I think the prison stats need to be looked at from a larger perspective, much like the percentage of minorities in prison. That is, is it because of an intrinsic difference or is because of the economic, sociological and emotional impacts they face? I’m not surprised that a marginalized community which struggles more would end up in prison more often, but I would expect that would happen less if they did not have those same struggles.
I think it is extremely likely many of these prisoners are falsely claiming trans identities to access women’s prisons. Because why wouldn’t they? Available evidence ( I’ve posted it multiple times already) shows that transwomen are convicted of crimes at a rate similar to men; this includes violent crimes and sexual offenses. So if we are to believe this evidence, we wouldn’t expect 1 out of 50 prisoners to be trans unless a good many are insincere claims. The proportion in prison should match the proportion in the larger population.
But in a sense you’re right; it’s not impossible that transwomen have higher crime rates than men (the study I cited only looked at transsexuals). Even if this disparity is the result of socioeconomic factors, it still doesn’t change the risk-benefit equation to women, though.
I totally agree with this, for the same reason you mention. Why wouldn’t a male prisoner try to get any benefit they can? I’m sure they lie about and fake many conditions as a way to get more favorable accommodations. I guess that’s one challenge when there’s no way to determine if a transwoman is sincere or not.
Not just or necessarily mainly to get access to women’s prisons. I think transgender prisoners can also get other benefits like showering alone or having separate cells.
Then there’s the BBC article saying 40% of transgender prisoners who had case review meetings were in jail for sexual offences. That’s not caused by economic hardship.
I disagree with this. I suspect a lot of crimes are crimes of opportunity rather than carefully planned. Even if a man can legally use the women’s room without challenge, he’s likely to be noticed entering and women will be wary of him. Unless trans people become a lot more common (which admittedly is a possibility), it’s not such a great strategy. But if women start using the men’s room, or more likely the enbies get their way and most bathrooms become unisex, then predatory men are going find themselves alone with a woman and take advantage of it.
Do we have any evidence that sex crimes are occurring in women’s bathrooms on any kind of systemic level? Seems like a risky proposition for any potential offender.
My calculation of safety is based on the assumption that women would infrequently use the men’s restroom. If it is rare, predators who are looking for prey will be wasting their time hanging out in the men’s room. There would be better pickings in the women’s.
It would be trivially easy for a predatory man to loiter inside or in the vicinity of the women’s restroom, and then pounce on a victim when the moment is right. If they tried this technique in the men’s, they’d be waiting a long time.
It doesn’t appear this information is being comprehensively tracked. The best evidence we have that unisex spaces increase victimization is the article below.
Maybe there should be no qualifications for a prisoner to be treated as a transwomen, but all transwomen would be housed together. Prisons are already divided into separate blocks for just a set of prisoners. Having one block for transwomen seems like it wouldn’t be any problem. That would address the concerns of men faking being trans so they could be housed with cis-women. They can say they’re trans, but they’ll just be housed with the other transwomen in that case.
iiandyiiii has been far more eloquent than I could ever be on this subject, and truly I lack the requisite data to wade too deeply into this conversation. But I will say what I believe as a ciswoman and a survivor. The evidence is clear that transfolk, and transwomen in particular, are one of the most if not the most vulnerable populations in the United States. They experience much higher rates of sexual and physical assault, homelessness, murder, you name it. So it seems to me that risk mitigation should always fall in their favor. I’m not convinced, however, that opening female spaces to transwomen results in any appreciable risk increase for ciswomen. I work for a domestic violence shelter that serves survivors of any gender and we have had cismen and transwomen and transmen in shelter. The ciswomen are not less safe because of their presence. It seems like straight up misandry to reject a victim or deny her services because she might have a penis. That is based on an assumption that all males are perpetrators who cannot be trusted and personally I think that’s a terrible takeaway from trauma that inhibits healing and growth.
I do not support the death threats and hateful rhetoric directed at JK Rowling. Behavior of that nature is never acceptable. I think attacks on her beliefs, however, are fair game. The reason people are so angry at her is because she is one of the most influential people on the planet, and she’s using her enormous platform to perpetuate harmful beliefs in a way that seems very reasonable on its face but is in fact just the usual transphobic rhetoric. She’s been attacked so viciously because her eloquence makes her more of a threat and a greater influence than the “kill all trannies!” folks. Moreover, she’s speaking confidently on an issue she really doesn’t know that much about, and spreading misinformation that people seem eager to believe is true. It’s really quite frustrating.
I know everything that could ever be said on this issue has already been said. I just wanted to add my voice of support as a trans ally.
Still sounds iffy to me, as transwomen are a vulnerable population in their own right. However, if they wouldn’t be housed with cis-women then I’d be happy to butt out of the conversation and let them decide what kind of gatekeeping is appropriate, if any.
And ultimately, @Spice_Weasel, that is my problem with the whole thing. The changes being demanded affect women as well as trans people, and they particularly affect the most vulnerable and disenfranchised women. But women are being shut out of the conversation. Deliberately and systematically. That is my real beef, and why I’m happy someone so influential and uncancellable as Rowling is speaking up about it.
