Should Women's Homeless Shelters Ban Trans Identified Males?

[dianaiad]

Have you never heard of having a conversation with someone? It will often tell you far more about a person than their chart will, and certainly paint a clearer picture of them. And it doesn't require intrusive and illegal probing into private/personal information.

Whatever works.

I did say 'support.' What that support consists of would be judged by the one making the decision to admit someone in.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I did say 'support.

You said support under the condition people become entitled to information that is, legally speaking, extremely and very off limits to them. It was your first solution. You wanted a doctors name and number - the doctor will say "I can't confirm or deny this person is a patient of mine." Legally they can't say anything more. You want to know medical things have been done - legally that is discrimination. You want to see prescriptions - again, no, and its none of your damn business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whatever works.

I did say 'support.' What that support consists of would be judged by the one making the decision to admit someone in.

I suspect you may want to learn about HIPPA laws. It protects our medical information, and even judges and police have to jump through high and tight hoops to subpoena it (and even then they often cant get it and when they do its very limited access). It legally seals our medical information from the world, and all decisions will have to conform to that law.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not really.

One thing for certain...I wouldn't hire you to protect the women in a shelter. I'm afraid that you'd let Michael Meyers, Jason or Ed Gein in if they assured you that they were simply innocent victims of circumstances.

"Not really"? Well, you've convinced me.

You strike me as a person who crosses the road to avoid homeless people anyway, so I'm likewise glad you don't run a shelter. Fearmongering stereotyping helps no one.

 

[dianaiad]

You said support under the condition people become entitled to information that is, legally speaking, extremely and very off limits to them. It was your first solution. You wanted a doctors name and number - the doctor will say "I can't confirm or deny this person is a patient of mine." Legally they can't say anything more. You want to know medical things have been done - legally that is discrimination. You want to see prescriptions - again, no, and its none of your damn business.

Again, it is. And again, there are situations where it is very legal...and expected...to request medical information.

It would not be my business to require such information if the person isn't asking for something for which this information is pertinent.

.....and it is also true that a person has no legal obligation to provide that information. However, the shelter has no obligation to provide services if that information isn't given.

Just like an insurance company has NO obligation to supply a policy for someone who doesn't provide medical information.

My husband was epileptic. When it was controlled with medication, neither the state nor our auto insurance company had a problem with him, BUT he had to supply doctor's notes to prove that his epilepsy was controlled, and if he didn't do that, his license was revoked and his insurance was cancelled.

You don't have to provide that information. We don't have to give you what you want, if you refuse to do so. Because, Shadow Wolf, sometimes it's very much 'our damn business.'

 

[dianaiad]

I suspect you may want to learn about HIPPA laws. It protects our medical information, and even judges and police have to jump through high and tight hoops to subpoena it (and even then they often cant get it and when they do its very limited access). It legally seals our medical information from the world, and all decisions will have to conform to that law.

I am aware of HIPPA.

And if it were a matter of finding out medical information will you, nil you, you'd have a point.

However, if someone wants a service that depends upon certain medical information (like, oh, life insurance or driver's licenses or...aid in a woman's shelter if one is obviously physically male and claims to be 'really' a female) then it is the choice of the applicant whether or not to provide that information.

If s/he does not, it is the choice of the service provider to say 'nope, you want this? We need this information."

HIPPA laws do not apply to the individual whose medical information it is. S/he can provide that information to whomever he/she pleases.

..............and, say...an insurance company can say 'you answer these medical questions if you want our policy," and a state can say 'you answer these medical questions if you want to drive a car...and a shelter can say 'you provide medical support for your claim if you want to stay here."

HIPPA doesn't apply.

 

[dianaiad]

"Not really"? Well, you've convinced me.

You strike me as a person who crosses the road to avoid homeless people anyway, so I'm likewise glad you don't run a shelter. Fearmongering stereotyping helps no one.

