Homeless shelters in US may soon be able to deny transgender

[Wallenburg]

The root cause of homelessness--the capitalist system in which your value as a person is determined by your wallet--isn't really the topic of the thread, though. The topic is the exclusion of an already heavily oppressed group from even the most meager of assistance programs. While the capitalist structures still exist, it is entirely relevant and reasonable to discuss such issues.

Our goal shouldn't be to make homelessness tolerable so we don't have to step over homeless people on our commutes, it should be to eliminate homelessness. Talking about how to fix homeless shelters is like talking about trying to fix homeopathy.

Except homeless shelters actually keep people alive. Solving homelessness does not require letting trans people freeze to death in the interim.

[The Lone Alliance]

You know reading through this where does it say that Transgender people aren't going to be allowed in ANY shelters?

[Salus Maior]

Our goal shouldn't be to make homelessness tolerable so we don't have to step over homeless people on our commutes, it should be to eliminate homelessness. Talking about how to fix homeless shelters is like talking about trying to fix homeopathy.

Except homeless shelters actually keep people alive. Solving homelessness does not require letting trans people freeze to death in the interim.

In this scenario, transgenders are not any more at risk of that than men are when it comes to things like women's shelters or other single sex shelters.

[Wallenburg]

Except homeless shelters actually keep people alive. Solving homelessness does not require letting trans people freeze to death in the interim.

In this scenario, transgenders are not any more at risk of that than men are when it comes to things like women's shelters or other single sex shelters.

That's quite the claim. Got any evidence to back that up?

[Salus Maior]

You know reading through this where does it say that Transgender people aren't going to be allowed in ANY shelters?

It doesn't.

[Salus Maior]

In this scenario, transgenders are not any more at risk of that than men are when it comes to things like women's shelters or other single sex shelters.

That's quite the claim. Got any evidence to back that up?

The OP states it is single-sex shelters (i.e Women's shelters) who are being allowed to discriminate (as in they could turn away a mtf transgender being not being sexually speaking a woman, just like they can do for a man). Like they already are.

[Wallenburg]

That's quite the claim. Got any evidence to back that up?

The OP states it is single-sex shelters (i.e Women's shelters) who are being allowed to discriminate (as in they could turn away a mtf transgender being not being sexually speaking a woman, just like they can do for a man). Like they already are.

There will, inevitably, be single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their biological sex isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their presented gender isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that do both, and single-sex shelters that ban them altogether because "trans icky".

[Salus Maior]

The OP states it is single-sex shelters (i.e Women's shelters) who are being allowed to discriminate (as in they could turn away a mtf transgender being not being sexually speaking a woman, just like they can do for a man). Like they already are.

There will, inevitably, be single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their biological sex isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their presented gender isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that do both, and single-sex shelters that ban them altogether because "trans icky".

Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.

And if it's wrong to ban transgenders because of their sex, why is it ok to ban men because of theirs?

[Wallenburg]

There will, inevitably, be single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their biological sex isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that ban trans people because their presented gender isn't "right", and single-sex shelters that do both, and single-sex shelters that ban them altogether because "trans icky".

Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.

No, it's literally a direct consequence of this policy. The policy makes it legal, so shelters will do it to deny service to trans people.

[Salus Maior]

Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.

No, it's literally a direct consequence of this policy. The policy makes it legal, so shelters will do it to deny service to trans people.

Single sex shelters. Which already ban certain sexes from their premises.

Non-sex specific ones can't.

[The Lone Alliance]

You know reading through this where does it say that Transgender people aren't going to be allowed in ANY shelters?

It doesn't.

So people are saying that Transgender people would rather freeze to death than go to a shelter that mis-genders them?
Is that it?

[Salus Maior]

It doesn't.

So people are saying that Transgender people would rather freeze to death than go to a shelter that mis-genders them?
Is that it?

No, but that it's bad for sex-specific shelters to ban trans people on the basis of their sex. Even though these shelters already ban people because of sex.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Our goal shouldn't be to make homelessness tolerable so we don't have to step over homeless people on our commutes, it should be to eliminate homelessness. Talking about how to fix homeless shelters is like talking about trying to fix homeopathy.

Except homeless shelters actually keep people alive. Solving homelessness does not require letting trans people freeze to death in the interim.

Of course we need them in the meantime, but you run the risk of using them as an argument for not needing to solve the homeless problem.

[Necroghastia]

That's a suspiciously specific denial. Something tells me you wouldn't have said that last sentence if you didn't know they were porn actors.

