Really worrying "guidelines" for homeless charities on the implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

[IwantToRetire]

I came across this by chance, and was really taken aback as I assumed that even before the Supreme Court ruling groups offering housing would use the "proportionate" SSE to provide biological women with safe housing ie only with other women.

Seeing who they credit for advice what they have written isn't a suprise, accept that it was written this month.

Something makes me think that when there is a court ruling in favour of women, from low paid charity works through to politicians, everyone thinks they can just ignore it.

Disgusted

https://homeless.org.uk/areas-of-expertise/improving-homelessness-services/supporting-innovation-in-homelessness-services/the-equality-act-and-single-sex-spaces-in-the-homelessness-sector/

I asked MNHQ to delete my previous post as I found an 'Alexander Smith' who worked in the same area - but it may be somebody else.

which explains AnSolas's reply - thanks for that info, I might have guessed there was such software.

The phrase "trans inclusive" is a giant warning klaxon. Trans inclusive cannot mean a space/service for only women plus trans women. This is not a legal grouping under the Equality Act 2010. The two groups do not have a common protected characteristic (PC). 'Women' is female sex. 'Trans Women' is male sex plus gender reassignment. No common PC.

A service can be offered to both women and trans women ONLY by offering it to everyone. Both male and female sex are welcome, gender reassignment is irrelevant.

Most of the guidance is fine, even quite good. But it's very weaselly in this aspect. And could be easily misread. The ambiguity is both intentional and shameless. Very Poor Show, Mx Smith.

It pins down the goal. The desire for a women only, sex based space - with no issues at all knowing what that means - that men can identify into to use that space and those women.

That it bumps women out and is not at all 'inclusive' is irrelevant. And yes, wangling language to hide and disguise intent has been the MO of this movement from the start. Never honest, never trustworthy or honourable, never straightforward or open about intent.

Here's what the post I removed was about:

I searched for Alexander Smith + homeless, and the first result was indeed an Alexander Smith, a speaking profile:
Alexander Smith is a prominent figure in the homelessness sector, particularly known for his work with Homeless Link. He has been involved in the Housing First England project since 2019, leading on its implementation across the UK.

Then I realised that that might be a different person so I asked MNHQ to delete the post.

The source for the above was a link to 'Housing First Europe'.
But when you click on that link, you are sent instead to the the website of the National Housing Federation, and a Nov 2024 article by Alex Smith, with the same photo as on the Homeless Link
National Housing Federation - How Housing First helps reduce anti-social behaviour and offending rates

So the two Alex. Smiths, one in the speaking profile, the other on Homeless Link, may be two different people. That's why I deleted my previous post - I wanted to make clear that there could be two entirely unconnected people with the same name.

If they are the same Alex Smith, it may explain the lengths to which Homeless Link are prepared to go to get around the SC ruling.

That’s the truth of it.