UK’s first trans and non-binary domestic violence refuge opens

[lechiffre55]

UK’s first trans and non-binary domestic violence refuge opens

https://twitter.com/Cavakaggy/status/1761028246559129613

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/22/domestic-violence-refuge-trans-uk/

Congratulations to the UK's first trans and non binary domestic violence refuge. I hope you get all the support both political and financial possible. This TERF is incredibly supportive that the trans and non binary community has built a space of their own to support their own community. If it has a fundraiser I hope JKR donates with her usual generosity. I welcome this development and give my best wishes for long term success and hope you serve your community with pride and unanimous appreciation for all the hard work. This is important work and everyone contributing deserves praise and recognition.

I get it, but putting pragmatism over principle is just inviting unintended consequences.

Yeah for 'attacking' men who wish to use women's spaces, read: saying 'no' to them. For bloody good reason. Which have been explained ceaselessly. But you just witter on and on about how women should abandon their own needs and throw themselves down to pretend that some men are women and embrace the harms therein. And you do not care in the slightest about those women, or their needs, or their voices, or those harms. All you care about is forcing women to submit, and it gets uglier with every post.

No. Get to fuck with that.

As for the idiocy of 'open your eyes' -

we know what you think and what you want, is isn't that we haven't clocked your misogynist philosophy. It's that we don't agree. Any more than you agree women are real humans with equality of rights to men with TQ+ identities.

We haven't managed to 'open your eyes' to that one yet, have we?

DadJoke does not for one minute believe TW are women, he does not treat them as women - no mansplaining, patronising, lecturing, demanding, dismissing, dehumanising, scolding for them oh no siree.

No, not even remotely.

If there is a single sex space for disabled women, then anyone who is not disabled, Muslim or otherwise, should not be present.

If you are saying that people will self-exclude from a generic single-sex space, if there is a member with a protected characteristic present, that doesn't mean you ban people with that protected characteristic from that space. You should not ban religious people from a space because some atheists object, for example.

I get what you're saying, but if we consider trans ideology as a quasi-religious belief it's not really different from having a Catholic service, or a Hindu one. If those communities want to set up a DV service to specifically meet the needs of the adherents of that belief system, I've no problem with that.

If you're asking me to fund it, or taking funds away from single sex non-religious services that's another matter, but if a group of believers want to make their own service, they can do so.

Well sadly for you the single sex exemptions in the EA exist and single sex services are lawful.

Piss off with your 'a member with a protected characteristic' we all know what you mean. Abused women do not exist to validate anyone's ladyfeelz.

I mean I know dadjoke is TRA to the max but fucking hell the offensiveness of saying Muslim women are like TW ie like men rather than women - what the actual fuck?

If you are saying that people will self-exclude from a generic single-sex space, if there is a member with a protected characteristic present, that doesn't mean you ban people with that protected characteristic from that space.

Oh let's run that through the universal bullshit translator shall we?

"If traumatised women will self exclude from a womens space that males are in, that doesn't mean you should ban males from it. You should embrace that those women are silly bitches and don't deserve to have accessible services."

No. You get the men out. The first job of a women's space is to include all actual women. Not men at the expense of women. And this is absolutely deaf to the principles of inclusion and even basic understanding of why those women have self excluded. It just plain doesn't care. Because caring would inconvenience men.

You cannot witter on with all the special pleading about understanding and tolerating the special needs of special men when you plan to give no reciprocity of any kind to women.

This is great news.

But. I assume they will be excluding biological women who don’t identify as non-binary and trans from their facilities.

Suddenly it’s OK to exclude people - but only when they’re doing it.

That is the basic premise of trans activism. Heads, men win. Tails, women lose.

I'm geting deja vu.

When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined:

“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”

Wadhwa went on to argue that such bigoted survivors of rape and sexual violence should work to “reframe their trauma” adding: “You also have to rethink your relationship with prejudice.”

https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/

In other words, that man expected to make submitting to being brainwashed by him in his personal beliefs the price of help with a rape.

Coercive control. Using power imbalance to abuse and retraumatise.

That was a very clear bit of woman hatred there from Wadhwa. We should post this far and wide whenever we need a reminder of why no male person should be taking a role designated as being for a female person.

No, not even remotely.

Yes more than remotely.

If there is a single sex space for disabled women, then anyone who is not disabled, Muslim or otherwise, should not be present.

A single sex space so no-one of the opposite sex should be present.

If you are saying that people will self-exclude from a generic single-sex space, if there is a member with a protected characteristic present, that doesn't mean you ban people with that protected characteristic from that space. You should not ban religious people from a space because some atheists object, for example.