You will not be able find any cites that support this assertion because it’s false. The thread is humongous so I don’t expect anyone just jumping in to be aware of the scores of evidence posted to this thread, but we’ve treaded this ground already.
-
Women are more likely to experience sexual assault than transwomen: 43% of women report this history compared to 37% of TW. (Transmen have higher rates than both groups at 51%).
-
Trans persons have a lower murder rate than the rest of the population. As a group, they are actually less likely to be victims of homocide than women.
I haven’t looked at stats for physical assault or homelessness, but have you? Be honest. Have you actually used data to reach the conclusions you have reached, or are you merely asserting things that you’ve heard others claim?
Just today, another woman has come out to say that she was sexually assaulted by Trump. We are so desensitized to the crimes perpetrated against women that it barely registers in our awareness now. We don’t see it, we don’t feel it; the stories just wash over us. But people sit up and pay attention when murdered transwomen are mentioned; these stories stick and tug our heartstrings in a way stories like this, and this, do not.
So it’s no wonder so many people believe as you do, that risk protections for transwomen should be prioritized over females. You’re not working off of facts.
If I am running a women’s shelter and someone presents as a typical cisman and possessess a government ID with “M” stamped on it knocks on the door and requests a bed, am I being misandryist for telling this individual they don’t meet the eligibility requirements to come inside? Or am I doing what I can to enforce the purpose of the shelter–to provide a safe space for women seeking shelter?
Or how about this?
If I’m looking for a roommmate and I put out an ad for “females only”, am I a misandryist for asking male-presenting individuals who knock on my door for proof that they aren’t in possession of penis? If I am, then wouldn’t that mean all sex-segregated facilities are similarly hateful? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been programmed by birth to avoid situations that involve me undressing and sleeping in close quarters to males that I’m not friends with, not in a romantic relationship with, or not related to me. Lots of women have been taught this. Are we all male-hating? Or are we reducing the likelihood of awkward situations at best, victimization at worst?
We have had sex-segregated spaces since the beginning of time. We have maintained these spaces for safety reasons. Now I’m all for bending the rules for rare, clear-cut cases (the female-passing transwomen who would clearly stick out like a sore thumb if housed with other males). But I don’t know how we bend the rules only for some males and stilll maintain safety when gender gate-keeping is equated with denying people of their basic human rights. All I’m saying is that if folks want me to be convinced that safety will be maintained in a world where gender is whatever a person says it is, they need to agree with me that some gate-keeping should be allowed under certain circumstance and not reflexively label all gate-keeping as hateful, TERFy, misandryist, or transphobic. It’s this kind of stuff–the condemnation of social behaviors that have been deeply engrained in us since the beginning of time–that sets women up for victimization in the brave new world of TWAW. Because if now I’ve got to be worried about someone calling me a misandryist for not wanting a strange male to bed down next to me, then maybe I won’t scream when a strange male enters the women’s restroom with me. Maybe I won’t keep such a person from following behind me when I’m entering the women’s dormitory late at night. And maybe then I will pay the cost of being so foolish. Will anyone care if this happens to me? I don’t think so. So that’s why I’m pushing back on the “gender affirmation is a fundamental human right” tip. Safety and security are human rights. Not making someone feel like they are the thing they say they are.
I care very much about the victimization of all people of every gender. I’ll admit I had to adapt a more detached approach to these kinds of stories in order to heal from my own trauma and keep my job, which constantly inundates me with stories of women being hurt by men. But I’m always gonna care what happens to you or anyone else. I’m picking up on a lot of pain and fear that I would eliminate if I could. I think a lot of these arguments are based on pain and fear - coming from both sides. That’s why it’s so easy to talk at cross-purposes.
Transwomen do have vulnerabilities that ciswomen don’t. In terms of what we see at our shelter… Their status as trans is frequently used by their abusers to exert power and control. They are more likely to be forced into sex work by their abusive partners. Like all LGBT folks, they are more likely to live in insular communities where everyone knows everyone that make it more difficult to break away from their abuser (similar to what you would see for ciswomen in rural communities.) Abusive partners of transfolk can threaten to out them to their employers or friends. They can withhold hormone treatment. Then once we get them in shelter, ensuring that they have their meds can be an ordeal. They may have more difficulty finding employment. On average, they quite simply have more barriers to independence than ciswomen do. That does not negate the significant barriers that all victims of domestic violence face, it’s just an acknowledgement that things with transwomen are different.
Cismen have their own special issues, but damned if I know what they are because men rarely come forward about domestic violence. This is a bit controversial, but we have some evidence that men may be sexually victimized at similar rates to women, especially if we redefine sexual assault to include being forced to penetrate. Men are more likely to be victimized than to victimize. We can say that about humanity in general.
