“Where’s your evidence that men attack women?! Men attacking women is exceedingly rare! Unless you mean transwomen! That’s the real problem right there! Let’s keep talking about that!”
That’s how stupid you sound like right now, barkodogo. We aren’t talking about transwomen attacking women. We’re talking about women being being unable to protect themselves in their own spaces from men who intend to harm women since women are now expected to treat any male–no matter how masculine–as a woman unless otherwise specified. The male predators who go after women don’t even have to say “I am a woman”. All that they need to have an additional advantage over women is a cultural climate that emboldens them to be wherever women gather in spaces reserved for them, where they are tempted to drop their guard and be care free. Trans activists and their rabid allies don’t seem to give a fuck about women having to be on guard even in spaces where they should feel secure and care free. “On guardness” is one of those things are women know they have to do to survive in this world, but gender ideologues don’t care about respecting this truth. They don’t care about anything based in truth or reality.
We don’t need to show evidence that women already live in fear of male-inflicted violence. This is a historical reality. To deny it is like denying the sun rises in the east. Female fears of male-inflicted violence will never disappear in a society where all kinds of males exist in women’s spaces in a completely unregulated fashion. It will only get worse.
Can you imagine a society where men are no longer violent towards transwomen? I can’t. If you can’t either, then you should be able to understand why women might not be eager to let any and all males into their spaces. They aren’t going to stop being afraid of males just because some gender ideologues have ruled that gender is no big deal. And they aren’t going to stop being afraid of males when males continue to insist that their violence against them is “exceedingly rare.” It is as opposite of “exceedingly rare” as you can get. It’s crazy that you can say something like this with a straight face.
You’re the one saying its exceedingly rare. Such an easy thing to assert without putting up evidence.
Because I go looking for data, can we first agree on where to stake the goal posts? If I show evidence that trans women and men are statistically similar in terms of crime, is that going to change your opinion? Or will you just dig your heel into the ground? I’m reluctant to waste my time if your conclusions are already made up and unmoveable.
I’m not so willing because there’s not a lot of evidence to support that idea. The same men that assault women will do so whether or not they’re co-mingling in bathrooms. They’re not walking around thinking “aw shucks, if only someone normalized cis men going into the women’s room — that would be my chance!”
Right, any such “test” is ridiculous and could quite possibly filter out cis women who do things like wear binders and dress like men (being “butch” or dressing like a man doesn’t neccessarily mean you identify as male). Hell, some women just have what are socially considered “manly” features. How many times have black women athletes been accused of being “secretly men.” It’s authoritarian nonsense.
Exactly. Trans people and women are both objectively oppressed significantly more than men. Why is the focus on transgendered people posing risk and not men, whom we know to be the greatest risk!
Yes. If transgendered people committed assault more frequently than men I may reconsider. If I were to tell you that trans people are more likely to be victims of assault than women… would it change yours?
Some of the concern is that there is no masquerading needed. Some trans activists support the idea that gender is just a state of mind and physical change is not necessarily a part of that. So if someone who looks like Paul Bunyun feels that they are a woman, they should be allowed to use women’s spaces without any change to their appearance. If only trans people really used women’s spaces, then it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem. But it’s impossible to know from sight if a burly, bearded, man-looking lumberjack in a women’s locker room is really a trans person or if they are a predator. By having no threshold that trans people must meet to enter sex-segregated spaces, it means a opposite-sex predator will have much easier access to those spaces since they can’t automatically be thrown out.
Yeah but that’s not what people like @monstro are talking about. They’re talking about women not being able to tell the difference between an innocent transwoman and a criminal man, and thereby being unable to police their spaces against the latter.
Even though it’s a rare occurrence, do we want women to have to second-guess themselves when they do see a male-appearing person come into vulnerable spaces?
Is there evidence that gender segregated spaces reduce male perpetuated assault? Most harassment and assault happens in public spaces despite the existence of segregated areas in gyms and restrooms. Source (PDF)
The prevalence of sexual assault in the military is also exceedingly high domestically, where segregated living areas are available.
And again, this is violence perpetuated by men. To deny trans people a gender identity because of men is just further male-perpetuated oppression. Should we really say “sorry trans folks, men are bad so just deal with it.” Should black people be similarly segregated because of racial violence? Should gay people have to use different changing rooms despite the fact that they’re more likely to sexually assault someone of the same gender?
If a woman looks too much like a man, should she be kicked out of locker rooms? Will her genitals need to be checked in the process?
The onus here should be on men. Anything else is the oppressed oppressing the oppressed.
No, the NHS doesn’t necessarily disagree with me that the leaflet as originally written was clear, respectful and informative. Just because they not unreasonably modified the wording to accommodate some people’s need for more basic guidance about whether or not they possess a cervix (and perhaps also to avoid being shitstormed by indignant “how dare you make any statement about cervix-havers that doesn’t explicitly equate them with WOMEN!!” TERFy-types) doesn’t mean that they wrote it “wrong” to begin with.
Oh, I’m sure the NHS intended no disrespect either way. The revised wording would have been more clear and unambiguous if they had specified that cisgender women and transgender men in that age bracket would receive cervical screening invitations. But then they’d have fallen afoul of the fact that many cisgender women don’t know what “cisgender” means and don’t realize that they are it, so the version the NHS went with was probably the best compromise available in the current state of public awareness.
