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 don’t really understand this is concrete terms. Is this using public money to subsidize and support the scheme?

If so, I think using public money to subsidize housing should be for those most in housing need, or most in supported housing need, which would not be LGBTetc.

If it’s a purely private scheme, there would be no objection from me.

Well done for assuming I'm straight, even here on the internet, where you cant even see me.

People say all kinds of shit

why yes, yes they do. And you choose to answer.
Maybe its my resting bitch face, I dunno. But I can walk around with anyone and if someone says anything homophobic, I shrug it off. Because again, I dont care what others think about me and me replying will not make them less homophobic.

One chooses to come out for a reason. I never came out, I just got on with my life. Being queer isnt different. Plenty of queer people out there. It's really not special to be queer or gay. What experiences do you think gay or queer people have that straight people dont?

All the things straight people do, I too have done or am doing.

What experiences do you think that gay or queer people have that straight people dont?

I'm sorry is that a joke?

How about being murdered, raped, assaulted, imprisoned, tortured, denied employment, mocked, shamed and ostracised for their sexuality?

^^All within living memory in the UK btw

Most housing for over 55 will have older people of all ages ( late middle age through to very elderly) depending on their needs. Extra care housing ( which is what we are discussing) tends to be set up with carers or at the very least a manger on site for support. Extra care schemes are in huge demand in my locality and we have not nearly enough of them, and most residents will have early stages of dementia or other physical health conditions ( to get a place you would need to show need).

Whilst I have no doubt that many older people have always been tolerant and inclusive of others, it is my experience that there are those who as their conditions progress do not show the same.

I think to be upset by a scheme that would care for and protect these individuals, who I believe are at increased risk of abuse in this setting, is unnecessary.

There are many things that I get frustrated and angry about every day but this isn't one of them.

The Daily Mail shit-stirring again. Here is a link to the actual project.

"The residents will be required to be aged 55 years or over, with the majority of residents being members of the LGBTQ+ community from Manchester. Living alongside allies and other members of the local community, the aim is to provide an open and inclusive, physical and psychological place of safety for the older LGBTQ+ community and a welcome addition to the Whalley Range area.The site will also include a neighbouring separate shared ownership block consisting of around 40 apartments, a mix of 1 and 2 bed apartments, delivering affordable homes to first time buyers and eligible customers, helping to address emerging affordability issues in places such as Whalley Range."

They are a housing association, so they are rented. It's entirely legal to restrict extra care housing to over-55s, and it's entirely legal to discriminate in favour of minority groups if there is a legimitate reason to do so, but non-LGBT+ people are not excluded. Baddenock either doesn't understand equality legislation or is deliberately lying about it.

No, they won't exclude transgender people to appeal to GC people.

https://www.greatplaces.org.uk/?news=great-places-launches-consultation-for-first-of-a-kind-purpose-built-majority-lgbtq-extra-care-housing-scheme-proposals

One of the reasons I frequent these boards is because I believe that women have a right to assert our boundaries and have our own spaces.
I was also upset that whenever I brought this up in real life, women's experiences of misogyny and abuse were dismissed, minimized or I was told it was just one of those things that couldn't be helped.
To my mind this thread does exactly the same to LGBT people- they shouldn't get their own spaces, their needs are unimportant and if they get abuse or are isolated that's just tough luck.
Abuse in later life and in elder care is a massive issue, and like all abuse will be targeted more against women, gay people, people of different races etc.
I think this sounds like a great scheme. I hope it spreads to women only facilities too, I'm quite sure a lot of sexual abuse goes on in care homes as well.

I also don't understand the issue with the area being 40% Muslim. Are pp's saying that LGBT people shouldn't live in Muslim areas?
And if an LGBT community can't be safe in numbers in those areas, what must it be like for isolated gay men and women? Surely that proves the need for schemes like this?

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.

Is that really true though? You can have sexual health clinics just for gay people. Yet that doesn’t mean the general clinics on other days are for hetero people only to the extent that they exclude lesbian and gay people. They wouldn’t be able to as that would likely be discrimination without legitimate/ proportionate aim.

Also there are gay/lesbain clubs or support groups that are LGB only. Yet ‘straight clubs’ don't exclude gay people. So yes, sometimes the discrimination can legally go one way only.