Well, I guess I insulted you first. (sigh)

Wait...no I didn't. You have misrepresented me consistently. Enough already.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, I guess I insulted you first. (sigh)

Wait...no I didn't. You have misrepresented me consistently. Enough already.

I don't even consistently reply to you and can't honestly remember other conversations we've had but yeah, don't turn on the heat then complain it's warm.

And do let me know if you figure out how it's easier to tell men are gay than transwomen are trans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, it is. And again, there are situations where it is very legal...and expected...to request medical information.

The situations where it is legal are very, very few and rare. In this situation there is no reason a judge would allow any medical records to be subpoenaed, especially when alternatives that don't delve into medical records are available. Literally, HIPPA is so strict that police can't even flaunt their badge as above it and do as they please. If you want to tell the police no, go into the medical field because there is a chance it could happen and you'd be legally in the right for doing so.
No one--trans or cis, hetero or homo, white or black--no one is entitled to the medical information of another. And any proposals that expect it are illegal and unethical.

 

[columbus]

I don't see the problem with simply letting the staff of any given emergency shelter decide, on a case by case basis, who to let in and who to keep out.

Outsiders should just shut up and sit down.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

The situations where it is legal are very, very few and rare. In this situation there is no reason a judge would allow any medical records to be subpoenaed, especially when alternatives that don't delve into medical records are available. Literally, HIPPA is so strict that police can't even flaunt their badge as above it and do as they please. If you want to tell the police no, go into the medical field because there is a chance it could happen and you'd be legally in the right for doing so.
No one--trans or cis, hetero or homo, white or black--no one is entitled to the medical information of another. And any proposals that expect it are illegal and unethical.

Nobody has suggested...especially I have not suggested...that the shelter (this is about a women's shelter, yes?) has the right to get medical information without the permission of the applicant.

this is about an applicant who wants a service/product...in this case, shelter.

It is perfectly legal AND ethical for that shelter to require certain medical information from the applicant if that information is pertinent to the situation, that is, whether someone who is physically a man is actually a 'woman in a man's body.' True, the shelter cannot go around the applicant and HIPPA laws to get that information, but it CAN say....you give me the information or we don't provide the service..

And that is absolutely legal and ethical. If you don't think so, then YOU go sue insurance companies and the motor vehicle departments of whatever state/nation you want to drive in. You are, in fact, arguing a strawman here, since I am certainly not advocating that a shelter get information not voluntarily provided by the applicant.

What I AM saying is that a shelter, like any other service provider, can legally and ethically ask an applicant for pertinent medical information before providing that service, and, though it cannot force such disclosure, can certainly refuse to provide the service if the information isn't provided.

You know...the way my sons have to pass medical exams (including drug tests) before they can work for a trucking company, or I had to prove that I was free of TB before I could teach school, or..????

So dial it back, Shadow Wolf. It's simple. If I were running a woman's shelter, and a man with all his physical accouterments showed up claiming to be 'really a woman,' I would require him to support that before I allowed him in. If he could not, or was not willing to do so, I would refer him to a different shelter; perhaps the 'co-ed' one that takes women AND men down the block. I wouldn't sue, I wouldn't go to court, I wouldn't send the police. I would just....not let him in.

As would be my right. No HIPPA laws violated. He doesn't have to provide the information, I don't have to let him in.

................and I wouldn't allow the wolf who claimed he really was a sheep in my flock, either. Not unless he could 'baaa' and provide me some wool...or at least some hint that he would if he could.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you give me the information or we don't provide the service.

They are very limited in what they can request. They can check a drivers license: that's not medical information. The general rule of thumb is if its medical information you will never be entitled to it.

Nobody has suggested...especially I have not suggested...that the shelter (this is about a women's shelter, yes?) has the right to get medical information without the permission of the applicant.

You suggested they be allowed to know who their doctor is, what medical procedures they are on, and what medications they are on. Very generally and very typically unless it can be very specifically demonstrated why you must have access to a medical chart and no other means are available, it is illegal to ask about any three of those things. If it's not someone in jail, on house arrest, or parole, and they need to know if person x has been going to AA meetings, you probably will never be granted access to someones medical records.