(But I’m not sure that the riposte “Ha ha, the NHS fell back on using a more traditional biological sense of the word ‘woman’ because many people in its target audience were too ignorant of basic human biology to even realize that they have a cervix, so there!” is really such a trenchant “gotcha” as you seem to imagine it is. If the main rationale for insisting on a traditionally rigid biological definition of the word “woman” is that people in general are too ill-informed to understand anything more scientifically nuanced… well, you said it, I didn’t.)
I’ve asked this question before and still haven’t seen it answered.
What is the harm that would come to trans folk if they were treated like other members of their birth sex? Your argument seems to start from the position that a trans woman has a pressing need to be in the women’s room. But they don’t. Having a “female brain” doesn’t mean there is a barrier to using the room designated for people that share your anatomy. It’s not like the ladies dressing room comes with special perks or anything. It’s just a space for getting undressed. That’s it. That’s all.
It’s probably unintentional, but the more it is argued that trans woman are denied something by not being in the women dressing room (or any other space, really), the more it seems like we are talking about something more than just a space for getting undressed. And that “ something” is being unsaid for unknown reasons.
I appreciate your willingness to actually hear us out a little, btw.
That’s not the goal post I asked about. The question is would your conclusions change if there was evidence that trans women were similar to men with respect to crime? Yes or no.
By stipulating more frequently you’re already showing that you will move goal posts for invalid reasons. I will not be investing any attention on posters who do this.
As for your question about assault, if you show evidence that trans women are more likely than women to be sexually assaulted, I would appreciate seeing that. It is not material to any of my positions in this thread, but I would be informative regardless.
“Silence”? What silence? Are you not reading my posts? By my count, in our last few exchanges alone we’ve agreed that we’re both okay with transgender women using women’s restrooms where genital exposure isn’t a thing, and that it’s okay for people in women’s locker rooms where genital exposure is sometimes a thing to politely ask other occupants to dial back on their nudity. (With my caveat that that’s an acceptable request for someone in a women’s locker room to make about anybody’s nudity if they don’t want to see it, no matter what type of genitalia are being exposed by said nudity.)
Shit, monstro, I thought you and I were making quite a bit of progress toward some common ground, and now all of a sudden my views about appropriate support for transgender rights and equality are being compared to black people liking Confederate monuments? Well. No comment.
That is a new thing, yes: I never denied that, and it doesn’t contradict what I wrote. Demanding that people with penises who identify as female should be officially explicitly authorized to use the women’s room even if they don’t present as female, and demanding that people with penises who identify as female should be officially explicitly screened out of using the women’s room even if they do present as female, are both new things.
Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.
What’s notable is that this study was done on transsexuals—the population within the transgender community that physically differs the most from their birth sex population.
I only gave it a cursory look, but this paper seems to show that transgender veterans in the military are sexually assaulted at a rate of 15.2 for transgender women and 30% for transgender men, for a total rate of ~17.2%. Wikipedia tells me that women in the military are sexually assaulted at a rate of “at least 25%.” Am I reading something wrong here? Because it doesn’t seem to me that this paper gives me any evidence that transgendered people are assaulted more frequently than the general population, in fact it seems to show the opposite (though for the military which seems like it may not be representative of the general population). But I may well be missing something, please let me know.
Are you sure you’ve thought that principle through, though? For example, there’s still a shit-ton of people who are genuinely upset and offended that same-sex couples or interracial couples are allowed to get married. Should we really be designing our societal “menu” to accommodate their “sensitivities” on those issues? Or should we prioritize the rights of the people who want the menu to be more inclusive?
but rates differed significantly between transgender women (15.2%) and transgender men (30.0%)
In the 2010 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, a staggering 90% of people surveyed had experienced harassment or discrimination at work over the course of their careers (Grant et al., 2011).
In one study, by Brown and Jones (2016), the prevalence of MST among transgender veterans was 15%, compared to 6% for nontransgender veterans; these rates were not stratified or examined by gender.
Ok that’s interesting and I’ll look into that some more — but if you were to find a disparity in crime rates among different races, would you be less comfortable among different races in locker rooms? is there something more acceptable about that risk? Do you judge every stranger you cross by their statistical likelihood to commit assault?
Note that when someone says they’re not, you characterize this as “just an opinion.” Logically, of course, so is this.
The difference, of course, is that your opinion isn’t based on any facts, and inevitably leads back to the position that “woman” means nothing at all, or is just a list of sexist stereotypes.
You keep repeating this “means nothing” assertion, but repetition isn’t making it any less invalid. If “woman” as a social gender category doesn’t mean the same thing as “biologically female”, that’s not the same as meaning nothing. Nor is it the same thing as “a list of sexist stereotypes”.
If we say that “a woman [in the sense of social gender category] is someone who consistently, insistently and persistently identifies as a woman”, that means something. It’s undeniably semantically circular, but it refers to something real in people’s lived experience.
Which is why people use that definition in the first place, and why transgender women commit to claiming female identity: because it means something. Nobody is going around saying “transgender women are women” just to piss you off at the disrespect shown to your preferred ontological categories.