More bullshit. Single sex spaces are based on sex, the end.

Even in a really positive, celebratory thread, activists have to turn up and do their misogynistic thing.

They just can't stop themselves, it is ingrained.

Interesting which questions they swerve such as mine about the avalanche of threats and abuse when Biera's Place was opened and where the equivalent about this organisation is on this thread by posters here.

Another voice fully in support. And it sure as hell beats telling women to 'reframe your trauma'.

Women and trans women are two separate groups. Our biology is different; the prejudice we may experience from society is different; our socialization as 'gendered' beings is different; the underlying causes of the violence, assault, domestic and sexual abuse perpetrated against us is different. Surely anyone in the unenviable situation of needing such support has one priority: to receive the best help available that is most closely fitted to their specific needs.

Any acknowledgement of these facts, so that everyone can receive the service best geared toward their healing and recovery from a terrible, invasive, awful crime, has to be of benefit to all.

Rowling has already funded Beira's Place. She does a great deal in support of women's welfare and protection, but she can't be expected to solve the problems of the rest of the world.

The fact that she does have a track record for philanthopy shouldn't make this an expectation. Especially when it's in support of the specific brand of activism that has done her so much harm.

Trans rights activism has a lot of sway, a lot of power and a lot of money. As women have had to create our own spaces and fight hard for a more level playing field and to resist discrimination based on our membership of a group in which we get no say, so must other groups.

This is great news and I wish them the best of luck

Religion is a protected characteristic.

If you are saying that people will self-exclude from a generic single-sex space, if there is a member with a protected characteristic present, that doesn't mean you ban people with that protected characteristic from that space. You should not ban religious people from a space because some atheists object, for example.

So a large bunch bunch of Jews could rock up to a mosque for their prayers? ( and vice versa ? )...... And the religion of the prayer space should not exclude members of a religion they are generally in conflict with because.... protected characteristic blah blah blah....... Fuck it let's shove in the gays wearing bottom cheekless leather chaps while this first two groups are trying to avoid mutually assured destruction at the same time just for shits and giggles.

The whole point of the Equality act is to provide legal recourse against discrimination based on protected characteristics, define what those characteristsics are, and then to give examples/exemptions of where discrimination based on those same protected characteristics, if it is is appropriate and proportional, is legally permitted. You deliberately and willfully ignore the exemptions because they do not fit with your world view. That you choose to ignore the exemptions does not mean that they does not exist, it only means you argue from a point where you have no choice but to cherry pick what supports your views and ignore that which undermines your views.

There are many examples in life where people of with protected characteristics associate together and form communities. And people with different characteristics form different comminities and spaces that are appropriate to them. All sides do their own thing and let the other groups do their own thing. Everyone is happy. You are trying to impose males into female only spaces against the wishes of those females, and to be frank you're not making a very good argument of it. To be honest if you want to keep banging on about it, I'm all up for listening to illogical inconsistent cherry picked arguments, because they don't help your world view, they demonstrate how poorly thought out your world view is. We call this "Project Let Them Speak" and it's going really well thanks to people like you.

I'm another one who hopes they segregate by sex, but the nature of it means they probably won't.

I can see a situation with sexually aggressive AGPs, rocking up for validation and arousal, in the same space as young, impressionable teenage girls who identify as non-binary.

And who knows what the ethos of those running it will be and how they would deal with that.

I totally get the point that one of the good things is that we can now say, right you've got your own place, leave ours alone. But it feels little like kicking the problem down the road, instead of addressing it.

In terms of genuinely helping survivors who think they're trans and non-binary, then of course, it goes without saying that that's a good thing. Everyone should have access to support and recovery.

But again, since I disagree with the ideology, to me, it would need to be separated by sex.

It's really fucking messed up, when you have proponents of an ideology who get off on things like being sexually forced, and humiliated.

And how to exclude that from a space that deals with the genuine article.

I'm reminded of the Samaritans' situation, where women, even if they were convinced they were being played by men becoming aroused on the phone, were told they had to carry on, just in case. Usually when the man had achieved orgasm, which was obvious to the women.

I don't know what the answer is. But I do think some risk mitigation could be achieved through sex segregation.

• it could've been a sexual violence helpline.

In fact, it might even have been both.

Apparently it's a widespread daily occurrence.

If by "some" you mean "almost all", I agree.

They want to use single sex service for validation, and also because many get a kick out of hearing women recount their experiences, and knowing how intimidating women find their presence.