Where are you on the whole gender thing?

[Ymx]

Great to see YMX doing his level best to turn this into a proper shit fight. Absolute class act as always.

A very late late post from you. “And another thing”

I was simply linking some opposing views together, in people’s own words from posts directly above.

And it was a challenge by Fester.

Anyway, this is not one for Xmas, grumpy pants.

[JM2K6]

BnM posted after them, they weren't replying to her. Absolutely no need to try and manufacture this, Christmas or not.

[BnM]

I've only got 5 minutes, but what I took from BnM's post is that

"Men are responsible for 92% of violent convictions and 99.2% of Sex crime convictions."

Sexual predators will find a way to commit their crimes, whether through the priesthood, sports coaching, random police officers using the power of their profession or whatever. The fact that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of these crimes is a horrible fact.

I don't think that means all men are potential rapists, nor do I think that all trans people are potential sexual predators. In fact statistics show that they are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the general population.

I'll come back to this topic when I have more time, but one thing I will say on the stat that "Men are responsible for 99.2% of Sex crime convictions." is that these convictions are a drop in the ocean of the crimes that are perpetrated by predatory men.

The they will find another way argument as a reason to remove safeguarding is a zero sum game, why bother with anything.

The transwomen in prison are disproportionately in there for sex crimes.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

"In fact statistics show that they are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the general population." I'd love to see those stats for UK????

"is that these convictions are a drop in the ocean of the crimes that are perpetrated by predatory men." you're argument men are more rapey because there's more of them really isn't the winner you think it is.

[Tichtheid]

I've only got 5 minutes, but what I took from BnM's post is that

"Men are responsible for 92% of violent convictions and 99.2% of Sex crime convictions."

Sexual predators will find a way to commit their crimes, whether through the priesthood, sports coaching, random police officers using the power of their profession or whatever. The fact that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of these crimes is a horrible fact.

I don't think that means all men are potential rapists, nor do I think that all trans people are potential sexual predators. In fact statistics show that they are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the general population.

I'll come back to this topic when I have more time, but one thing I will say on the stat that "Men are responsible for 99.2% of Sex crime convictions." is that these convictions are a drop in the ocean of the crimes that are perpetrated by predatory men.

The they will find another way argument as a reason to remove safeguarding is a zero sum game, why bother with anything.

Apologies for the fact I'm on another fly-by, I don't have the time to look up the stats right at this moment, but I shall try to return when I have more time to devote to this.

The transwomen in prison are disproportionately in there for sex crimes.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

The trouble with using such a small data set is that it's actually a really low number in itself - those numbers show that half of one percent of all sex convictions are handed down to trans women, my point here is that working with such small numbers makes it difficult to reach a robust conclusion of any kind.

"In fact statistics show that they are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the general population." I'd love to see those stats for UK????

I referenced the stats before on here, I'll see if I can find them for next time.

"is that these convictions are a drop in the ocean of the crimes that are perpetrated by predatory men." you're argument men are more rapey because there's more of them really isn't the winner you think it is.

Before telling me what I'm thinking, if I'm at all unclear in what I've written you could just ask.

My point in that sentence is that there are not nearly enough convictions for the huge number of sexual offences that take place, not nearly enough offenders are caught and punished - the repetition there was to try and avoid any further misunderstanding.

[BnM]

The transwomen in prison are disproportionately in there for sex crimes.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

The trouble with using such a small data set is that it's actually a really low number in itself - those numbers show that half of one percent of all sex convictions are handed down to trans women, my point here is that working with such small numbers makes it difficult to reach a robust conclusion of any kind.

Of course you can. There's no data none zippo zilch to show that them saying they're now a women now gives them female pattern offending. You have the poisoned chalice or their disproportionately prone to sex offences compared to other men or some are lying to get access to women. That's your honest choice. The not having a large enough data set is a cop out, we have plenty of data about men, don't forget self ID doesn't require, drugs surgery or anything, it just requires you to confirm you want to now treated as a Woman, why would you think that makes them automatically safe around women and children when they weren't before. You could make the same argument for men who aren't trans as the conviction rate is only 1.5% at best yet we still have safeguarding for women and children despite that.

[Tichtheid]

The transwomen in prison are disproportionately in there for sex crimes.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

The trouble with using such a small data set is that it's actually a really low number in itself - those numbers show that half of one percent of all sex convictions are handed down to trans women, my point here is that working with such small numbers makes it difficult to reach a robust conclusion of any kind.

Of course you can. There's no data none zippo zilch to show that them saying they're now a women now gives them female pattern offending. You have the poisoned chalice or their disproportionately prone to sex offences compared to other men or some are lying to get access to women. That's your honest choice. The not having a large enough data set is a cop out, we have plenty of data about men, don't forget self ID doesn't require, drugs surgery or anything, it just requires you to confirm you want to now treated as a Woman, why would you think that makes them automatically safe around women and children when they weren't before. You could make the same argument for men who aren't trans as the conviction rate is only 1.5% at best yet we still have safeguarding for women and children despite that.