Denial of what? I'm not denying anything, I'm pointing out that posting a picture of people with a caption (Like so) isn't evidence of anything. Because literally anyone can write whatever they want paired with whatever picture. So there's no reason for me (or anyone) to take it seriously. You know, exactly what I said.

And, like I said, I honestly have no idea who either of those people are and I have no reason to believe that these people are who the caption says they are. But if you want to accuse me of something (since you're obviously reaching hard for that) go right ahead and be straightforward about it.

That's literally part of point of that image, you can verify for yourself exactly who Buck Angel and Sarina Valentina are.

[Camelone]

Denial of what? I'm not denying anything, I'm pointing out that posting a picture of people with a caption (Like so) isn't evidence of anything. Because literally anyone can write whatever they want paired with whatever picture. So there's no reason for me (or anyone) to take it seriously. You know, exactly what I said.

And, like I said, I honestly have no idea who either of those people are and I have no reason to believe that these people are who the caption says they are. But if you want to accuse me of something (since you're obviously reaching hard for that) go right ahead and be straightforward about it.

That's literally part of point of that image, you can verify for yourself exactly who Buck Angel and Sarina Valentina are.

I'm still not following your logic here, the image stated only first names and you somehow expect someone to know who they are?

[Salus Maior]

That's literally part of point of that image, you can verify for yourself exactly who Buck Angel and Sarina Valentina are.

So your 'evidence' can't even speak for itself? And requires me to just know who transgender pornstars are?

Nevermind that pornstars aren't exactly representative of the typical human being anyway. And judging from the image nobody would probably question whether they were transgender or not.

[Gormwood]

My god this administration is such utter shit.

But it was worth owning the libs apparently.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

So this sounds reactionary in regards to the bill the house pushed through. The thing is in much of the US it is literally illegal to be homeless. Homeless shelters are rare and mostly exclusively for women to protect them from rape. Men tend to simply be sent to jail instead. Many of these people really need either some way to get off hard drugs or access to mental health clinics. The US defunded those decades ago though so... well.... they used the money on military industrial complex....ya.

[Napkizemlja]

The only time I could see it as being valid is if the shelter knows there is a considerable number of violently anti-trans people there and for some reasonable are unable to remove them and so deny the person for their own safety (and preferably helping them find someplace else). Otherwise, this is pretty fucking disgusting tbh.

[Grenartia]

Where we're going, we won't need lifts.

I just think it's ridiculous that we're wording an issue about people being forced into the streets by economics as if it's socially conservative values that are the main enemy and not the system that makes homeless shelters necessary in the first place. If people are being thrown out of their homes for being trans, we can tackle that too, certainly, but we need to do better than just a social safety net for a system that requires large numbers of people to fail.

I mean, to be fair, socially conservative values are critical to the system that makes homeless shelters necessary. The idea that the rich earned their wealth fair and square and the poor should accept their lot in life as the natural inferiors of the rich, and be glad for the table scraps they get, is fundamentally socially conservative in nature.

That's a suspiciously specific denial. Something tells me you wouldn't have said that last sentence if you didn't know they were porn actors.

Denial of what? I'm not denying anything, I'm pointing out that posting a picture of people with a caption (Like so) isn't evidence of anything. Because literally anyone can write whatever they want paired with whatever picture. So there's no reason for me (or anyone) to take it seriously. You know, exactly what I said.

And, like I said, I honestly have no idea who either of those people are and I have no reason to believe that these people are who the caption says they are. But if you want to accuse me of something (since you're obviously reaching hard for that) go right ahead and be straightforward about it.

1. You specifically denied knowing who the people in the picture were, which is not an issue anyone raised until you said so. People do not specifically deny knowledge about things unprovoked unless they are trying to deflect from something.
2. You specifically said Necro didn't know who those people were, as if you did in fact know who they were, and somehow had proof that Necro couldn't possibly know who they were.

Given these facts, it is more than reasonable to think you were lying about not knowing who they were. And, given your well-known, hardcore traditional Catholic stance on...everything, you have every motivation to be too ashamed to openly admit to knowing who two porn actors (especially transgender ones) are.

I'm not even reaching that hard, you put the cookie jar on the floor, left the lid off, and then said "I didn't eat the cookies!". Nobody's parents fell for it when they were kids, and I won't fall for it now.

I just think it's ridiculous that we're wording an issue about people being forced into the streets by economics as if it's socially conservative values that are the main enemy and not the system that makes homeless shelters necessary in the first place. If people are being thrown out of their homes for being trans, we can tackle that too, certainly, but we need to do better than just a social safety net for a system that requires large numbers of people to fail.

