New housing development for LGBTQ people 55+

[Justme56]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12926315/LGBTQ-extra-care-housing-development-Manchester-UKs-55s-residents.html

I think that this is a fantastic idea. They will all tie themselves into knots over how they define themselves and each other. It also sets a precedent which would presumably allow an all biologically female block of flats, which would be great fun to live in. Or am I being too optimistic here and would find the men in dresses and beards lining up.

@popebishop I did not say that 55+ do not get dementia what i said is that the poster is suggesting that anyone over 55 are more likely, once loss of faculties occur, start expressing racist and homophobic opinions.

which is just plainly a generalisation, just like under 55 are never racist prejudiced or homophobic which is also not true.

It is as i said a bad attitude towards age as a marker for beliefs and values.

Maybe just some respite from prejudice?

Can you quote the bit that suggests this? I can't see anything about a cut off of age 55.

@popebishop You are correct about that apologies.

@popebishop look on the original post - it clearly says the new development is for over 55 year old.

I understand that. The post in question was talking about a group of dementia patients they had worked with.

It's not actually clear if the retirement complex will cater for needs like this tbh.

And if so, it's not just patients who can be phobic:

"It was exactly this realisation that led Geoff Pine, one of Tonic’s founders, to first contemplate the idea of LGBTQ+ retirement-community living 20 years ago. Today, he’s an ambassador for the project, having stood down from its board last year. In the early 00s, his late partner, Jamie, was diagnosed with a terminal heart condition. “I was working full-time,” Pine explains, “so we had carers coming in. Jamie knew he was dying, but at one stage became particularly depressed. When I asked what was happening, he told me that the woman who came to look after him every morning would get on to her hands and knees by his bed, and pray for his condemned gay soul. It was horrendous.”"
(From the Guardian link from last year)

there are some trans people who forget they transitioned and need support coming to terms with missing body parts,

I shouldn't laugh but this really tickled me. It's the way it's written I think and stress response to worrying about my mum's advancing years and mild confusion at times. Then I realised that there is a lot of focus on young people transitioning and the effect on them of having perfectly healthy body parts removed. In advancing age with dementia there could be some real distress and confusion relating to missing body parts and I've not read anything anywhere that mentions this. Has it been thought about and discussed anywhere? I hadn't thought about when transitioners get to old age and what issues they might have. I've nurses confused patients in their 80s who thought they were still 21 and just married. Imagine thinking that (if the memory was only intact before transition) then you notice you are missing your breasts or penis and the sheer horror and distress that would cause. The powers that be that think it's cool and ok to remove body parts need to think about their patients 20,39,40,50, 60,70 years down the line and how this so called cure is going to impact them. I'd be really interested in ready anything about this.

I think it's a lovely idea. LGB people in late middle age are perhaps less likely to have children and the community support here will be a great thing for years to come.

There are very few transmen of this age.
The recently transitioned AGP transwomen are unlikely to get much thrill or validation here either and not want in. I don't think current trends for TQ+ should be used to deny LGB people something that will make life better for them.

Sorry for the typos. Can't edit on the app.

Can you imagine if someone proposed a 'super straight' housing scheme?

You mean like housing run by religious organisations, with a Christian outlook?
Or slanted towards a more ‘orthodox’ population?
Super straight is the default. Imagine not having to continually explain your life choices and experiences to others you are living with.
Niche market provision sounds good.

I’ve actually worked in aged care and met some very, very lonely lgbt elderly people who are ostracised by the others (remember we are talking about elderly people). Also when you get to that age, you just want to be able to relax and feel comfortable with your ‘own’. Let’s not make this nasty. There’s enough going on in the world.

This is another thing. Very different issues and harder to meet others. It’s a lovely idea. I just worry about it being targeted :(

Would a similar development of LGB without the T or Q housing be allowed?

My point being once discrimination is allowed, who get to decide what discrimination is allowed or not?

Imagine not having to continually explain your life choices and experiences to others you are living with

this come up from time to time. Who has to explain anything? To anyone at all?