Something just occurred to me, I think I remember reading a while back, ie this year, that the vast majority of trans sex offenders in the uK are in prisons which match their gender at birth and that the prison is chosen by a panel who consider many factors.

Again, I haven't the time to do the Googling tonight on this.

[Random1]

It’s just a mess of a topic

Ask anyone to define a woman or a man, and it becomes impossible.

It’s got a slightly religious twang for me. If we ignore biology and think people are defined by something beyond physical biology, then we’re in a world of having a gendered spirit or soul.

[Biffer]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

[Ymx]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

[JM2K6]

Those stats are really dubious.

https://aninjusticemag.com/are-50-of-tr ... 2f949c365a

Some questions I don't have firm answers to:

- Has there been a rise in sexual offences in countries where self ID was made legal?
- Has there been a rise in sexual offences due to a switch from gendered toilets & changing rooms to unisex ones?

I'm also confused about some of the logic on display. All of the stats we have (even for the UK) show trans people are an at risk population, most likely to be a victim of violence. If the problem is male pattern violence, as has been posited here, then forcing a vulnerable female-presenting minority into a male-only environment is not just humiliating but actively dangerous.

On the flip side, what of trans men? Should they be using the women's toilets? I can't see anyone with a strong opinion that trans women should stay away from other women because of male pattern violence being happy with male-presenting people being forced to use female toilets.

[Biffer]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

So you missed the bit in the same post about portraying disadvantaged groups as deviants?

No you didn't, did you.

[sockwithaticket]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

Presumably the point about presenting trans people as sexual predators in much the same way homosexuals were vilified in decades past.


Something she mentioned that does bear some consideration is that self-ID potentially makes it easier for non-trans individuals with mal-intent to claim it and gain access to spaces they'd otherwise be excluded from. We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised.

[Ymx]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

Presumably the point about presenting trans people as sexual predators in much the same way homosexuals were vilified in decades past.


Something she mentioned that does bear some consideration is that self-ID potentially makes it easier for non-trans individuals with mal-intent to claim it and gain access to spaces they'd otherwise be excluded from. We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised.

Thanks. It wasn’t clear to me.

I’m pretty sure BNM’s first thoughts are not these people are all deviants, but more that she does not want _any_ men (people with cocks) in changing rooms or toilets.

On your point, I’d say Scotland has made a terrible decision given how it may be exploited by those pretending to be pretend women.

[Biffer]

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

Presumably the point about presenting trans people as sexual predators in much the same way homosexuals were vilified in decades past.


Something she mentioned that does bear some consideration is that self-ID potentially makes it easier for non-trans individuals with mal-intent to claim it and gain access to spaces they'd otherwise be excluded from. We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised.

Thanks. It wasn’t clear to me.

I’m pretty sure BNM’s first thoughts are not these people are all deviants, but more that she does not want _any_ men (people with cocks) in changing rooms or toilets.

On your point, I’d say Scotland has made a terrible decision given how it may be exploited by those pretending to be pretend women.

For reference, so that I can be clearer in the future, what isn’t clear about this paragraph of the post you read (because you referred to the other paragraph in it)?

I do notice that the usual thing of portraying a disadvantaged group as in some way perverted or deviant is there though. In exactly the same way it was for gay people in the seventies and eighties, black people during the civil rights movement and suffragettes.[\quote]

[BnM]

BnM demonstrating my point from earlier in the thread.

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

Presumably the point about presenting trans people as sexual predators in much the same way homosexuals were vilified in decades past.


Something she mentioned that does bear some consideration is that self-ID potentially makes it easier for non-trans individuals with mal-intent to claim it and gain access to spaces they'd otherwise be excluded from. We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised.

No one says all men, no one says all transwomen, and I'm pretty fecking sure I didn't either.

There's plenty of tranwomen in jail for sex offences but because they're a disadvantaged minority we just ignore this because....?
It is possible to be both. Being a disadvantaged minority doesn't make you perfect or give you a free pass. How do you tell the difference between the good and the bad?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-63785679
https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgen ... t-8914577/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... der-prison

As for your second point that ship sailed a long time ago, god knows what you're waiting for, there's been a fair few court cases, mainly Primark and some M&S where voyeurs have used mixed sex changing rooms to record women. Evidence has been given that some are pretending to be trans and most sex crimes happen in mixed sex changing rooms.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... o-26545004
https://news.sky.com/story/metropolitan ... d-12579331
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey ... e-20114144
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... -register/
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 19086.html - Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

Give me stats showing I'm wrong, prove to me women will be safe or justify and acceptable amount of sexual assaults for making spaces unisex. You've given me nothing so far.

"We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised."

Have you got any idea what you just wrote there...what is the potential cost of this experiment? Clue - it's in the news links I put above.

