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

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"?

The dog whistle of adult human female in this context could be compared to:

Adult cat female.
Adult dog female.
Adult cow female.

etc... etc...

There is no doubt that some are female and an adult but when context is added in this particular debate I personally see it used often as a dog whistle.

I can feel your venom. You dislike women who think our sex is relevant.

Calling my identity a dog whistle proves it.

'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.'

This sort of thing. Do you even know how you're sounding?

No Posie is not comparable to Donald trump.

That's a very very silly thing to say.. They are nothing like each other in terms of wealth, background, power, sex,... Erm. Dress sense, orangeness.

These sorts of comparisons are counter productive.

Why not compare her to thingy, I'm. That woman with all the children who was around at the tea party time? Or I dunno. Anne widdecombe? The womam from the apprentice who's so horrible?

What about pritti Patel even?

Anything a little more relevant than comparing her to I mean what the fuck is trump to us? We're British.

Get a better comparator maybe.

Oh I cut off the outside of MN most people would disagree. No they wouldn't. Because they wouldn't have s fucking clue what you were on about. Most people are not aware of any of this.

@HeadIsFucked

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.

You're right. The proportionate part is for you to argue that all trans women should be exempt for a woman's refuge based on nothing more than their protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Of course you may then have to also argue to include trans men or not based on your feelings and no doubt it is the external sight of a man rather than their ability to produce a particular gamete that counts? For that reason it is for the particular service provider to use on a case by case basis or else we are heading back to water fountains for x and water fountains for y etc...

It's not hatred to want single sex space, just mainly unworkable in our current set up. Most organisations, not all, are simply not willing to add to the suffering of a trans victim of DV by excluding them. They do however carry out extensive risk assessments of all service users and their potential offenders to try to ensure the safety of all concerned.

statsgeek1
You seem to be very centred on the needs of particular group of people. That would be fine, but you are interpreting everyone else's views and motivations through that lens, and distorting them to make them fit.

Imagine, if you will, that all the animal sanctuaries in a county are all "inclusive" and accept all species of domestic pet, including dogs. You are particularly passionate about dogs, and very happy about this.

I am, on the other hand, passionate about cats. I am trying to find somewhere to take some cats which were rescued from a household where they were used as bait for dog-fights. They are terrified of dogs and urinate in fear if they can smell one.

Would it be good for their psychological welfare to take them to a shelter with dogs, where they will be able to smell their fear 24/7? No. They will be retraumatised constantly. So I will search for a cat-only sheltersomewhere, where they can recover from their trauma. If I cannot find one, perhaps I will establish one myself.

Why will I do that? Because I am motivated by a wish to meet the needs of these cats. And I will be extremely happy if no-one ever tries to apply to my new sanctuary on behalf of a dog, thank you very much.

Women are female human beings, and deserve just as much consideration as traumatised cats. And to some people, women's welfare is just as important as animal welfare.

@Cleanandpress

I can feel your venom. You dislike women who think our sex is relevant.

Calling my identity a dog whistle proves it.

Misrepresenting how I think of the way I think about your identity is cheap.

Using it as a dog whistle to invite intolerance is where I disagree.

I'm an Australian Aboriginal, that's fine, it's a statement of fact. To suggest the white the invaders are somewhat less is possibly a dog whistle.

You're not interested in reading anything are you stat.

Women's refuges are in the vast majority trans inclusionary. They have to be too meet funding criteria and have done for some time.

They are now losing funding because they don't support MEN.

Any comment on why is always women's services being opened up rather than stonewall etc working to expand provision so the most appropriate provision is there for all?

Different groups do not need the same type of support in general. The situations and risks are different.

"The proportionate part is for you to argue that all trans women should be exempt for a woman's refuge based on nothing more than their protected characteristic of gender reassignment."

No, but you know that. Exclusion of anyone in a female only service/space/provision is on the basis of sex not gender reassignment. Single sex exceptions are dependent on the needs of women to single sex space/service/provision for privacy, dignity & safety & are based on female needs. Exclusion of trans identifying males are based on in the fact they're male, not trans.

You have just spent a couple of hours telling us its hate. Now you have switched to not possible.

Water fountains? Really?

Out of interest why choose trump instead of the Australian PMs? I'm not an expert but I know there have been some on the news for being reactionary sexist etc.

Why a USA one given you're Australian and we're British?

' I think about your identity is cheap'

What's her identity? Or mine?

Misrepresenting how I think of the way I think about your identity is cheap

Using it as a dog whistle to invite intolerance is where I disagree.

Your intolerance is the problem. Your prejudice. You can't see though it. You are so certain you are right you cannot see your own prejudice.

What happening in Australia re the experience of aboriginal women and DV? I know it's a massive problem.

Are the same sort of conversations happening? Is the geography a problem with providing services?

It's not something I know much about but it would be interesting to hear what's happening there.

Different groups do not need the same type of support in general. The situations and risks are different.

This is the bottom line. Men and women, however they identify, have different experiences.

Most women will absolutely want to recover in a female own environment.

I'm reading a lot of gobbledygook word salad trying to pretend that either that's not the case or it's just too difficult to manage.

You're right. The proportionate part is for you to argue that all trans women should be exempt for a woman's refuge based on nothing more than their protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

No. My argument would have nowt to do with transwomen. It would be all male people. Regardless of anything else.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

statsgeek1 You seem to be very centred on the needs of particular group of people. That would be fine, but you are interpreting everyone else's views and motivations through that lens, and distorting them to make them fit.