It’s very difficult to have a lesbian only club nowadays. Most of the groups I know have gone underground to avoid the shit they get from homophobic transactivists for being single sex.

That’s a different issue though. It is legal to have a lesbian only group and exclude straight women. It’s not going to be legal the other way round. Eg a women’s friendship group excluding gay women.

Interesting isn’t it.. what about the straights!

@Str8talkin Wanting to hang about with or have a community of people who have similar interests is just fine, my point is that does not constitute a “special care need”

“care needs” range from food provision, to getting someone out of bed, personal intimate care etc. So my question was what special care needs do LGBTQ++++ have that differentiates them from the rest of us.

Social needs are not the same thing

Secondly this is not a homophobic post just because you don't like the line of questioning.

Thirdly I personally believe that we should be able to live in the wider community, whomsoever we are. Without ridicule and fear, with one condition only and that is that whatever life you choose to lead does not impinge on other reasonable rights

The placement of this project is cause for concern not because it is wrong but because it could cause more civil and social problems, i don't believe in tribal communities and i mean any kind of segregation be it race or identity. It does not help anybody.

Social needs are not the same thing

Living in a housing complex with like minded people is about social needs as well.

The blurb does say” …and allies” so I wonder if that’s how they’re getting around the restrictive intake. This basically opens it up to all.

Sorry, have not read thread, but from posts I have seen am perplexed as to some comments.

There are already schemes like this up and runing, one is in London.

As there is one for older women.

The issue is that as someone has pointed out it isn't social housing, it is for those with money. (I think in giving planning permission there was some feeble statement about a % being social housing.)

There are many groups who have found ways of creating community housing, so not sure why this has caused comment.

Although as an individual I wonder if planning permission would have been given if the community it was aimed at creating by LGB. I bet it wouldn't.

Maybe LGB Alliance could start one. They do have some wealthy backers.

Yes, if they wanted to. Though it sounds like it's not going to be required, as such, to be non-straight.

My question was, how would the people running the place weight the applications, so that they would end up with the people they want, without falling afoul of regulations.

Gay clubs which are open to the public can't generally discriminate against serving anyone on the basis of their sexuality either. People will self-select in, but they can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of sexuality.

In a lot of cases where there really are "rules" of that kind what you really have is something more like a private club type situation. Those can admit, or not, whomever they like, whether it is legitimate, or sexist or racist, or whatever.

You can sometimes have situations where discrimination is seen as being proportionate for a legitimate aim, such as in a clinic, or sometimes age based communities.

Things like "being around people who are similar to you" does not really fall under that. The thing to remember is that with protected characteristics, the exceptions can potentially apply on both sides - it's not weighted to try and redress some kind of balance. Every individualI is protected for discimination agsinst them on the basis of their sexuality, be it in a bar, or buying a house.

And following from that, if straight people had specific health needs that would best be managed by having a special clinic, it would be totally legitimate to have such a thing under the exceptions.

If just wanting to live in a community of people who share your sexuality is legitimate reason for gay and lesbian people which justifies discriminatory renting policies, it is also legitimate reason to have a straight community for people who just want to live with other straight people.

I totally agree with this.
55 is young. But plenty of evidence of people aged 70 plus suffering homophobia from other older people in older living communities.

@IwantToRetire there are lots of new developments in manchester for housing complexes for older people. So yes it would have been given permission if it was not for LGBT people.

So yes it would have been given permission if it was not for LGBT people

I was saying would they get permission for an LGB project, or would they insist it has to be LGBTQI+ - that is why my comment referenced the LGB Aliance.

As mentioned there are many community housing projects around the UK based on some common factor, age etc., so was surprised at anyone questioning it.

But given this is FWR, the question is would an LGB housing project get planning persmission or would all the TRAs pile in with objections?

Really? Well my best friend was beat up everyday in school for being gay. A boy was killed in the park near me for being gay.

I have lost family members since being with my partner, I have volunteered in homeless shelters with a disproportionate amount of gay youth who were kicked out of their homes.

I have had people threaten to rape me in order to straighten me out.

How are you are as a gay person not aware of these things? And sure you can ignore questions but when you are out on public in a gay relationship it's not really something you can hide.

Then that 40% Muslim community will just have to accept that the other 60% will be something else.