[Calculon]

So you missed the bit in the same post about portraying disadvantaged groups as deviants?

No you didn't, did you.

In what way are trans people disadvantaged in the UK?

[sockwithaticket]

Perhaps you might clarify what your point was?

The only thing I can see you mentioning is about encroaching on women’s rights. But that can’t be that, as BNM has solely been talking about safety.

Presumably the point about presenting trans people as sexual predators in much the same way homosexuals were vilified in decades past.


Something she mentioned that does bear some consideration is that self-ID potentially makes it easier for non-trans individuals with mal-intent to claim it and gain access to spaces they'd otherwise be excluded from. We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised.

No one says all men, no one says all transwomen, and I'm pretty fecking sure I didn't either.

There's plenty of tranwomen in jail for sex offences but because they're a disadvantaged minority we just ignore this because....?
It is possible to be both. Being a disadvantaged minority doesn't make you perfect or give you a free pass. How do you tell the difference between the good and the bad?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-63785679
https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgen ... t-8914577/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... der-prison

As for your second point that ship sailed a long time ago, god knows what you're waiting for, there's been a fair few court cases, mainly Primark and some M&S where voyeurs have used mixed sex changing rooms to record women. Evidence has been given that some are pretending to be trans and most sex crimes happen in mixed sex changing rooms.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... o-26545004
https://news.sky.com/story/metropolitan ... d-12579331
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey ... e-20114144
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... -register/
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 19086.html - Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

Give me stats showing I'm wrong, prove to me women will be safe or justify and acceptable amount of sexual assaults for making spaces unisex. You've given me nothing so far.

"We obviously won't know until after the fact whether any concern over that will be realised."

Have you got any idea what you just wrote there...what is the potential cost of this experiment? Clue - it's in the news links I put above.

It's quite clear what I wrote, we can't know. You can suspect and try to predict, but until the law actually changes we cannot say for certain howit will pan out. It's not dissimilar to the proposed tackle change in rugby in that sense - tackling no higher than the navel is bemoaned by some as potentially causing more concussions because there is a bit of data out there suggesting that lower tackles, particularly around the legs, do so. Until it's enacted it can only be conjecture.

Whether to weather the cost is down to our legislators and those who would seek to shape their opinion.

I'm actually more on your side, I have my doubts, particularly based on changing room incidents, but I take my steer on it from the women in my life. All of whom seem indifferent at worst, with most actively supporting Scottish-style self-ID laws. Given our relative achievements and positions in life thus, far they're brighter and more brilliant than me, so if they're not fussed it seems weird to tell them they're wrong.

[JM2K6]

For accuracy's sake:

"Evidence has been given that some are pretending to be trans and most sex crimes happen in mixed sex changing rooms."

That's a incorrect framing of the data. The stats are only from council run sports centres and swimming pools, over a relatively short period of time. There is nothing in the stats that refers to the genders of the perpetrators or the victims. There is only the most basic attempt to control for the variables (eg we know that the unisex facilities represent just under half the total, but we have no idea how the proportion of people using them). This isn't a study, it's some very narrow data that would need some careful analysis with a lot more context to determine what you can and can't say about it.

There's a reason why studies are not just printing raw data. Especially with such a small sample size of large variation across a large area.

[Tichtheid]

For accuracy's sake:

"Evidence has been given that some are pretending to be trans and most sex crimes happen in mixed sex changing rooms."

That's a incorrect framing of the data. The stats are only from council run sports centres and swimming pools, over a relatively short period of time. There is nothing in the stats that refers to the genders of the perpetrators or the victims. There is only the most basic attempt to control for the variables (eg we know that the unisex facilities represent just under half the total, but we have no idea how the proportion of people using them). This isn't a study, it's some very narrow data that would need some careful analysis with a lot more context to determine what you can and can't say about it.

There's a reason why studies are not just printing raw data. Especially with such a small sample size of large variation across a large area.

It's called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - you look at a small cluster, ignore larger data sets and call it a trend.

The name comes from the apocraphyl story of a Texan shooting lots of bullets at a barn door and then painting a target around a cluster, declaring himself a sharpshooter.

[Random1]

For accuracy's sake:

"Evidence has been given that some are pretending to be trans and most sex crimes happen in mixed sex changing rooms."

That's a incorrect framing of the data. The stats are only from council run sports centres and swimming pools, over a relatively short period of time. There is nothing in the stats that refers to the genders of the perpetrators or the victims. There is only the most basic attempt to control for the variables (eg we know that the unisex facilities represent just under half the total, but we have no idea how the proportion of people using them). This isn't a study, it's some very narrow data that would need some careful analysis with a lot more context to determine what you can and can't say about it.

There's a reason why studies are not just printing raw data. Especially with such a small sample size of large variation across a large area.

It's called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - you look at a small cluster, ignore larger data sets and call it a trend.

The name comes from the apocraphyl story of a Texan shooting lots of bullets at a barn door and then painting a target around a cluster, declaring himself a sharpshooter.