Imagine, if you will, that all the animal sanctuaries in a county are all "inclusive" and accept all species of domestic pet, including dogs. You are particularly passionate about dogs, and very happy about this.

I am, on the other hand, passionate about cats. I am trying to find somewhere to take some cats which were rescued from a household where they were used as bait for dog-fights. They are terrified of dogs and urinate in fear if they can smell one.

Would it be good for their psychological welfare to take them to a shelter with dogs, where they will be able to smell their fear 24/7? No. They will be retraumatised constantly. So I will search for a cat-only sheltersomewhere, where they can recover from their trauma. If I cannot find one, perhaps I will establish one myself.

Why will I do that? Because I am motivated by a wish to meet the needs of these cats. And I will be extremely happy if no-one ever tries to apply to my new sanctuary on behalf of a dog, thank you very much.

Women are female human beings, and deserve just as much consideration as traumatised cats. And to some people, women's welfare is just as important as animal welfare.

That would be okay if we were sat here suggesting that some refuges were to accept all women, some were to exclude trans women and some were to exclude women who aren't trans based on their protected characteristic alone.

We generally don't put dogs and cats together as it is quite common for one to attack the other based on nothing more than their visual appearance. In the case of my cats and dogs it's normally that cat that is the bully.

Whilst some trans people have attacked women and some women have attacked trans people it isn't common. Different from dogs etc... we are socially advanced enough to be able to control for that most of the time in the form of risk assessments and if a trans woman were to be referred to a refuge where for a proportionate reason it would be totally unsuitable that can be controlled for.

Of course, if the law were changed to treat all trans women as if they were men in general then you may have a point. Sadly, writing that into law would come with a whole lot of other unintended consequences which is why I suspect that the lady from Cambridge was unsuccessful in court. Her attempt to get the law to say all services must discriminate against trans people based on their protected characteristic just wasn't going to fly.

Ok I can see that I have intruded on long entrenched battlements here. I’ll withdraw the question and leave you to it.

It's not just about risk statsgeek1, it's About women who have already suffered violently at the hands of men being triggered by the presence of men when they're trying to recover.

The motivation of any males, however they identify, is irrelevant.

The proportionate part is for you to argue that all trans women should be exempt for a woman's refuge based on nothing more than their protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

That's not what it's based on, is it? Otherwise other males would be allowed in. It's a correct application of the single sex exemptions, and one which is specifically given as an example in the EA explanatory notes.

For that reason it is for the particular service provider to use on a case by case basis

No it is not, that's a TRA centric interpretation. It is specifically given as an example, using women's sexual violence services, that all males can be excluded if considered proportionate and legitimate.

I'm sorry if offended you about your brother Cleanandpress. I don't think drinking people are bad or anything like that and it's only that I'm really scared of being around drinking and try not to but it's big part of partner violence and automatic fear and it's same if it's a woman. I worried as well I would take temptation of drugs if around people who use as want to be out of it to forget everything so too risky temptation. If all spaces weren't shared, solve problem so no worries if someone scared of trans or scared of all other women. Need safe spaces after refuge as well because that's when you can be put in shared long term including sometimes mixed sex. One person on thread said women don't self refer to refuges but lots of us do because you call helpline and they give you numbers of refuge to call. Police have offered to take me somewhere but has to be what's available straight away and not always a refuge.

What's the situation in Australia? Especially with aboriginal women?

Are these conversations happening there? What's the support like generally? Is there suspicion? Does the geography cause barriers to help?

I'm genuinely interested as it's not an area I know much about, apart from racism is still entrenched and the aftermath of decades of the most horrendous treatment have had massive consequences.

@HeadIsFucked

You're right. The proportionate part is for you to argue that all trans women should be exempt for a woman's refuge based on nothing more than their protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

No. My argument would have nowt to do with transwomen. It would be all male people. Regardless of anything else.

I think I know what you want the law to say but, as was stated in the recent case with the lady from Cambridge, the law in general doesn't treat treat trans men as female and trans women as male. I personally think it would be absurd to treat you by no other indicator than what was written of your post birth PRF. That really is patriarchy 101.

It just makes sense, in reality you can't see chromosomes or sex organs in most cases, even in a changing room. As such, the law provides exemptions for situations where a service provider can support treating people by what was written on a piece of paper shortly after their birth when it is proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

There are some examples written into the EA guidance if it helps. The ECHR with their current make up of Tory stooges may wish to look at changing that but it will take a while.

Alternatively, we could educate the men who we live and work with as in the main,they are the ones who attack us, control us and treat us like rubbish. That may make a real difference.

It is all demands that we submit Datun.

Same as it ever was.

I get that people who have experienced prejudice want to push back against what they perceive as exclusion, however in this respect this motivation has been so manipulated we have women calling women dogwhistlers for knowing a basic truth about ourselves.

The venom is saddening. It is also illuminating.

A while back I read a twitter thread about a man who had explored his autogynephilia and addictions and in desperation about how his life was falling apart started to take an anti depressant which lifted it all. He moved on and he wanted to talk about it.

He posted at length about how MEN organise and MEN take control, what do we expect, we are experiencing MEN organising and MEN taking control.

We can do the same. Statsgeek1 is a shocker, but we must remember it was men who organised to the point where she/he/they's here doing this..

And stats why don't you support the idea of well funded orgs fighting to increase provision and also support new specific services for the groups they represent?

One size does not fit all, and the more support focussed on the specific challenges and risks to different communities are vital.