Talk

Advanced search

Accused of cherry-picking trans horror stories

(110 Posts)
PuertoVallarta Mon 02-Dec-19 05:42:59

How do you deal with people who say that pointing out transgressions by individual transwomen is like combing the news for examples of immigrants behaving badly?

I do understand this particular criticism of GC talking points.

I am quite vocal about this issue in my daily life. But sometimes I feel caught between a rock and a hard place:

“That never happens.”

“Well, Karen White...”

“You’re just picking isolated examples to paint a whole segment of the population as villains. You’re as bad as Trump in America.”

I don’t want to sound insane and obsessed as I keep rattling on, “Well, this happened, too! And another transwoman did this! And another did that!”

Heeeeeeelp meeeeeee?

PuertoVallarta Mon 02-Dec-19 05:44:55

OF COURSE I am not trying to paint any class of people as villains. That’s just what people hear. I can’t break through.

Cismyfatarse Mon 02-Dec-19 06:21:10

Immigrants don't get access to vulnerable women. Men are not pretending to be immigrants to gain access to immigrant only spaces.

Clymene Mon 02-Dec-19 06:28:06

Transwomen retain male criminality patterns. Men commit nearly all murders, rapes and assaults. Women need spaces where there are no men to keep us safe

testing987654321 Mon 02-Dec-19 06:33:09

I have questioned myself about this too. I can see the parallels, so what are the differences?

I suppose it's that they wouldn't suggest putting a rapist in a women's prison normally, but stating "i am a woman" gets them in.

Similarly with women's sports, perfectly nice men aren't allowed to compete against women, but ones who say "I am a woman" can.

That's the difference, that some men are asking for special privileges which the average well-behaved man doesn't get.

In comparison, a criminal immigrant is being given the same access to a country as a perfectly nice immigrant. On abusing that initial trust they would be treated similarly to a home grown criminal.

There's no way of filtering out the criminal immigrant without discriminating against the majority of decent immigrants.

We are asking that all men are treated the same, no-one is discriminated against by being treated as all other men.

EverardDigby Mon 02-Dec-19 06:34:46

Because it's not just about whether or not someone actually commits a crime, if a male followed you into a changing room or toilet you'd be on edge whether or not they were trans - that isn't the key thing about them - they are male and as a PP said they retain a male pattern of offending.

LongLiveThePenis Mon 02-Dec-19 06:51:19

Yes, they're asking for privileges over and above the rights that everyone else has, and to be trusted with spaces where people who are generally weaker are already vulnerable.
There are safeguarding rules for anyone who wishes to work with other groups who are vulnerable, such as children or in refuges because we know there is a risk from people who are less vulnerable.

But we can't admit some trans people into the opposite sex bathroom based on criminal history and rising of offending and deny others access, so the only safe and fair way to negate the risk is to say that no one can use the opposite sex bathroom.

Hope that makes sense.

NeurotrashWarrior Mon 02-Dec-19 07:24:27

All it takes is for one boundary to be blurred and it's a safeguarding issue.

Men who can say they're women and so claim access to women's spaces who retain a penis are smashing, let alone blurring boundaries. They don't have a right to enter a woman's space.

LumpySpacedPrincess Mon 02-Dec-19 07:30:51

We are talking about the removal of safeguarding. the point of safeguarding is to assume the worst. TA's insist it doesn't happen, it clearly does, here are examples. Does the person want all safeguarding removed or just to lower women and childrens, why? There were real victims hurt by this ideology are they saying the victims don't matter, why?

NeurotrashWarrior Mon 02-Dec-19 07:36:06

And I'm also of the opinion that it makes no difference if there's a penis or not. The point - which is helpful to spell out - is that most do not get the operation.

RoyalCorgi Mon 02-Dec-19 07:36:37

It's because they are pretending trans women are just another class of women, like black women or disabled women. They're not. They're men. And we don't allow men into single sex spaces, so why should we allow trans women in?

BarbaraStrozzi Mon 02-Dec-19 07:40:13

Because the issue is one of framing laws. We don't make laws for the best case scenario where everyone is nice, we make them to protect people in the worst case scenarios where people aren't nice.

We don't denigrate all accountants by having laws against embezzlement. We don't denigrate all visitors to people's houses by having laws against burglary.

The problem with Karen White is not that all transwomen are like White; far from it. The problem with Karen White is that if you frame law on the basis that transwomen literally are women (rather than that it would be a nice and decent thing for society to treat them as if they were women for most, but not all purposes, the exceptions being those cases where biological sex matters), then you have to place White in a women's prison. And take the rather obvious consequence of imposing inhumane conditions on the women prisoners in violation of their human right to incarceration in a safe environment.