Quality factoid.

On the wider topic of violence against women increasing; it’s a really interesting one, and is an obvious clash on the Intersectionality scale.

Women fought for single sex spaces. Why does a trans person’s feelings trump that? There is a choice to be made.

Unless you believe that trans people genuinely are women or men based upon the way they feel.

[JM2K6]

"Women fought for single sex spaces"

I don't actually think that's true. Single sex spaces arose from facilities being specifically for men, and from men ensuring they had their own private spaces (a natural continuation of the "men's club" concept). Instead, women fought to have the same access to facilities as men.

Public toilets started that way: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/H ... n-Britain/

Unisex was never the starting point.

[Sandstorm]

"Women fought for single sex spaces"

I don't actually think that's true. Single sex spaces arose from facilities being specifically for men, and from men ensuring they had their own private spaces (a natural continuation of the "men's club" concept). Instead, women fought to have the same access to facilities as men.

Public toilets started that way: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/H ... n-Britain/

Unisex was never the starting point.

Who's idea was it to have single sex baths in Ancient Rome?

[JM2K6]

"Women fought for single sex spaces"

I don't actually think that's true. Single sex spaces arose from facilities being specifically for men, and from men ensuring they had their own private spaces (a natural continuation of the "men's club" concept). Instead, women fought to have the same access to facilities as men.

Public toilets started that way: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/H ... n-Britain/

Unisex was never the starting point.

Who's idea was it to have single sex baths in Ancient Rome?

Dunno.

Incidentally, I do think there is a difference between spaces that can be unisex while retaining privacy (eg unisex cubicles) and places where nudity will likely occur (baths, changing rooms). I'd say the focus should be on ensuring people's privacy be respected.

[GymJam]

This is a complex area with a lot of bad faith (from both sides). I will first point out that if you are a man you have the luxury of being able to discuss things from a theoretical point of view because the effects of self-ID are not experienced equally across the population. E.g. a trans man, regardless of what medical or surgical ‘transitioning’ they have undergone (if any at all) will never be a physical threat to you in the same way as a trans woman (regardless of any medical or surgical ‘transitioning’, and bearing in mind that they may not have undergone any, nor have any intention of doing so) is to women. Likewise, many middle class, heterosexual women will never have to deal with some of the consequences of Scotland’s GRR bill. E.g. for them, what goes on in prisons is theoretical. They are unlikely to be told that their dating preferences are transphobic (something that is especially insidious in the context of younger women or children working out their own sexuality). You have the luxury of saying ‘live and let live’ in a way women do not. Please do not take this as a personal attack or an attempt to shut down your opinions- that is not my intent.

To be crystal clear, I am not saying and nor do I think that all trans women are predatory men or men with fetishes. I’m sure there are plenty of people who do think this, but I also know that many of the people expressing concern at self-ID policies do not think this either. Dismissing these concerns as bigotry, or attempting to ‘paint a vulnerable minority as predators’, with comparisons to the vilification of gay men is lazy and a way to shut down a difficult discussion that may lead to a conclusion that there should be restrictions around how self-ID is implemented. This also provides an environment for predators to operate and will attract predators to the community (see practically every other attempt to cover up predators in any community for fear of vilification of the whole community). The number of predators in the ranks, or abusing self-ID (and there are already examples) is irrelevant. They need to be rooted out of the community. Sexual predators are notoriously recidivist and a small number can do a great deal of damage. I doubt it would be much consolation to Karen White’s victims to tell them their attacker was a tiny minority and a rare occurrence.

With regard to JMK’s questions: there is already an abundance of data from around the world showing that women are markedly less safe when the only available facilities are unisex.
With respect to the question about what data from countries with existing self-ID policies show, that’s possibly the wrong question. A better question might be whether such data is even being collected. We are increasingly conflating sex and gender with questions on sex being replaced with gender identity. See, for example, the whole furore around the Scottish census questions on sex and gender where respondents were told that they could answer the compulsory question about their sex according to their gender identity. Likewise there are questions about crime statistics- when a transwoman commits a crime, it is recorded as a female crime. Is their trans status recorded? And is it recorded consistently across police forces? I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps it is. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to be sceptical, especially when we also know about one incident where, when a woman was raped on a hospital ward by a transwoman, the hospital said she couldn’t have been raped because there were no men on the ward. CCTV then emerged showing that the attack happened as reported by the woman. Given that the hospital were only prepared to admit that the attack had even happened after they were confronted with their own CCTV, would this attack have even been recorded, let alone whether the attacker was trans, were it not for the CCTV? How many other similar incidents have happened which were not caught on CCTV? Perhaps this was the only incident. But how can we know if the data isn’t collected, or if there is a reluctance to collect the data in the first place because it might stigmatise a vulnerable minority? And when we are told there is no data to suggest a greater risk, how are we supposed to trust it when situations like the above hospital attack arise?

