Trans paedophile stays in women's refuge for 10 weeks

[Tryfull]

From the DM: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11392601/Transgender-paedophile-caught-duping-staff-71-day-stay-domestic-violence-refuge.html

A paedophile duped staff into letting her stay at a domestic violence refuge for women and children for 71 days.

She sexually assaulted a ten-year-old girl in a supermarket toilet and secretly filmed another in 2018 and has been in court several times since.

A refuge guest and mum of three said that as a victim of sexual abuse, the situation was 'triggering'.

She said she came to the refuge with her children as she thought it was somewhere safe and that it was horrendous discovering a paedophile had been living there for months.

The mum added: 'I saw her several times hanging around where the prams are parked, she is tall and skinny with long brown hair and always wore a blue surgical mask. The whole thing makes my skin crawl.

That's not what you said and you know it. You specifically excluded a trans women irrespective of conviction status from the shelter which was separated and therefore safe (apart from the garden which I've said should also be separate). You said that.

Single sex spaces are not transphobic as they are protected by the equality act. They are not excluded because they are trans, they are excluded on the basis of sex which is completely legal. I do not recall saying trans women are women. But if I were to say that it would be on the basis of gender not sex which plenty of people on here don't even believe in.

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I would exclude all men from women’s shelters and that is what I have said consistently throughout. Criminal status is irrelevant to whether any given man is given access. All men are excluded.

If you don’t believe transwomen are women, why do you think they should have access (however limited) to women’s shelters?

Or are you saying all shelters should be mixed sex?

Your position is very unclear, perhaps because your use of language is unclear.

It sounds like me as if you want to have it both ways. Men are sometimes women, except when they’re not.

Hmm “transwomen are women” should have been in quotation marks. It’s a mantra after all, not any kind of statement of reality.

The refuge stated the accommodation was completely separate therefore no access, albeit with a shared garden, for safeguarding I would make sure no access at all including garden. As stated previously on the thread NI numbers don't change.

This isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is. NI numbers are not like social security numbers (and you clearly don't seem to know the difference) and you aren't asked for your NI number in a DBS, nor are they recorded against criminal convictions.

A shared garden is still an opportunity for assault. And it's not just about assault. It's about trauma and healing from that trauma in a single sex space.

Men don't belong in women'a refuges. Full stop.

The whole point is that the probability of any individual man being a predator is unchanged by the claim that he is female,

People keep saying this and I don't know if it's genuinely believed or if it's just politeness, or if it's a fear that telling the truth could be weaponised by TRAs. But the fact of a man wanting into women-only spaces is one of the clearest possible indications that he's a risk to women. Decent men don't want to infiltrate the spaces where women are vulnerable.

It's weird how the discussion gets all caught up in the validity of their identities or whatever, when all of that is totally irrelevant. The only important facts about these men are a) that they're men, b) who want into women's spaces. And b) makes them more likely to be dangerous to women than other men.

People keep saying this and I don't know if it's genuinely believed or if it's just politeness, or if it's a fear that telling the truth could be weaponised by TRAs. But the fact of a man wanting into women-only spaces is one of the clearest possible indications that he's a risk to women. Decent men don't want to infiltrate the spaces where women are vulnerable.

Yes, I apologize for my previous blanket statement. My intended implication was related to the study which showed that even men who went through medical transition continued to show male patterns of offending and therefore presented no less risk to women than any other man.

Of course things have moved on from there and we are now living through a period when men have received the message from governments and activists alike, that women can no longer exclude men from their spaces. Women have begun to object and any decent man listening has realised that, however much he wants to use women’s spaces, he should not do so as it causes alarm and distress. Those men who still insist on using women’s spaces with this background are very likely to be men who don’t care about women and their boundaries, safety and comfort, and in particular, predatory men who will use any loophole.

I don’t think Yelena is arguing in good faith. He/she is trying to ignore the fact that this is a women’s shelter. Any “trans wing” should therefore only house women, i.e. those transitioning FtM. If you place any males in there, no matter what identity they claim, or restrictions to access you put in place, then it is no longer a women’s shelter.

need NI number for DBS?

If you have a National Insurance number, we must have this information to complete the DBS application. current address and your previous address(s) to cover the complete 5 year period. All Proof of identification must be the original document.

I see. So you believe the trans accommodation they specifically received funding for in a women's shelter would be for trans men only. Right. So you admit to excluding the trans woman even though the shelter is funded for that purpose and if the accommodation is made safe. Perhaps you will be emailing the shelter asking them to return the funding. Seems illogical and will hurt other women but okay.

What exactly is this trans accommodation in Leeds Women's' Aid? Is just for trans women or also for trans men? How is having a shared garden not a safeguarding risk?

That's irrelevant anyway as it's the individual who applies for a DBD check.

Not a prospective employer or service provider.

Do you really think a DV service provider will demand a DBS record from a client?

There's no information if it's for trans people in general. If it includes trans men then surely they should be separated from the trans women for safeguarding. And yes it shouldn't have a shared garden.

@Chersfrozenface my point was that NI are asked for in a DBS check which the poster said they weren't. NI numbers originally came up because someone said criminal checks couldn't be accurate if an offender had changed name or GRC. As NI numbers don't change that's obviously not true. And that point came up because I suggested the criminal checks the hostel had done obviously weren't done properly or at all. The article I read suggested they wouldn't have admitted them if they had known, I suggested criminal checks should be done if that's a rule.

So you believe the trans accommodation they specifically received funding for in a women's shelter would be for trans men only.

You want to put men in a women’s shelter then as you’ve already insinuated you don’t believe trans women are women - to quote you, “I do not recall saying trans women are women.”

Or are they women enough for the purposes of accessing spaces that state they are set aside for women, but not women enough to share a space with women?