I've managed a lot of years not ever mentioning my life choices or experiences to anyone, I've certainly never explained them.
I've been misgendered, I've been asked intrusive questions, I've had my sexual orientation assumed. I've never given a shit. If I'm asked intrusive questions I say oh I dont talk about it. If I'm misgendered, I shrug it off, who cares what someone thinks. If someone mentions my sexual orientation I dont answer, again I give no shits what people think of me. They are welcome to assume i eat kittens alive, what they think of me is none of my business.

So really no one has to explain anything about their life choices or experiences. Just shut that shit down.

As for this housing thing, fine, but dont lose your shit when all other demographics want the same.

people here are firstly thinking in the here and now, and about much older people with care needs.

And secondly thinking it is for older (needing support and care ) for lesbians and gay men

Neither which is correct.

having read the blurb this proposal is not about the elderly with care needs it is about creating a community for LGBTQ++ and their allies, all of whom must be over 54. So that is anyone 55+ in reality.

So what is the rational behind that?

And are these LGBTQ people going to feel safe slap bang in a predominantly conservative Muslim community.

its a phrase i am not a fan of - virtue signalling, without any concern for the consequences.

When you're gay or bi or trans people do question you though. Coming out to people is still a big thing.

I'm guessing you're straight since you say you opt not to answer.

Well when you are with another woman you can't just ignore. It's clear as day and people comment. Sometimes people say homophobic slurs. Sometimes people think you need a " real man". People say all kinds of shit.

I'm not sure why that would be debatable?

As for sharing experiences? Yep, being queer is different. We have different experiences and it's lovely to be around people who share similar experiences.

I think this is a lovely idea.

They'll never fill it. Extra Care requires a mix of low, middle and high care needs to work as a community and local authorities can't get the mix right when the flats are open to all. There's a large number of voids in Extra Care housing as people don't understand the concept including a lot of those who work in local authority H&SC. There is no barrier to those from any community accessing EC for all and many LGBT+ of an age where they can access E.C. don't want to be treated any differently. Back of a fag packet idea with no concrete evidence that it's required or will work in practice.

@Josette77 And@Winnading i dont want to argue with you i want to give you space to hear you but i dont see how having closed communities break down barriers they create them.

There's a couple of these schemes in the south now, ive worked on one.
they're very popular and I'd love to be able to have one near me as and when I get to that age.

I don't think there is anything like a disproportionate housing issue that would justify this. There's nothing particular to gay and lesbian people structurally that makes it harder for them to access housing that is appropriate, it's not like people with physical or intellectual disabilities, for example. In so much as this happens it's going to be about discrimination by individuals which is illegal and not remedied by creating specialist segregated housing so people acting illegally can go on doing so.

I suppose I'm also a little doubtful on the face of it from my experience. Many of the older gay couples I know are actually very well off comparatively, many have done very well on the property ladder and have certainly not had high end housing developments or condos do anything other than chase their dollars. Of course that's not everyone, lower income people struggle more, but that's really all lower income people.

I am super-skeptical that they could justify this as proportionate if it was challenged.

I have never heard of a religious organization creating a commercial, or even socially funded housing community, open to the general public, as long as they were straight.

They do have private communities sometimes, owned by the religious groups themselves, where members of the religion reside together.

There are some pretty strict rules about circumstances which allow restrictions on the sale of properties on the general market, or rentals on the general market.

Which I imagine is this is why they are saying it will be "majority" lgbtq+. They are allowed to target whomever they like with marketing marketing - people can self-select in. I suspect the tricky part will be in how they prioritize applications where the applicants are straight..

Do you not understand that if the law allowed this, you could make the same argument in the other direction. Someone could create a housing development and only rent or sell to straight people, or people of a certain race, or ethnicity. Which might be "lovely" but is clearly illegal, whether they are 25 or 55.

It might be nice if we could rid society of those who think or say things we don't like, but we don't, in fact, have any right to do so. We are not guaranteed a life or neighbourhood or town with only "lovely" people.

Elaine Miller has talked about this in detail, not only about the distress of the transitioned individual, but the rules for carers that make caring for transitioners with dementia very difficult. I can't do links on phone, but she has done several you tube videos.

Which I imagine is this is why they are saying it will be "majority" lgbtq+. They are allowed to target whomever they like with marketing marketing - people can self-select in. I suspect the tricky part will be in how they prioritize applications where the applicants are straight.

All a straight couple has to do is say that they’re queer, or pick from an infinite number of genders.