Once again, to emphasise, I do not think all trans people (or even a majority) are predators. However, this does not mean they don’t exist within the community (no group is completely without scumbags) nor does it mean that self-ID does not present additional opportunities for predators, who may or may not be trans, to access potential victims. Refusing to even countenance such possibilities does nobody any favours, not least trans people, particularly since doing so is likely to attract abusers and predators, thus increasing the association you are trying to avoid.

Two final points: the point about aeroplane toilets being unisex is almost as asinine as the ‘I bet your toilets at home are unisex’ attempted gotcha. They are completely different scenarios and merely emphasise how little understanding the person has of the issues.

Finally, it’s also worth bearing in mind that this is such a toxic debate that when you say ‘most of the people I know are indifferent or supportive’, there is a clear confirmation bias because people with reservations are far less likely to speak up about it than those who are supportive. Additionally, there is a lot of ambiguity around this topic which results in a lot of misunderstanding. For example, the first post in this thread talks about gender dysphoria. Except the activist position is that you can be trans without gender dysphoria. See also many people saying things along the lines of ‘why would a predatory man who isn’t trans go to the trouble of taking hormones and getting surgery just to get a GRC/pretend to be trans etc’. Except none of those things is a requirement to identify as trans (or get a GRC under the Scottish GRR bill). Of course it may well be that everyone you know is on the same page and supportive, but it’s worth considering.

Sorry for the essay- like I said, complex topic.

[JM2K6]

Do you have any studies on that data to hand?


I do think it's fine to point out as men we aren't affected in the same way as women. Trans people themselves are completely ignored though, even in your post, and there's a safety aspect for them, too. And I don't think that framing this in terms of middle class heterosexual women is a particularly well founded point; the biggest hotbed of anti trans discussion in the UK famously skews heavily towards middle and upper class heterosexual women. Besides, the queer community overwhelmingly supports trans men and women, and the whole "dating preferences" angle is very much one of those things I mentioned in my first post where everyone seems to have heard of it but there's vanishingly tiny amounts of evidence suggesting it's actually A Thing.

On my "wrong question", the numbers would still show up somewhere even if it was recorded as female crime. There would still be a rise. I take your point regarding uncertain recording, some cases not being recorded at all, etc, but that's a problem we have anyway: it's not like we're unaware that many crimes against women are ignored or that many women don't bother reporting them, and as far as I'm aware that is especially true when the victim is a victim of queer violence. We make do with the numbers we have in that scenario but there's no question it's imperfect data; it does mean we cannot comfortably claim we know the full extent of lesbian rape statistics, for example. I didn't mention this in my previous post because frankly it comes across as me trying to make excuses or dismiss data, but it is certainly a problem.

I don't know the hospital event you are talking about but as written that is appalling behaviour by the hospital. It's not like women can't be raped by other women, trans or otherwise, and there's no end of male staff in hospitals either. Truly dreadful.

[Random1]

"Women fought for single sex spaces"

I don't actually think that's true. Single sex spaces arose from facilities being specifically for men, and from men ensuring they had their own private spaces (a natural continuation of the "men's club" concept). Instead, women fought to have the same access to facilities as men.

Public toilets started that way: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/H ... n-Britain/

Unisex was never the starting point.

Afraid you’re wrong on that mate. There was a fair amount of campaigning for separate spaces for women - Virginia Wolfe wrote about the topic.

[Random1]

Do you have any studies on that data to hand?


I do think it's fine to point out as men we aren't affected in the same way as women. Trans people themselves are completely ignored though, even in your post, and there's a safety aspect for them, too. And I don't think that framing this in terms of middle class heterosexual women is a particularly well founded point; the biggest hotbed of anti trans discussion in the UK famously skews heavily towards middle and upper class heterosexual women. Besides, the queer community overwhelmingly supports trans men and women, and the whole "dating preferences" angle is very much one of those things I mentioned in my first post where everyone seems to have heard of it but there's vanishingly tiny amounts of evidence suggesting it's actually A Thing.

On my "wrong question", the numbers would still show up somewhere even if it was recorded as female crime. There would still be a rise. I take your point regarding uncertain recording, some cases not being recorded at all, etc, but that's a problem we have anyway: it's not like we're unaware that many crimes against women are ignored or that many women don't bother reporting them, and as far as I'm aware that is especially true when the victim is a victim of queer violence. We make do with the numbers we have in that scenario but there's no question it's imperfect data; it does mean we cannot comfortably claim we know the full extent of lesbian rape statistics, for example. I didn't mention this in my previous post because frankly it comes across as me trying to make excuses or dismiss data, but it is certainly a problem.

I don't know the hospital event you are talking about but as written that is appalling behaviour by the hospital. It's not like women can't be raped by other women, trans or otherwise, and there's no end of male staff in hospitals either. Truly dreadful.

The hospital were following official NHS guidance.