Perhaps you could actually tell us what you believe as you appear to be prevaricating.

And yes, a trans wing of a women’s shelter should be for transitioning or transitioned women.

Do you disagree? If so, which part do you disagree with and why?

You stated that I had claimed trans women are women. I had not, so I said so:

I do not recall saying trans women are women. But if I were to say that it would be on the basis of gender not sex which plenty of people on here don't even believe in.

Tran women are clearly not the female sex, however lots of people believe there to be a gender called woman which includes trans women. I specified that lots of people on here don't believe in it, hence GC. It makes no odds to me what people call themselves, just that appropriate safeguarding etc. is in place.

I don’t think Yelena is arguing in good faith. He/she is trying to ignore the fact that this is a women’s shelter. Any “trans wing” should therefore only house women, i.e. those transitioning FtM. If you place any males in there, no matter what identity they claim, or restrictions to access you put in place, then it is no longer a women’s shelter.

Agree with all points.

As I've said before, women transitioning or transitioned would still need to be safeguarded in a refuge. I don't have an issue with that why would I?

Right. Because I don't agree that a funded separate trans shelter for trans women should exclude trans women I'm arguing in bad faith. What because I don't agree with you? Newsflash people have different opinions to you, it doesn't make it 'bad faith'. Come on you've seemed reasonable up to now.

Because I don't agree that a funded separate trans shelter for trans women should exclude trans women

This is fundamentally a misunderstanding on your part. This is a women’s shelter with a section for trans(itioning) people who are women and therefore of the female sex. It is not a trans women’s shelter because those you choose to call “trans women” are men.

Safeguarding the women in the shelter involves excluding those men you want to have there, but you want them in there anyway, even if you are still prevaricating and trying to dance around it by claiming they are and aren’t women at the same time.

Anyway, you haven’t said anything interesting or different. You haven’t explained on what grounds you think a women’s shelter should shelter men, nor how you would properly safeguard the women in the shelter from the men you want there. You think men should be in a women’s shelter and can’t see beyond that.

Try some logic. Either they are women in your eyes, in which case separating them is transphobic, or they aren’t, in which case they shouldn’t be in a women’s shelter. There is no middle ground.

No it is you that's misunderstood. That particular shelter takes trans women. That's what this whole thread is about because they wrongly allowed a convicted paedophile trans woman to stay there for ~weeks. The shelter stated it was wrong not because they were a trans woman or they mistakingly thought it was a natal woman. But because of the conviction.

I completely understand you think it should only be for women or transitioning/transitioned women, but that's not what they are funded for. It makes no odds to me as long as their are enough funded places for the people who need them. That's probably not the case as someone on here said there wasn't a place when they needed it. However there would be even fewer places if they hadn't accepted that funding that's obvious, no matter what your opinion. Take it up with the shelter if you disagree.

I've also already stated that all accommodation needs to be secure separate and safeguarded. If you like, I can list all the security processes and systems I would put in place, it all takes money though. These women are sometimes fleeing awful abusive stalker men. Security must be paramount.

I don't get what you don't understand, I couldn't be any clearer but for the benefit of doubt: that shelter takes men when they are transitioning or transitioned to trans women. They don't take men who aren't or haven't.

You may not 'believe' in it and have specific views which are different to mine, that's fine. I've stated I don't believe trans women are women in the sex sense, if they are women they are in the gender sense. You probably don't believe in gender. That's fine, I don't 'believe' in Christianity I still recognise it exists and that other people believe it.

I believe women and girls need to be kept safe from men. And I also know that most abuse is by men the women and girls know: family, friends, coaches. Every other thread on here is drag queens or trans women. That's not where the biggest risk is. A survey at work said 1 in 4 women had been sexually assaulted in their life time. I have. I'm willing to bet less than 0.01 % or none of that was by a drag queen or trans woman.

I'm aware trans women have done horrible things, this thread is just one of them. 99.9% of the horrible things are done by plain old men, so common place it doesn't even reach the news, that's if it even gets reported. I didn't report mine. And do you know why? Because the odds of it getting to trial let alone a conviction is minuscule.

I'm not the enemy here and I'd appreciate not being treated like one.

I'm willing to bet less than 0.01 % or none of that was by a drag queen or trans woman.

I think you'd lose that bet. They are just male, there's nothing special about them, unless you are using some narrower gatekept no true Scotsman definition.

The policy position of most trans rights activists is zero limits, acceptance without exception. They see it as a virtue. That's the foundation of the queer theory position you were having issues grasping earlier, but thought Wikipedia was the best source for.

I presume that rather than saying the 'it never happens' they are actually saying don't tar them all with the same brush.

You "presume" quite a lot, given that you have no idea. You presume wrongly in many cases. I've lost count of the amount of people who say these male people pose zero increased threat to women in a female space, and that there have never been problems with having them in women's spaces.

Well you’d think they’d say ‘ don’t tar them all with the same brush’ if they meant…don’t tar them all with the same brush

rather than ‘it never happens’ which rather suggests that they dont think it ever happens

but I appreciate that i am, to coin a recent phrase, ‘old school’ and believe that words matter

I have no idea what you're saying. It's basic probability there are significantly fewer of them. Not zero risk. Just because I haven't read about queer theory yet as I've been out with my children, doesn't make me stupid. I could say the same about you not getting basic maths but whatever.

I have no idea what you're saying. It's basic probability there are significantly fewer of them. Not zero risk. Just because I haven't read about queer theory yet as I've been out with my children, doesn't make me stupid. I could say the same about you not getting basic maths but whatever.

What "basic maths" was I missing by saying that the 0.01% figure you pulled out of the air was likely to be untrue?