On safe spaces for women
Oct. 11th, 2018 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lnrTrigger warning: domestic violence, shelters, and trans people.
In response to the full-page ad from Fair-Play for Women in the Metro yesterday a Facebook friend expressed some worries, not quite sure where they should stand on this issue, and mentioning specifically the issue of safe spaces for women. This resulted in a wonderful conversation with someone I've not me before, who described themselves as:
"A really grumpy former domestic violence and women's group worker whose funding was forever under threat."
She had some great examples, which I condensed significantly in response to a conversation I was already having on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/lnr_blair/status/1050033678972317698
I shared my tweet back to the Facebook conversation, and got a longer message talking about the issue of women who have experience sexual trauma in particular. My correspondent has kindly agreed I can share:
All I can say to this is that having so far only skimmed part of it I think it repeats a lot of misconceptions, and I hope that they can be reassured as the consultation concludes that no, allowing people to use a statutory declaration to change their birth certificate (rather than having to go through a Gender Reassignment Panel process) is not going to result in men turning up at the doors of shelters waving their birth certificates demanding access to womens services and using this as a means to perpetrate violence. Those men who were going to turn up violently at the door will still do so either way, and must be treated appropriately, and very much separately from any issues of gender identity.
In response to the full-page ad from Fair-Play for Women in the Metro yesterday a Facebook friend expressed some worries, not quite sure where they should stand on this issue, and mentioning specifically the issue of safe spaces for women. This resulted in a wonderful conversation with someone I've not me before, who described themselves as:
"A really grumpy former domestic violence and women's group worker whose funding was forever under threat."
She had some great examples, which I condensed significantly in response to a conversation I was already having on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/lnr_blair/status/1050033678972317698
I shared my tweet back to the Facebook conversation, and got a longer message talking about the issue of women who have experience sexual trauma in particular. My correspondent has kindly agreed I can share:
So first off, it is absolutely true that some of us with sexual trauma really benefit from women-only spaces and that domestic abuse often involves sexual abuse (see the Duluth wheel for the areas we look at for abuse, some cases involve little to no physicality). But, women who go into shelters and women presenting in the aftermath of domestic abuse/domestic violence, which is the bit I worked in, the trauma is usually to do with the . . . conventional violence, is the only way I can think to phrase it without getting into details. You know who is much more likely to have sexual trauma that can result in anxiety, panic and flashbacks? women in in-patient psychiatric care. Where we have male staff and mixed wards and just have to fricking deal with it in other ways (yes I also worked in those). Prisons, also, but they're a fucking disaster zone - if you want to improve women's safety in prisons, you should be focussing on the gender of the STAFF, not the inmates.
Secondly, shelters do not work in the way that people seem to think. Shelters do not let just anyone in just when they ask right away. Quite apart from anything else they're frequently full. If it's just occurred to you now that shelters might be useful, maybe consider a donation to women's aid, which would be 100% more useful than policing gender conformity. I can tell you that most women who went through DV have had quite enough of being told what to wear and how to look and that their bodies and how they behave is wrong.
When you leave, your risk is much higher (you are vastly more likely to be killed just after leaving than the other stages plus the ex will threaten any other folks involved plus any children involved), so everyone has to be checked. Because when you go into a shelter, if you're not fully committed to No Contact, which often means leaving your *entire life*, you can end up putting everyone in danger. If you're a current drug or alcohol user, that brings its own risks. If you're bring children, that has a whole host of implications (and your childen can be 16 year old boys who look like men, don't forget). Your leaving plan needs to be assessed, how likely are you to get out safely without being tracked, who can you safely keep in touch with, if anyone. If you're in London, you can't stay in the borough you were in, you have to move to another so it means being passed from your local shelter staff to wherever has space. Shelters are small communities, so it's not just the risk to you that is assessed but the risks you bring to the shelter itself, if that makes sense. Shelter locations are closely guarded secrets. I worked with a women's aid branch for 4 years and never knew whether the actual shelter was.
If you're assessed as too risky in the shelter to the shelter and its inhabitants safety, you won't be offered a place. It's not a perfect system. No risk assessment ever is. There are no perfect safe spaces. They do the best they can. But the notion that "any man can just claim he's a woman and get in" is complete tosh.
Secondly, shelters do not work in the way that people seem to think. Shelters do not let just anyone in just when they ask right away. Quite apart from anything else they're frequently full. If it's just occurred to you now that shelters might be useful, maybe consider a donation to women's aid, which would be 100% more useful than policing gender conformity. I can tell you that most women who went through DV have had quite enough of being told what to wear and how to look and that their bodies and how they behave is wrong.
When you leave, your risk is much higher (you are vastly more likely to be killed just after leaving than the other stages plus the ex will threaten any other folks involved plus any children involved), so everyone has to be checked. Because when you go into a shelter, if you're not fully committed to No Contact, which often means leaving your *entire life*, you can end up putting everyone in danger. If you're a current drug or alcohol user, that brings its own risks. If you're bring children, that has a whole host of implications (and your childen can be 16 year old boys who look like men, don't forget). Your leaving plan needs to be assessed, how likely are you to get out safely without being tracked, who can you safely keep in touch with, if anyone. If you're in London, you can't stay in the borough you were in, you have to move to another so it means being passed from your local shelter staff to wherever has space. Shelters are small communities, so it's not just the risk to you that is assessed but the risks you bring to the shelter itself, if that makes sense. Shelter locations are closely guarded secrets. I worked with a women's aid branch for 4 years and never knew whether the actual shelter was.
If you're assessed as too risky in the shelter to the shelter and its inhabitants safety, you won't be offered a place. It's not a perfect system. No risk assessment ever is. There are no perfect safe spaces. They do the best they can. But the notion that "any man can just claim he's a woman and get in" is complete tosh.
Fair Play for Women do also have a report on "SUPPORTING WOMEN IN DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SERVICES", which quotes extensively from support professionals and abuse survivors who fear their voices are being silenced in the debate around self-ID.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FPFW_report_19SEPT2018.pdfAll I can say to this is that having so far only skimmed part of it I think it repeats a lot of misconceptions, and I hope that they can be reassured as the consultation concludes that no, allowing people to use a statutory declaration to change their birth certificate (rather than having to go through a Gender Reassignment Panel process) is not going to result in men turning up at the doors of shelters waving their birth certificates demanding access to womens services and using this as a means to perpetrate violence. Those men who were going to turn up violently at the door will still do so either way, and must be treated appropriately, and very much separately from any issues of gender identity.
no subject
Date: 2018-10-12 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-15 01:18 pm (UTC)(And incidentally apologies that as usual this concentrates mostly on trans *women* - a side effect of the propaganda I'm fighting against, rather than ignoring the existence of other trans people!)
no subject
Date: 2018-10-15 02:00 pm (UTC)