White isn't an attempt to show "all trans people are like that", which would clearly be ridiculous. He does (note, MN allows us to use male pronouns for convicted rapists) act as a kind of reductio and absurdum for Stonewall's "acceptance without exception" mantra and the anti-scientific assertion that "transwomen are women."

EvaHarknessRose Mon 02-Dec-19 08:08:20

'I'm talking about a rights issue, and people frequently respond "but that would never happen" so then I give examples of how the rights are under threat in actual rather than theoretical ways. I don't think it's accurate to call that cherry picking.'

MockersFactCheckMN Mon 02-Dec-19 08:12:31

Only two of the 737 Max planes crashed, but they still grounded the whole fleet while they checked what the problem might be.

2BthatUnnoticed Mon 02-Dec-19 08:15:25

1. It is not about individual transgressors.

2. It is about creating a flawed system with poor safeguarding, which predators can and will exploit (e.g. see the Catholic Church).

3. Only a “small” no. Catholic priests exploited poor safeguarding in order to access and sexually abuse children. It was utterly devastating to those children.

4. presumably the vast majority of those identifying as women (like the vast majority of priests) have no wish to harm anyone.

5. But once you allow anyone to circumvent normal safeguarding (whether by becoming priests or identifying as women) predators will exploit this.

6. George Pell and Karen White may well be aberrations (I hope so). But their victims still suffered terribly (and still do).

KatvonHostileExtremist Mon 02-Dec-19 08:16:15

Why do we have sex single facilities and spaces? Why don't we mix sexes in prisons? Why don't men compete against women in sport?
We were told the horror stories never happen. This never happens. This never happens. Then it happened and we aren't allowed to talk about it because it's cherry picking. Shut up women.

Evidence is annoying like that really.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 08:23:46

Victoria Climbe's murderers caused an entire revolution in how safeguarding was (supposed to be) carried out. Huntley caused another.

That's how safeguarding works. One loop hole at a time.

Apart from anything else it's a deflection to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. But honestly, in case it's a useful line of explanation to use, look through the list of well known activists, the ones advising government, training national bodies, leading the court cases. Yaniv, Bradley, Challoner, and that's just off the top of my head. Sadly no, it's not at all unusual for cases in the public domain to be involved. Look at the increasing list of people demonstrating that women are at increased risk from males 'feeling more comfortable' in female spaces, such as Katie, and Karen White.

And then think of the well known people who speak out and represent the group the GRA was set up for, and deal with as much abuse from the transgender lobby as GC women do - Hayton, Willoughby, Yardley. You may not agree with everything they say but I can't think of one with a questionable case in the public domain, or in fact of them shouting threats and intimidation at women, or kicking windows.

I think many people have no idea how wide the trans umbrella is or the reality of the situation, they just have sympathy and want the jolly good chap system where everyone can be nice. And no one has to deal with no and difficult feelings. We're not a society who likes that. Women however shouldn't be the price of society rediscovering healthy boundaries.

NotTerfNorCis Mon 02-Dec-19 08:24:27

It's because these cases prove that transwomen aren't women - which is what the whole debate is about.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 08:27:59

It's also separating out: keeping single sex spaces for female people who need them is one thing. How does protecting those really harm trans people?

And are the people who are insisting that no corner of provision must be left for female people also good with excluding women from minority religions, women with disabilities like ASD and Dementia, women who have trauma, PTSD, rape survivors....? Because people feeling strongly about this will generally be people coming from a well-meaning position of social responsibility. (And you'll deal with the 'yes but SOME people from those communities are all 'this is no problem', but the fact stands that many are. And the ones that are will tend to be the ones without a voice or representation, who will just be excluded)

Surely solutions need to be found that work for everyone, not just shift the burden of exclusion around a bit? That should be a question that gets them thinking.

merrymouse Mon 02-Dec-19 08:49:00

Just repeat over and over again: women are concerned about abuse by men, not trans people. Self ID facilitates the abuse of women by MEN.

aliasundercover Mon 02-Dec-19 08:59:17

Any safety measure is useless - and potentially irritating - until it is actually needed. Wearing a seatbelt is uncomfortable and useless on 9999 out of 10000 journeys, but no-one would say you were cherry picking if you highlighted crashes as a reason to wear it.

Dolorabelle Mon 02-Dec-19 09:02:35

How do you deal with people who say that pointing out transgressions by individual transwomen is like combing the news for examples of immigrants behaving badly?

