A lot of the opinions are based on the Republican war on the trans community.
Page 3 of This report (also cited upthread) gives sex offence imprisonment numbers for men, women and transwomen (UK).
~13000 men
125 women
76 transwomen.
Numbers of men/women in the UK - around 30 million
Number of transwomen (as per census) - between 48k (answered ‘yes’ to transwomen) and 176k (that plus just stated ‘trans’ with no further detail)
Therefore rates of imprisonment for sex offences come out as:
Men - around 1 in 2300
Women - around 1 in 240,000
Transwomen - between 1 in 630 and 1 in 2300
No good data on the targets, but Wikipedia indicates 60% of transwomen attracted to women - it’s probably about 5% for women attracted to women - and in any case, the main data is the raw offending rate.
Backed up by Canadian data which also shows transmen have tiny rates of sex offending - ie like women (something that I think is implicit in the UK data, but they don’t flat out say that there are zero transman sex offenders in UK prisoners. But I believe this to be the case)
So, as a woman, you’re more likely to find yourself naked in the presence of a cis-woman sex offender than a transwoman sex offender? That seems to argue for the elimination of naked spaces.
But you were just saying that the reason we need to shield victims from potentially traumatizing experiences in recovery spaces is simply because they (understandably) have painful subjective feelings about their terrible experiences of sexual assault.
In other words, women recently assaulted by men may feel scared of penises, so give them some protected space temporarily where there’s no chance of the occasional presence of a penis triggering their fear. Just as somebody recently assaulted by a Spanish speaker may be triggered by hearing Spanish spoken, so we temporarily protect them from experiencing that, and so on. Right?
That’s not the same thing as statistical analyses of crime data attempting to determine which group(s) of people are objectively more likely to commit assault.
Can’t have it both ways. If we’re asking for specific localized forms of deference and accommodation for the traumatized feelings of assault victims because of the pain they’re going through, that’s a perfectly reasonable and compassionate aim. But we can’t then switch horses and claim that our accommodations are justified by rational risk analysis. We don’t require the feelings of traumatized people to be rational.
As usual, transphobes are just throwing at the wall every incoherent reason they can come up with for discriminating against transgender people, and not caring that it doesn’t make overall sense as long as enough of it sticks.
Gee, nobody better show Aspidistra statistics on incarceration rates for black versus white people in the US, for example! She’ll get all kinds of ideas about black people being six or seven times as dangerous and criminally inclined as white people. 
Yeah, given the levels of transphobia in the UK, I am far from convinced that incarceration rates for sex offenses there are unaffected by the widespread bigotry against trans people.
Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Right off the bat, what sex offences?
Well, in the case of the spa, this seems to be something that women are going to and enjoy. And, in fact, it looks like some women are comfortable with co-ed nakedness, and some are not. So members of the second group are trying to manage the risk down by having female-only time, which is a very common way of managing the risk down.
Which all leads back to the post that started this particular thread - the fact that Texas wants to ensure that government data has sex on, not gender identity. Archimedes Banya is an example of one place where that is relevant, because the factor linking men and transwomen is sex. So it’s relevant to the question “did Texas legislators propose this just to be mean to trans people, or is there a purpose?” I say, yes, there are circumstances where you need to know another person’s sex, and this is one of them
I’m sorry, you haven’t really responded to my post. There are more cis-women sex offenders than transwomen, according to your (now disputed) cite. That would mean that a naked woman would more likely be in the presence of a cis-woman sex offender, right? Aren’t you arguing for the elimination of any naked spaces?
To be totally clear, and back on topic, Texas Republicans proposed that because they are transphobic bigots.
a) you’re looking at the wrong page
b) the “author” in that quote is the one being debunked by the report. The very next sentence is explaining why the author is wrong
Well, given that a lot more transwomen like women sexually, it’s reasonable to assume that the majority of those 76 have offended against women, not men, but only a very small minority of the 125 women have offended against women. Taking 60% / 5% as reasonable estimates means likely about 40 transwomen sex offenders against women, and less than 10 women.
Also, the numbers are going up every year (100 as of 2023)
And, no, the per-capita rate is more relevant. The relevant thing for women is “ok, a person just came into this room where I am naked - how safe am I given that this person is a man/transwoman/woman/transman?”