It is perfectly legal

Only in very few and very rare conditions. Even if you are a healthcare provider, if your patient doesn't have you on their release format another clinic where they are treated you'll have to bugger off when it comes to accessing those files no matter how much they will help you treat your patient. In this case I am ci confident that no judge will allow for it because it makes requests things that have already been judged a "hell no."

 

[dianaiad]

They are very limited in what they can request. They can check a drivers license: that's not medical information. The general rule of thumb is if its medical information you will never be entitled to it.

You suggested they be allowed to know who their doctor is, what medical procedures they are on, and what medications they are on. Very generally and very typically unless it can be very specifically demonstrated why you must have access to a medical chart and no other means are available, it is illegal to ask about any three of those things. If it's not someone in jail, on house arrest, or parole, and they need to know if person x has been going to AA meetings, you probably will never be granted access to someones medical records.

Only in very few and very rare conditions. Even if you are a healthcare provider, if your patient doesn't have you on their release format another clinic where they are treated you'll have to bugger off when it comes to accessing those files no matter how much they will help you treat your patient. In this case I am ci confident that no judge will allow for it because it makes requests things that have already been judged a "hell no."

Again.

Go sue an insurance company.
Sue the issuer of your driver's license.
Sue your next employer....

If you are a teacher, sue the school board when it requires you to supply a certificate, signed by a licensed doctor, affirming your freedom from TB.

You are NOT required by law to give out medical information.
The person requesting is it NOT required by law to offer the service/license/job for which this medical information is needed, if you refuse to do so.

You are not required to give a shelter any medical information. It is not required to allow you in. You yourself spoke of a woman who had a drug problem, that the shelter required drug tests (and the results therefrom) in order to keep her in.

My brother went through drug rehab many years ago. He had to give a LOT of medical information, and take drug tests every single day, in order to remain in that facility.

It's a simple case of 'you don't have to, of course, but if you don't, we don't have to let you in here."

And this is legal, moral and ethical, and I NEVER implied or stated that the shelter should go around the applicant for anything. Just that the applicant had to produce whatever support is required.

You are now moving the goal posts out past Pluto.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My brother went through drug rehab many years ago. He had to give a LOT of medical information, and take drug tests every single day, in order to remain in that facility.

Asking questions isn't the same as requiring it. I promise you, your brother may have been asked lots of questions, but he was under no legal obligation to answer and he was under no obligation to retrieve and provide any needed or requested documents (if he was, the staff of that center is lazy). Shelters, obviously, arent treatment centers. But the law and procedures are the same. Don't even bother asking because you won't be granted access.

If you are a teacher, sue the school board when it requires you to supply a certificate, signed by a licensed doctor, affirming your freedom from TB.

I had to provide such documentation to be a case manager (as well as vaccine records, and getting the help b vaccine). But in that case I dealt with sick people on a regular basis, often came into contact with those with a weakened or compromised immune system, and the health of many directly depended on it.
Being trans doesn't spread a disease and isn't a disease

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I NEVER implied or stated that the shelter should go around the applicant for anything. Just that the applicant had to produce whatever support is required.

You did state shelters should be entitled to information they are not entitled to and would be in fact illegal for them to obtain and to even generally illegal to upfront ask, and expected transgender people to give out information (including coming in forms that can't even be confirmed or verified) that they don't have to give to anyone. You said they can provide a prescription bottle that they are on hormones. That would not be a legal request in that situation. You did imply theh have more loopholes and easier access than what they law provides for.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Now that's incorrect. In no way have I claimed that trans people are more likely to be predators. In fact, my claim was that predators could pretend to be trans in order to gain access to their targets.

No, you said:

"Face it; political correctness aside, the odds are FAR greater than some predator male is lying to get to his 'woman' than that, just coincidentally, a transgender male-female just happens to need care."