The root cause of homelessness--the capitalist system in which your value as a person is determined by your wallet--isn't really the topic of the thread, though. The topic is the exclusion of an already heavily oppressed group from even the most meager of assistance programs. While the capitalist structures still exist, it is entirely relevant and reasonable to discuss such issues.

Of course, the subject of homelessness (and by extension, its root causes) are entirely relevant to a discussion of homelessness and its relationship to a marginalized group. Its like saying nuclear physics isn't relevant to a discussion about radiation sickness.

You know reading through this where does it say that Transgender people aren't going to be allowed in ANY shelters?

As has been previously pointed out, most homeless shelters are run by religious organizations with proven and recent anti-LGBT+ biases. Secular shelters are extremely few and far in between, especially in areas that aren't Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, DC, or New York. Ones that are actually competent at dealing with the LGBT+ community in a non-shitty way are likely even rarer.

It doesn't.

So people are saying that Transgender people would rather freeze to death than go to a shelter that mis-genders them?
Is that it?

If you had read the last page or so, you'd know there's more to it than that.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

1. You specifically denied knowing who the people in the picture were, which is not an issue anyone raised until you said so. People do not specifically deny knowledge about things unprovoked unless they are trying to deflect from something.
2. You specifically said Necro didn't know who those people were, as if you did in fact know who they were, and somehow had proof that Necro couldn't possibly know who they were.

Given these facts, it is more than reasonable to think you were lying about not knowing who they were. And, given your well-known, hardcore traditional Catholic stance on...everything, you have every motivation to be too ashamed to openly admit to knowing who two porn actors (especially transgender ones) are.

I'm not even reaching that hard, you put the cookie jar on the floor, left the lid off, and then said "I didn't eat the cookies!". Nobody's parents fell for it when they were kids, and I won't fall for it now.

It's not reasonable. I don't know about other people, but it still looks like you're reaching to accuse another poster of watching or knowing something about transgender porn to shame them.

Which is fucking sad tbqh.

[Grenartia]

1. You specifically denied knowing who the people in the picture were, which is not an issue anyone raised until you said so. People do not specifically deny knowledge about things unprovoked unless they are trying to deflect from something.
2. You specifically said Necro didn't know who those people were, as if you did in fact know who they were, and somehow had proof that Necro couldn't possibly know who they were.

Given these facts, it is more than reasonable to think you were lying about not knowing who they were. And, given your well-known, hardcore traditional Catholic stance on...everything, you have every motivation to be too ashamed to openly admit to knowing who two porn actors (especially transgender ones) are.

I'm not even reaching that hard, you put the cookie jar on the floor, left the lid off, and then said "I didn't eat the cookies!". Nobody's parents fell for it when they were kids, and I won't fall for it now.

It's not reasonable. I don't know about other people, but it still looks like you're reaching to accuse another poster of watching or knowing something about transgender porn to shame them.

Which is fucking sad tbqh.

Not really shame. I'm simply expecting honesty. Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread.

Really begs the question why you made such a big deal about someone's denial in the first place.

On topic, homeless shelters shouldn't be based on sex. Rapey men trying to infiltrate female spaces is probably a manufactured issue.

[Grenartia]

Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread.

Really begs the question why you made such a big deal about someone's denial in the first place.

On topic, homeless shelters shouldn't be based on sex. Rapey men trying to infiltrate female spaces is probably a manufactured issue.

Compared to the rest of my post, it wasn't that much. Really, you're making a bigger deal out of it than I did.

Oh, it almost certainly happens, but none of them have ever pretended to be trans in order to do so (maybe a handful will wear a wig or makeup and dresses, but upon questioning, none of them ever state they are transgender), and legally-enforced sex-segregated spaces would paradoxically make it easier for them to pretend to be trans to infiltrate said spaces.

Its also worth mentioning that nobody who tries fearmongering about trans rapists, or rapists pretending to be trans, ever worries about cis women preying on other women and girls (which happens surprisingly often).

Statistically speaking, trans people seem to be the most well-behaved groups when it comes to public bathrooms (yes, this is about homeless shelters, but to my knowledge, bathrooms and locker rooms seem to be the most fertile ground for data about sex-segregated spaces and misconduct, sexual or otherwise, so that's what we have to go off of).

[Salus Maior]

Not really shame. I'm simply expecting honesty. Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread.

And I can say with a clear conscience that I've given you honesty. I'm sorry that it's not what you clearly wanted.