law says so.It's just that they can not be excluded for being trans and as the case stated the law does in many cases treat trans people in general differently from the sex that was observed at their birth. To be honest to suggest that your birth sex determines your outcomes always seems a bit odd to me.

Good luck in waiting for that case though. I'm quite confident that the chances of any trans woman being willing to be referred to a refuge run by Posie Parker to enable that test are quite slim. They are far more likely to be looking for a safe space to avoid a violent partner and I'd be more than surprised if a local authority, police force or medical service could realistically consider a Posie Parker run refuge to be a place of safety for a trans victim of DV.

As we know with many thanks to the lady from Cambridge, it's the provider that needs to use the exemption and reality suggests most providers seem to think that their current operations work as best as they can based on their current funding. Of course that is far from ideal and if we were to crowd fund for them they could then make provision for this eventuality which could meet the needs of all concerned.

On the other hand we could fund exclusion without exception and although it might make some feel a little bit better it's unlikely to do much for vulnerable people. I know the cruelty is sometimes the point but, it's not a common approach.

If you want that to change, even with the current support a minister of state it is still likely that you will have to vote for party that explicitly discriminates against trans people in their manifesto.

Erm, not really. We (general we, meaning most here, the odd few might want this, but generally speaking the feminist regulars are unlikely to be among them!) don't want discrimination against trans people. We want the 'sex' part of the equality act to be fucking recognised. And for the single sex exemptions to be used in certain situations where sex is relevant. I would argue that the 'proportionate aim' or whatever the wording is...well a female only refuge WOULD be a legitimate aim surely..the very fact that such a place would need to be female only, as people of the female sex are entitled to spaces away from the male sex..would, or bloody should, be reason enough.
Hell, go through the 'case by case' stuff if you will, but any 'case' where the person is of the male sex, would be a nope. And this is 'hatred'?! Its just..nonsense. When did it become hate to recognise that some female people need space away from males, however said male presents themselves..jesus.

All the stuff by stats etc misses the point entirely.

Councils have a statutory duty to provide this service. Like they do to provide libraries.

These things are expensive.

Existing providing trans friendly or not is being cut because it doesn't support MEN.

On the inclusion piece- funding depends on it. In reality services that have this finding cannot risk breaching the terms which are generally that they are open to xyz.

They also can't speak about it for the same reason- purse strings.

There's a lot of stuff that is ideas about what could or should happen rather than real life.

I would also argue that if the money were there, lots of it. The different services are ideal. Because different groups need different support. The dynamics and type of abuse and situations differ. One size does not fit all.

And I suppose it again comes back to. The fact is that women's refuges were built from scratch by women back in the day. Their hard work and money for something close to them.

The likes of stonewall have loads of money. Massive fundraising power.

Why aren't they carrying out research- as women have done for years. Into the modes of abuse, the barriers to leaving, the dangers faced, what will help most etc. And get some stuff set up that is absolutely the best possible thing for various groups.

The fact that are not doing that. When it would help way more people and much better.

Why the hell not???