Also, just a point of order, women can’t rape women according to the law. They can sexually assault, but not rape.

[Random1]

This is a complex area with a lot of bad faith (from both sides). I will first point out that if you are a man you have the luxury of being able to discuss things from a theoretical point of view because the effects of self-ID are not experienced equally across the population. E.g. a trans man, regardless of what medical or surgical ‘transitioning’ they have undergone (if any at all) will never be a physical threat to you in the same way as a trans woman (regardless of any medical or surgical ‘transitioning’, and bearing in mind that they may not have undergone any, nor have any intention of doing so) is to women. Likewise, many middle class, heterosexual women will never have to deal with some of the consequences of Scotland’s GRR bill. E.g. for them, what goes on in prisons is theoretical. They are unlikely to be told that their dating preferences are transphobic (something that is especially insidious in the context of younger women or children working out their own sexuality). You have the luxury of saying ‘live and let live’ in a way women do not. Please do not take this as a personal attack or an attempt to shut down your opinions- that is not my intent.

To be crystal clear, I am not saying and nor do I think that all trans women are predatory men or men with fetishes. I’m sure there are plenty of people who do think this, but I also know that many of the people expressing concern at self-ID policies do not think this either. Dismissing these concerns as bigotry, or attempting to ‘paint a vulnerable minority as predators’, with comparisons to the vilification of gay men is lazy and a way to shut down a difficult discussion that may lead to a conclusion that there should be restrictions around how self-ID is implemented. This also provides an environment for predators to operate and will attract predators to the community (see practically every other attempt to cover up predators in any community for fear of vilification of the whole community). The number of predators in the ranks, or abusing self-ID (and there are already examples) is irrelevant. They need to be rooted out of the community. Sexual predators are notoriously recidivist and a small number can do a great deal of damage. I doubt it would be much consolation to Karen White’s victims to tell them their attacker was a tiny minority and a rare occurrence.

With regard to JMK’s questions: there is already an abundance of data from around the world showing that women are markedly less safe when the only available facilities are unisex.
With respect to the question about what data from countries with existing self-ID policies show, that’s possibly the wrong question. A better question might be whether such data is even being collected. We are increasingly conflating sex and gender with questions on sex being replaced with gender identity. See, for example, the whole furore around the Scottish census questions on sex and gender where respondents were told that they could answer the compulsory question about their sex according to their gender identity. Likewise there are questions about crime statistics- when a transwoman commits a crime, it is recorded as a female crime. Is their trans status recorded? And is it recorded consistently across police forces? I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps it is. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to be sceptical, especially when we also know about one incident where, when a woman was raped on a hospital ward by a transwoman, the hospital said she couldn’t have been raped because there were no men on the ward. CCTV then emerged showing that the attack happened as reported by the woman. Given that the hospital were only prepared to admit that the attack had even happened after they were confronted with their own CCTV, would this attack have even been recorded, let alone whether the attacker was trans, were it not for the CCTV? How many other similar incidents have happened which were not caught on CCTV? Perhaps this was the only incident. But how can we know if the data isn’t collected, or if there is a reluctance to collect the data in the first place because it might stigmatise a vulnerable minority? And when we are told there is no data to suggest a greater risk, how are we supposed to trust it when situations like the above hospital attack arise?

Once again, to emphasise, I do not think all trans people (or even a majority) are predators. However, this does not mean they don’t exist within the community (no group is completely without scumbags) nor does it mean that self-ID does not present additional opportunities for predators, who may or may not be trans, to access potential victims. Refusing to even countenance such possibilities does nobody any favours, not least trans people, particularly since doing so is likely to attract abusers and predators, thus increasing the association you are trying to avoid.

Two final points: the point about aeroplane toilets being unisex is almost as asinine as the ‘I bet your toilets at home are unisex’ attempted gotcha. They are completely different scenarios and merely emphasise how little understanding the person has of the issues.

Finally, it’s also worth bearing in mind that this is such a toxic debate that when you say ‘most of the people I know are indifferent or supportive’, there is a clear confirmation bias because people with reservations are far less likely to speak up about it than those who are supportive. Additionally, there is a lot of ambiguity around this topic which results in a lot of misunderstanding. For example, the first post in this thread talks about gender dysphoria. Except the activist position is that you can be trans without gender dysphoria. See also many people saying things along the lines of ‘why would a predatory man who isn’t trans go to the trouble of taking hormones and getting surgery just to get a GRC/pretend to be trans etc’. Except none of those things is a requirement to identify as trans (or get a GRC under the Scottish GRR bill). Of course it may well be that everyone you know is on the same page and supportive, but it’s worth considering.

Sorry for the essay- like I said, complex topic.

Love the post - thank you for the effort.

I agree with almost all of it; And two things that intrigue me in your post are;

1- you say people on both sides have sections that are operating in bad faith - who you thinking on that? As I struggle to think of anyone who isn’t in good faith on this. It’s just it’s an almost anti-logic concept, so doesn’t lend itself to reasoned debate. Am I missing something? Who are you thinking of?