I always respond by saying that actually, I'm not that concerned about 'normal transwomen.' I'm concerned about the creep of self-ID becoming de facto "law" because men don't come with labels saying whether or not they're genuinely body dysphoric about their male body, or simply sick predators.

I keep it fairly simple - I explain I'm anti transactivism, not "normal ordinary transpeople." I express deep concern for the genuinely dysphoric**, but I say that when 98% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men, women do have a right to keep female-only spaces sex-segregated. Because with self-ID, predatory & violent men have yet another avenue of access to and abuse of children and women. So you virtue signal, but gently raise the issue of male violence, and toxic models of masculinity.

Then you could start on the homophobic nature of trans activism. And ask, gently <head tilt, tinkly laugh> "After all, what is wrong with a man wearing a dress and make up? Why can't he do that and still be a man?" If my interlocutor is female & wearing trousers (or doing anything that might be seen as typically masculine in sex stereotyped roles, eg earning a lot of money, managing men etc etc etc) I ask if by wearing trousers they are really "male."

And so on.

** Indeed, I have known a couple of dysphoric men & I can't imagine what it must be like to be so deeply disturbed about your natural body - it's a deep mind/body split for a start. Also like an anorexic - an unbalanced or disturbed relationship to one's body which could be life-threatening. But I suspect that the genuinely dysphoric (and it's a mental health issue) are in the minority ..

Babdoc Mon 02-Dec-19 09:03:47

Yeah, we should all leave our front doors unlocked. Only a minority of people are burglars, and we shouldn’t tar everyone with the same brush. Oh, wait...

LetsSplashMummy Mon 02-Dec-19 09:05:06

It's important to note that TW have the same offending profile as men without a gender identity.

I also bet that young, Muslim men who want to become pilots, for example, are thoroughly background checked. That is the form of safeguarding appropriate (all pilots background checked) for that risk. They don't just get to say that they are fine, upstanding people. It's that kind of special treatment the TRAs are demanding - that the safeguarding measures don't apply to them.

LetsSplashMummy Mon 02-Dec-19 09:07:37

Although I have found myself conflicted over the parallels with racial profiling. If more knife crimes are committed by young, black men - does that make it okay to search them at a higher rate? My instincts are to say "no," that's racist. However, it's based on a truth not dissimilar to men committing most violent crimes.

NeurotrashWarrior Mon 02-Dec-19 09:19:37

That's how safeguarding works. One loop hole at a time.
Absolutely

nettie434 Mon 02-Dec-19 09:20:34

It's important to note that TW have the same offending profile as men

I think that the ‘acceptance without exception’ argument has proved to be difficult here. We know that trans women are over represented in prisons. If their offender profile is the same as men, then the only explanation is that some prisoners are identifying as women for their own purposes. It is not a case of using an isolated example.

merrymouse Mon 02-Dec-19 09:21:41

However, it's based on a truth not dissimilar to men committing most violent crimes.

Not really. Racial differences are literally skin deep.

The same cannot be said about the differences between men and women.

Wondersense Mon 02-Dec-19 09:23:27

First of all, if you do think they represent a particular threat, it is crucial that you try to get reliable figures on what the crime ratio is of trans criminals to the general trans male - female population. Otherwise, you could make this sort of argument about any population and keep bringing out examples. Even your own demographic could be demonised in this way. It will invalidate any argument pretty quickly if your argument is not robust enough. Also, the type of crime is important. Someone might be a criminal, but there's a difference between shoplifting and assault.

There's no real need to focus that way on trans people to keep women's spaces anyway. The issue isn't juat about them, even if may appear to be. The issue is about reducing the risk of sexual violence done by biological men towards females, which means limiting or not allowing them to have access to female spaces where women are likely to be vulnerable. If you want the stats to show that males represent a risk to women, I'm sure there is plenty of data on that. The point is that by allowing trans women to access women's spaces it makes countless women and girls vulnerable to the very same harassment and violence that trans individuals are concerned about! All they're doing is making that risk greater for women for girls by opening up our spaces or making it difficult for us to challenge anyone who says they're trans. So far they have not presented any decent argument or procedure that I've heard about that convinces me will mitigate this risk.

ThePurported Mon 02-Dec-19 09:41:05

We are asking that all men are treated the same, no-one is discriminated against by being treated as all other men.

Yes, it is that simple.

The race comparisons are appalling and totally miss the point.

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 10:00:06

Its not about individual transwomen.

It's about ALL predators.

Any predator in the country can now exploit the laws pushed by the trans ideology.