You didn't just said it COULD happen, you literally stated that "the odds are FAR greater" for a person claiming to be trans would just be a predator. You literally rubbished the idea that trans women could want shelter. You literally believe it is more likely for an abusive man to PRETEND to be trans to get into a womens shelter than it is for a genuine trans person to want shelter. What is this based on if not small-minded transphobia?

They would do this for the same reason that pedophiles like to find positions that get them close to their victims, like preachers, priests, teachers or youth leaders; not because preachers, priests, teachers and youth leaders are more likely to be predators, but because they are NOT. It's a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' thing.

This argument is just you shooting yourself in the foot, because admittance into those systems is still heavily regulated, and there is no move to ban or dismiss certain sections of society from taking those positions because they could POTENTIALLY be paedophiles.

Think about it for a moment. If there was a movement to disallow, let's say, Asian people from becoming youth group leaders because of the fear that they "could be paedophiles", is that reasonable? I mean, they COULD be paedophiles, right? So, therefore, we should make it more difficult for Asian people to become group leaders and face tougher background checks than non-Asian people, right?

But, of course, so could anyone else of any other background. So why single out Asian people? The exact same logic exists for what you're talking about. Anybody, be they trans or cis, could go to a shelter with the intent to cause harm. That's why we have checks and balances in place to monitor their behaviour and step in when there is genuine reason to believe that is the case. At what point does somebody being trans make them immediately worth dismissing for this reason? Where is the study that suggests a trans women is more likely to be an abuser than a cis woman?

If you are going to misrepresent me this egregiously, there is absolutely no sense in continuing the conversation.

It's not a misrepresentation. Your argument is entirely couched in a small-minded fear of trans people.

 

[dianaiad]

Asking questions isn't the same as requiring it. I promise you, your brother may have been asked lots of questions, but he was under no legal obligation to answer and he was under no obligation to retrieve and provide any needed or requested documents (if he was, the staff of that center is lazy). Shelters, obviously, arent treatment centers. But the law and procedures are the same. Don't even bother asking because you won't be granted access.

I had to provide such documentation to be a case manager (as well as vaccine records, and getting the help b vaccine). But in that case I dealt with sick people on a regular basis, often came into contact with those with a weakened or compromised immune system, and the health of many directly depended on it.
Being trans doesn't spread a disease and isn't a disease

You aren't getting it. Asking questions IS 'requiring it.' and no, my brother was under no legal obligation to answer...but if he hadn't done so, he wouldn't have been allowed to stay in the rehab center.

You provided many things in order to be a case manager, all done for the safety and protection of those you served. You did not, by law, have to provide any of that stuff. However, if you had not, you would not have been able to be a case manager.

An applicant to a woman's shelter, who is physically and functionally male, doesn't HAVE to provide any support that he is 'trans.' However, the shelter doesn't have to let him/her in if s/he doesn't.

Nor should it.

 

[dianaiad]

No, you said:

"Face it; political correctness aside, the odds are FAR greater than some predator male is lying to get to his 'woman' than that, just coincidentally, a transgender male-female just happens to need care."

You didn't just said it COULD happen, you literally stated that "the odds are FAR greater" for a person claiming to be trans would just be a predator. You literally rubbished the idea that trans women could want shelter. You literally believe it is more likely for an abusive man to PRETEND to be trans to get into a womens shelter than it is for a genuine trans person to want shelter. What is this based on if not small-minded transphobia?

It's based upon the fact that there are far more nasty, predatory men than there are transgendered people.

In fact, it seems that about .005 % of people are transgendered.

Compare that to these statistics: something like 33% of women experience rape, sexual and/or domestic abuse by their male 'significant others.' Which means that it's FAR more likely that a male heterosexual predator is going to try something than that a true transgendered male/female is going to need aid.

The numbers just don't support you.

In fact, the percentage of gay men who experience sexual abuse is lower than that of heterosexual men...26% to 29%, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey...a sub division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

So. We have a LOT of men who are predators. A lot of 'em. They target their intimate partners. It is far less likely that a transgendered individual will need aid than that a predator will try to gain access to a target, just by the numbers.