2 - you talk about the conflation of gender and sex. I agree that this is at the core of the misunderstandings. However, it’s also a central principle of progressive transgenderism ie that trans women are women and trans men are men. I’m not sure you can call it a conflation, when it’s an intention to re-define a word.

[JM2K6]

If you're referring to "a room of one's own", I'm not sure I see the relevance here. She was talking about the social disadvantages and lack of freedom for women - literally, the room refers to the ability to become a writer by having your own space - rather than anything to do with what are are talking about with regards to gendered toilets, changing rooms, etc.

As I said, there were plenty of single sex facilities. They were just for men. Woolf acknowledged that and was arguing against it being just for men.

[Random1]

If you're referring to "a room of one's own", I'm not sure I see the relevance here. She was talking about the social disadvantages and lack of freedom for women - literally, the room refers to the ability to become a writer by having your own space - rather than anything to do with what are are talking about with regards to gendered toilets, changing rooms, etc.

As I said, there were plenty of single sex facilities. They were just for men. Woolf acknowledged that and was arguing against it being just for men.

Yes - a room of one’s own is the one I was thinking of - If memory serves there’s an entire section on male violence against women, including beatings and sexual grooming. It was the section on the character known as Judith.

[GymJam]

Thank you for the considered reply JMK. I would highly recommend reading ‘Invisible Women’. It’s about the gender data gap. It’s wide ranging and covers a lot of topics and contains a lot of references. There is a bit on unisex facilities and their impact (or rather lack of single sex provision for women). I also found this from water aid which contains some statistics: https://washmatters.wateraid.org/sites/ ... -guide.pdf

I’m not arguing that safety is not also a concern for trans people, nor that it’s a problem that doesn’t need fixing. However, the onus should not be on women because men can’t sort their shit out and become (as a class) more accepting on gender non-conforming men. Gay men are also more at risk in male spaces, but we don’t expect them to be able to use the women’s bathrooms, changing rooms etc (even though it would arguably be safer to do so from a female safety perspective). The other issue with self-ID is that it also impacts trans women’s safety- if one of the arguments is that trans women should be able to use women’s bathrooms because it is not safe for them to use the men’s facilities, then any policy which makes facilities unisex (either expressly or effectively) will also allow the predators who are a threat to trans women into those ‘safe spaces.’

The point about ‘middle class heterosexual women’ was more meant to be illustrative that the impact isn’t uniform, even amongst women. As far as the queer community goes, again, it is not homogenous and the impact on lesbians is different to the impact on gay men because of the physiology of men v women. Also, again, there will be a certain level of confirmation bias because the penalty of expressing discomfort with the prevailing ideology is severe and there is a fear of ostracism, and in some cases violence. It also depends on what you mean by ‘support’. Most people would probably answer positively if asked ‘do you support trans rights?’ But ‘trans rights’ might mean different things to different people. I’m not saying there’s a huge opposition in the LGBT community, just that I don’t think we can really know exactly what the level of support it whilst there are clear disincentives to expressing anything other than blanket support.

For the ‘dating preferences’ point: what sort of evidence are you expecting to see? If you go on a dating app, you can set preferences for men or women (or both) but there is no option to specify cis or trans people, and if you put it in your bio (even if expressed as ‘no penises please’), you get kicked off for hate speech (although ‘t4t’ (trans for trans) is apparently acceptable). A queer dating app (marketed particularly at women) did exactly this. Experiences are obviously not universal, so plenty of people will not have encountered this as an issue. But it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

As you said in a previous post, if gender and sex are not accurately recorded, it makes analysis of data very difficult. For example, if there is a rise in female crime, is this due to trans women (or men taking advantage of self-ID once arrested) being captured in the female offender data, or other factors (e.g. crime rising more generally, less stigma around male victims of violence coming forward). Sexual offending amongst women is also difficult to analyse generally because of varying definitions of what constitutes a sexual offence (e.g. in some countries if you are arrested for soliciting, that is counted as a sex offence) so statistics can be confounded in many ways (including deliberately, if so desired). So we are already dealing with a lot of confounding factors before we start trying to disaggregate into gender v sex when gender and sex are treated as interchangeable in the collected data.

Here is the hospital incident (other sources are behind a paywall): https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... 506744.amp

[Random1]

Thank you for the considered reply JMK. I would highly recommend reading ‘Invisible Women’. It’s about the gender data gap. It’s wide ranging and covers a lot of topics and contains a lot of references. There is a bit on unisex facilities and their impact (or rather lack of single sex provision for women). I also found this from water aid which contains some statistics: https://washmatters.wateraid.org/sites/ ... -guide.pdf

I’m not arguing that safety is not also a concern for trans people, nor that it’s a problem that doesn’t need fixing. However, the onus should not be on women because men can’t sort their shit out and become (as a class) more accepting on gender non-conforming men. Gay men are also more at risk in male spaces, but we don’t expect them to be able to use the women’s bathrooms, changing rooms etc (even though it would arguably be safer to do so from a female safety perspective). The other issue with self-ID is that it also impacts trans women’s safety- if one of the arguments is that trans women should be able to use women’s bathrooms because it is not safe for them to use the men’s facilities, then any policy which makes facilities unisex (either expressly or effectively) will also allow the predators who are a threat to trans women into those ‘safe spaces.’