I want to live in a world where people don’t have to be afraid of each other. I’m not sure that everyone being afraid of everyone else makes anyone any safer. Have places been historically segregated by sex really because of safety, or is it more likely because of misogyny and gender essentialism? After all, people have been sex-segregated in places that have nothing to do with safety, such as mosques.
I certainly agree that the trans community faces issues that traumatize and complicate their lives. They deserve to be welcomed into shelters that can keep them safe.
So do women. If a shelter is set up to only serve female clientele, there is absolutely nothing criminal or unethical about that. When we consider the fact that female rape victims often suffer from severe PTSD following their traumas and they can not function well around adult males, single-sex shelters are vital to ensuring women can access care.
But transwomen are women, we are repeatedly told. Even if we posit this is true in some social category sense of the word, it doesn’t change a person’s status as male or female. Since there is absolutely no requirement that transwomen modify or present themselves in a certain way, rape-traumatized women encountering them in a shelter are reasonably likely to code them as men and feel endangered. Why put either one in this situation when it doesn’t have to be like this?
Did you read this piece that @DemonTree shared? What are your thoughts on the experiences described in this shelter? Does it strike you as unbelievable that men would prey on vulnerable women like this by calling themselves trans? Do you think women should deal with this new reality and not push back on changes that costing them safety and security?
The shelter atmosphere described is abhorrent. The people engaging in predatory acts should get the boot. We have a no harassment policy and believe me, we are strict about its enforcement. I see this almost entirely as the responsibility of the shelter staff who failed to protect women at their most vulnerable. No, it doesn’t strike me as unbelievable given the incredible lengths I’ve seen abusers go to in order to reach their victims. Women can and should demand better treatment.
I was extremely put off by the misgendering of transwomen by the author, such that it made her message very hard to hear. It’s very clear she considers transwomen men. She could have said, “some men claiming to be transwomen are harassing our clients,” but instead she lumped everyone seeking shelter into the “man” category.
If some shelters want female - only spaces we can’t really stop them. But it raises the question of where transwomen and cismen are going to get the help they need. Except in urban areas, there aren’t enough of them to really build safe spaces just for them alone. Men’s shelters are virtually nonexistent.
ETA: I should also add that the shelter where I work isn’t a “everyone bunks together” situation. Each family has its own room and shared bath facilities with one other family, kinda like a motel. When men come to stay they usually get their own wing separate from the women. I’m not sure if we do something similar for transwomen. This thread has made me really curious about how we approach transwomen in our shelter.
There are mixed-sex shelters. There are shelters that cater to undocumented immigrants. There are shelters that exclusively serve LGBT youth. There are shelters for veterans.
If all of these groups are allowed to focus on special populations, there is absolutely no valid reason female-only shelters are being vilified like they are. If you are not familiar with the attacks on the Vancouver rape shelter, please read about it. The deranged lengths trans activists took to attack this shelter are reminiscent of the violent tactics used by abortion activists.
We need to be real clear what this shit is really about. It is misogyny. Only misogynists have it in them to vandalize a refuge for female rape victims and then turn around and portray themselves as the real victims. Why more people cannot see this for themselves, I don’t know. But really, just imagine an organization nailing dead rats to a LGBT shelter after unleashing a campaign to defund it. This story would be permanently stamped upon every liberals mind because it would represent such an attack on our values. But a woman-only space is attacked and it is barely talked about, not even in this thread.
The attacks on the shelter are vile. That doesn’t mean their exclusion of transwomen is a good thing. I personally would be happy if all shelters welcomed transwomen, for exactly the reason I stated before - there is no other place for them to get help. Being inclusive of transwomen does not mean tolerating harassment and abuse from predatory individuals. It can be done safely and effectively. That doesn’t mean I think all shelters should be forced to do it. I just wish we lived in a more enlightened world.
Can you explain why you believe this when mixed sex shelters exist (you just said transwomen reside in the one you work at)? When there are shelters that specifically cater to the LGBT community, it is demonstrably false that transwomen have no where to go. So I honestly am baffled by what you are asserting.
No one is saying excluding anyone is a good thing. Only that it is not wrong for a facility for have a single-sex policy, particularly when it isn’t set up to prevent the kind of situations described in that article. A lot of these places are run by volunteers and have limited budgets to pay for security and floor monitors. They rely on safeguarding policies to minimize risk.
Just a misunderstanding. All I meant to say is that if every shelter excluded transwomen there would be no place for them to go.
Any kind of shelter at all is a rare phenomenon relative to the existing need. Shelters that cater to the LGBT community are even fewer and farther between (I know of one in Detroit, none in the neighboring counties where I work), but that gets into the inability of nonprofits to meet the enormous need for social services of every kind. We simply do not have the resources to help everyone. In part because of this, for domestic violence shelters, I believe the best approach is to accept people based on their assessed risk for death or serious injury, not gender identity or anything else.
I recognize this comes from a place of relative privilege. Our shelter is unusually secure and one of the largest in the state. It’s well-funded and staffed by experts. It’s well-equipped to handle the safety needs of people of any gender. Not every shelter is going to have that same capacity. I get that.