That does NOT mean that shelters should turn people away who honestly need aid.

It means that if a physical male says he's trans and needs help from a woman's shelter, that he should be willing to support his claim.

That's not bigotry. That's just a clear eyed look at the numbers.

I wouldn't allow someone who SAID he was immune to measles anywhere near my grandchild in a day car center, either. I would demand the vaccination certificate. He is not required by law to provide it, but then I'm not required by law to let him anywhere near my kid, either.

.......or if the day care center does so without my knowledge, and my kid gets the measles. I'm going to be very, very unhappy.

It's exactly the same thing. You think you are a woman in a man's body? You need help? Fine. You can have it. I'll help all I can...but if I am already helping women who have been victimized by men who have beaten, raped and stalked them, you'd better be able to support YOUR claim, or you don't get anywhere near them.

That's it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's based upon the fact that there are far more nasty, predatory men than there are transgendered people.

In fact, it seems that about .005 % of people are transgendered.

Compare that to these statistics: something like 33% of women experience rape, sexual and/or domestic abuse by their male 'significant others.' Which means that it's FAR more likely that a male heterosexual predator is going to try something than that a true transgendered male/female is going to need aid.

The numbers just don't support you.

In fact, the percentage of gay men who experience sexual abuse is lower than that of heterosexual men...26% to 29%, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey...a sub division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

So. We have a LOT of men who are predators. A lot of 'em. They target their intimate partners. It is far less likely that a transgendered individual will need aid than that a predator will try to gain access to a target, just by the numbers.

That does NOT mean that shelters should turn people away who honestly need aid.

It means that if a physical male says he's trans and needs help from a woman's shelter, that he should be willing to support his claim.

That's not bigotry. That's just a clear eyed look at the numbers.

I wouldn't allow someone who SAID he was immune to measles anywhere near my grandchild in a day car center, either. I would demand the vaccination certificate. He is not required by law to provide it, but then I'm not required by law to let him anywhere near my kid, either.

.......or if the day care center does so without my knowledge, and my kid gets the measles. I'm going to be very, very unhappy.

It's exactly the same thing. You think you are a woman in a man's body? You need help? Fine. You can have it. I'll help all I can...but if I am already helping women who have been victimized by men who have beaten, raped and stalked them, you'd better be able to support YOUR claim, or you don't get anywhere near them.

That's it.

For starters, your figure of 0.005 is way off. I mean, it could be off by more than a factor of 100.
SOURCE: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...ntify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf

I see a lot of meaningless, unfounded numbers thrown around, and not a single actual study that shows people claiming to be transgender in order to enter into women's shelters is anything more than an imaginary problem, and the fact that you still don't understand why hindering the rights of minority groups due to your unfounded fear of people abusing a system that is already heavily policed and regulated just demonstrates that you're not looking at this subject reasonably.

You talk about denying somebody access to a women's shelter because they appear "physically male" and cannot provide medical records. Think about that for ten seconds, please.

 

[dianaiad]

For starters, your figure of 0.005 is way off. I mean, it could be off by more than a factor of 100.
SOURCE: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...ntify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf

I see a lot of meaningless, unfounded numbers thrown around, and not a single actual study that shows people claiming to be transgender in order to enter into women's shelters is anything more than an imaginary problem, and the fact that you still don't understand why hindering the rights of minority groups due to your unfounded fear of people abusing a system that is already heavily policed and regulated just demonstrates that you're not looking at this subject reasonably.

You talk about denying somebody access to a women's shelter because they appear "physically male" and cannot provide medical records. Think about that for ten seconds, please.

Yes. I am. YOU are talking about a system that is already 'heavily policed and regulated' and assume that this heavily policed and regulated system is going to simply take a man's word for it that he is trans and doesn't belong in a men's shelter?

Ain't gonna happen. Any shelter that does this is anything BUT 'heavily policed and regulated."