The point about ‘middle class heterosexual women’ was more meant to be illustrative that the impact isn’t uniform, even amongst women. As far as the queer community goes, again, it is not homogenous and the impact on lesbians is different to the impact on gay men because of the physiology of men v women. Also, again, there will be a certain level of confirmation bias because the penalty of expressing discomfort with the prevailing ideology is severe and there is a fear of ostracism, and in some cases violence. It also depends on what you mean by ‘support’. Most people would probably answer positively if asked ‘do you support trans rights?’ But ‘trans rights’ might mean different things to different people. I’m not saying there’s a huge opposition in the LGBT community, just that I don’t think we can really know exactly what the level of support it whilst there are clear disincentives to expressing anything other than blanket support.

For the ‘dating preferences’ point: what sort of evidence are you expecting to see? If you go on a dating app, you can set preferences for men or women (or both) but there is no option to specify cis or trans people, and if you put it in your bio (even if expressed as ‘no penises please’), you get kicked off for hate speech (although ‘t4t’ (trans for trans) is apparently acceptable). A queer dating app (marketed particularly at women) did exactly this. Experiences are obviously not universal, so plenty of people will not have encountered this as an issue. But it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

As you said in a previous post, if gender and sex are not accurately recorded, it makes analysis of data very difficult. For example, if there is a rise in female crime, is this due to trans women (or men taking advantage of self-ID once arrested) being captured in the female offender data, or other factors (e.g. crime rising more generally, less stigma around male victims of violence coming forward). Sexual offending amongst women is also difficult to analyse generally because of varying definitions of what constitutes a sexual offence (e.g. in some countries if you are arrested for soliciting, that is counted as a sex offence) so statistics can be confounded in many ways (including deliberately, if so desired). So we are already dealing with a lot of confounding factors before we start trying to disaggregate into gender v sex when gender and sex are treated as interchangeable in the collected data.

Here is the hospital incident (other sources are behind a paywall): https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... 506744.amp

Decent opinion piece exploring some of your point here - https://unherd.com/2022/06/why-should-l ... -with-men/

[JM2K6]

GymJam, a proper reply will require a proper keyboard so that might be another day. I will say that Self-ID is already a health issue for trans people first and foremost, and your point about trans women in male spaces is already a point I'd made, because BnM and those like her have made it abundantly clear they don't want trans women to use women-only spaces.

Unfortunately on the hospital story I'm afraid I thought you were talking about something I could reasonably expect to be factual; an extremely dodgy Tory who has long been known for some pretty homophobic views telling a story with no names, no dates, no context, and no corroborating information cannot in good faith be treated as fact. Even a small difference in the facts of the case could make a huge difference; I can't even be sure she didn't invent the entire thing.

[BnM]

Prove that making single sex spaces unisex will not harm women and I'll happily change my mind.

[Random1]

Prove that making single sex spaces unisex will not harm women and I'll happily change my mind.

I know you aren’t trying to make a particularly serious point here, but you’ve accidentally resonated with something rattling around in my head.

The current policy making environment is one where the focus is on protecting victims (who are usually social minorities).

It was a wished outcome from the equality act - but I’m not sure it’s actually manifested as the writers intended. There’s an almost un-democratic slant to it, in that the focus is to avoid negatively harming a minority at the expense of a larger demographic.

[BnM]

It reeks of misogyny, especially the way those that have raised concerns been labelled and definitely not helped by the MRA pile on.

The EA actually protects women more however it's being ignored. Single sex places are perfectly legal and acceptable under the EA. So those domestic violence refuges saying women need to 'reframe their trauma' and accept males in them don't have to, it's a choice.

[Sandstorm]

I see Seneca is back posting again.

[Random1]

It reeks of misogyny, especially the way those that have raised concerns been labelled and definitely not helped by the MRA pile on.

The EA actually protects women more however it's being ignored. Single sex places are perfectly legal and acceptable under the EA. So those domestic violence refuges saying women need to 'reframe their trauma' and accept males in them don't have to, it's a choice.

They don’t get more protection from the Act in practice, because the way the EA manifests is that it works through impact assessments. And the methodology of impact assessments favours minorities, especially since the concept of intersectionality has taken hold.

Simply put; The smaller the minority = less societal power = more protection required.

[BnM]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... x-services

[Ymx]

I see Seneca is back posting again.

I hope so. Had a feeling he might have been lurking here rather than at the shit fest across the road.