Every paedophile, rapist, harasser, bully violent male.

The lot.

Grimbles Mon 02-Dec-19 10:09:17

Although I have found myself conflicted over the parallels with racial profiling

There are no parallels though. We arent 'gender profiling' and saying some men get a pass into womens spaces but others dont.

NONE of them do, regardless of how they present. No profiling needed.

Dolorabelle Mon 02-Dec-19 10:15:35

Which is all very reasonable until you come face to face with "Transwomen are women #nodebate"

Twolittlespeckledfrogs Mon 02-Dec-19 10:20:50

The reason is that we must not acknowledge the truth of male pattern violence.

We politely pretend that single sex spaces are about some sort of innate prudishness about being unclothed around members of the opposite sex that we should accommodate.

Talk of single sex spaces must include comments about how naturally men would also not want women in their toilets or changing rooms or conducting intimate examinations in order to preserve this myth.

There is some truth to it and socialisation about separating the sexes for using public toilets and trying on clothes etc probably means that some men would feel uncomfortable disrobing in front of women but it’s not the real reason.

The real reason for single sex spaces if that whilst NAMALT a frightening proportion of men would sexually assault a woman if the opportunity to do so without getting caught presented itself. Mixing the sexes in enclosed private spaces where women are vulnerable like in a hospital or refuse or where they undress like a toilet or changing room increases the rate of sexual assault.

But we can’t say that. Because if we acknowledge the real reason why we separate men and women sometimes we might have to actually do something about it. And men wouldn’t like that. It’s much more comfortable to avoid the whole issue.

Clymene Mon 02-Dec-19 11:29:57

This is from Lineham's speech. It neatly summarises that women are being told that our feelings don't matter, our instincts don't matter, our safety doesn't matter, safeguarding doesn't matter. All that matters is men's feelings. And it puts women in enormous danger

freethegenders Mon 02-Dec-19 13:00:40

Thats how organising an ideology works.

Being transphobic is exactly the same as being racist, and homophobic etc.

It really is that simple.

As with every single social change bringing equality to maligned groups there will always be propagandists pushing back.

Even on this thread theres lots of propaganda being layered, for instance the idea that trans women retain a 'male criminality' has been debunked by the author, and it relates to 20-40 years ago, the F.O.I. request by fairplay for women was ridiculously flawed and convoluted to suggest half of trans women in prison long-term were violent offenders, there is zero reliable data on how many trans people are even in prison or and men gaming the system.....which should NEVER be held against trans people, that is merely propping up the literal toxic patriarchy.

Fairplay for women are literally a propaganda group, transphobia is rife in the uk, clearly and obviously it is rife on these boards, which have been quite successfully colonized by many right-wing MRA groups to attack trans people, and troll women.

Most of the stuff on these boards are bunk propaganda.

It's really that simple.

You are picking isolated cases to attack a class of innocent people, to feed your own bias and bigotry.

The world outside of mumsnet fwr is unrecognizable to most of the gibberish in here.

OldCrone Mon 02-Dec-19 13:16:31

Even on this thread theres lots of propaganda being layered, for instance the idea that trans women retain a 'male criminality' has been debunked by the author

"The author"? Who is this? There is not one single "author" responsible for statistics.

Read this article.
medium.com/*@evastanford*/transwomen-sexual-offenders-a-closer-look-6c507d9e2414

aliasundercover Mon 02-Dec-19 13:25:12

@freethegenders

You seem upset. Hug?

Butterisbest Mon 02-Dec-19 13:29:51

Human beings cannot change sex, it's not possible, so men will always be men. Women will always be women. I wouldn't pick out individual examples of unscrupulous men using self id to assault women.
The sexes are segregated for a reason, what reason would that be?
I'm not living in fear or horror that trans people will attack me. I know that statistically I'm more likely to be sexually assaulted by a man. Any trans status is completely irrelevant. It's men that rape and assault women and girls, I don't want to share personal space with men or boys. It's my right as a woman to have sex segregated space, nobody has the right to override my right or give it away.

Dolorabelle Mon 02-Dec-19 13:40:08

@freethegenders Please go ahead & report any transphobic posts here, or elsewhere on MN. As feminists, we'd be very grateful to you.

Oh, and now you've plopped and before you go, can you define the terms "woman," "female," "man," and "male" without resort to historically specific and culturally constructed stereotypes?

ZuttZeVootEeeVro Mon 02-Dec-19 13:40:42

there is zero reliable data on how many trans people are even in prison

Which is very odd, don't you think?

DodoPatrol Mon 02-Dec-19 14:02:24

Bollocks, Freeethegenders.