PROHIBITED PROVISION OF GENDER TRANSITIONING OR GENDER REASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES AND TREATMENTS
TO CERTAIN. For the purpose of transitioning a person’s
CHILDRENchild’sbiological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the personchildor affirming the person’schild’sperception of the person’schild’ssex if that perception is inconsistent with the person’schild’sbiological sex, a physician or health care provider may not knowingly:
(1) perform a surgery that sterilizes the person
child, including:
(A) castration;
(B) vasectomy;
(C) hysterectomy;
(D) oophorectomy;
(E) metoidioplasty;
(F) orchiectomy;
(G) penectomy;
(H) phalloplasty; and
(I) vaginoplasty;
(2) perform a mastectomy;
(3) provide, prescribe, administer, or dispense any of
the following prescription drugs that induce transient or permanent
infertility:
(A) puberty suppression or blocking prescription
drugs to stop or delay normal puberty;
(B) supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to
females; or
(C) supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males;
or
(4) remove any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body
part or tissue.
89(R) HB 3399 - Introduced version - Bill Text
Banning medical procedures only for trans people but clearly this isn’t aimed at trans people.
So, no birth control?
We were talking about the Texas bill saying people had to provide their accurate sex as asked, not about medical gender treatments.
But that is not “banning medical procedures only for trans people”, it’s saying gender feelings are not a good enough reason to do them. If a child has precocious puberty or cancer of the testicles and also identifies as trans, yes they could get these procedures
OK, but other than naked spas, which apparently are really common around you, you’re fine with: People changing their birth certificate, transwomen using women’s bathrooms, changing their name, choosing their pronouns, etc., right?
Yeah, that’s definitely a war on women, but just a war on trans people.
Summary: A bathhouse/naked yoga spa (note: not a shelter or other therapeutic space) in San Francisco used to have a monthly “Women’s Day”, whose purpose was, according to the venue, “to shelter religious preferences of women in our community”.
Okay, so nothing to do with “recovery spaces” or accommodating the fears of the recently traumatized. Rather, out of deference to some people’s religious scruples about non-sex-segregated nudity. Fine by me.
Until recently, this “Women’s Day” event did not exclude trans women, and AFAICT, there seems to have been no incident of assault or other misbehavior that prompted the policy change. Rather, the venue announced that in order to “further accommodate their religious beliefs”, they were going to start excluding transgender women from the event.
Stupidly, the announcement phrased this policy change as restricting the event to “BIOLOGICAL WOMEN ONLY”, and treated it as a replacement for, rather than an addition to, the existing trans-inclusive “Women’s Day”.
Confronted with public indignation at this disrespect for trans people, the venue seems to have belatedly acquired a clue and modified the policy change. They have now, according to Aspidistra’s link, instituted one version of the event that’s inclusive, and one version called “Cultural and Religious Women’s Night” that’s “a female-only environment based on sex assigned at birth”. (There is also a birth-sex-assigned-specific “Men’s Day”; the designation of the events in question as a “Day” versus a “Night” seems to be rather arbitrary in each case.)
Personally, if Archimedes Banya had just had the sense right from the start to offer a supplementary “Cisgender-Only Women’s Night” or “Women’s Night Based on Birth-Assigned Sex” in addition to their standard inclusive “Women’s Night” event, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it at all. Nor, I suspect, would the majority of transgender people and other transgender rights supporters.
Very well, some cisgender women feel that it’s against their religion to be naked in the presence of people with penises, but for some reason they still want opportunities to be naked in the presence of people with vulvas. Okay ladies, whatever! Knock yourselves out on Vulvas-Only Night! No skin off of mine!
But let’s not frame it as though those cisgender women are the only ones who should have access to any form of a “Women’s Day”, or, even more ludicrously, as though those cisgender women are the only ones who can be described as “biological”. (As opposed to, what? Holograms? Androids? Pfffft.)
[Ed. to fix attribution - Miller]
Umm, isn’t this the omnibus thread where we can talk about all the bills?
Which includes the bill I cited which only bans trans people from getting certain medical procedures but does not ban cis people from getting the exact same procedures.
In order:
birth certificate, no; bathrooms, don’t personally care but I know many women do; name, yes fine; pronouns, sure ask, but not okay with punishing people who use sex-based not gender-based pronouns
ok, sorry, I thought you were still replying to me
In fact, i doubt any of us would even have heard of it. Because, you know, no controversy, no news. And it’s not as if most of us will ever see that spa in person or care about its schedule.