I have no more beef with transwomen than with any other man. But 'any other man' can get pointedly told to bugger off out of the ladies' shower block (and in fact I asked one to leave yesterday - he was a perfectly pleasant chump standing outside his small daughter's shower but I didn't want him there, thanks).

You cannot convince every woman that male people are 'really women', because they really aren't.

So their presence in female facilities is intrusive, their presence in female sleeping areas is the same problem as other men, and their presence in female sports is just as unfair.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 14:05:33

Biology, reality and not excluding women from society isn't 'ideology' love. It really isn't. Nor is it progressive.

If you're on the side of fairness and inclusion, you've got a bit of a hole in your logic there.

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 14:06:21

freethegenders

How do you account for one in fifty prisoners being transgender then? Given the definition of trans is anyone who says they are. Unless you have a different definition, of course.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/

DodoPatrol Mon 02-Dec-19 14:09:33

The world outside of mumsnet fwr is unrecognizable to most of the gibberish in here

I shouldn't think my daughter's classmates are on Mumsnet. They still feel uneasy at the thought of a child they knew as a boy last month now being 'a girl' and entitled to use their changing rooms and loos.

As I mentioned on here last week, that includes a girl who has been raped and really, really doesn't want to share facilities with any male however charming.

But because of the brainwashing going on in school, they feel both uneasy and guilty for having those feelings.

Thanks a lot.

SetYourselfOnFire Mon 02-Dec-19 14:17:46

No reliable data? What about these?
www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629
"125 transgender inmates in England and Wales, in a prison population of 85,513."
60/125 are sex offenders

That's from 2017.

As of 2019 supposedly 1 in 50 prisoners are transwomen by self-ID.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/

Or are you saying they don't count because prisoners are lying about being trans for perks/to get access to female victims, which no shit. Kinda the point.

Goosefoot Mon 02-Dec-19 14:23:31

When people ask about this, I think you have to go back a step and ask why we have certain sex segregated services. They will generally answer two things, possibly safety, and possibly privacy.

If they say safety safety, that's easy enough, you point out that the safety issue for trans people is the same, that most trans men are sexually interested in women, that they still have a penis, that they are physically capable of rape. You can also point out that the evidence we have seems to suggest they are as likely to assault women as regular men. This all applies to the laws as they stand now, with the further addition of self-id there isn't even any necessity for a transwoman to "present" as a women, and there are already some who do not - it simply becomes impossible to manage the safety question.

If they say it's not about safety, it's more about privacy, and they feel that's a cultural imposition that would be better left behind, I think you can query that. I would point out that while they may be lucky enough not to feel threatened in such situations, that is probably because of their particular experiences. I would point out that women's facilities became common at all because women could not safety go out, and that this is still a problem in many parts of the world. You might ask why they think this is something the UN talks about in refugee camps, or why young women in some countries avoid school when menstruating because of lack of private washrooms. You could point out that these rules also protect people in more vulnerable positions, like prisons, or ensure that women in male dominated workplaces have privacy accommodations.

The question of racial profiling is relevant, in that you can attach statistically significant numbers to certain types of criminal behaviour and race in some places. I think the answer there is complicated, for me in part it's that the question of separate facilities for omen isn't just about risk, maybe not even primarily, it's about privacy, which has no equivalent with race. I think its also relevant though that in that case, we are impinging on the rights of people, doing searches etc, and that requires a high bar for allowing it. In this case though, we are not saying trans people can't use the toilets, they just need to use the right ones for their sex, we aren't restricting them in any way.

I suppose the last thing I'd say is that if it really doesn't matter, we should have no sexed facilities at all. Some people think that, at least about some places - many draw a lie around places like prisons even so. Those people are at least being somewhat consistent but I'd point out that unisex facilities have more problems.

ChattyLion Mon 02-Dec-19 14:35:27

Sounds like you’re just telling the truth OP, of what’s been reported publicly and you are keeping safeguarding of women and girls front of mind. Why would anyone object to that?

freethegenders Mon 02-Dec-19 14:58:59

A good sign that someone us spreading propaganda is the endless use of blogs as sources.

Medium pieces, wordpress blogs etc where sophistry and manipulation to an agenda is abound.

You can simply read up this thread and see the defensive reactions of people invested in a one-way nefarious narrative.

The only trans people that are counted in prisons in the UK, are those that satisfy two requirements, to be long-term, and to have requested a case review outing themselves.

yes these could be nefarious men pretending to be trans women, that is not the fault of trans women.

There is not a single statistic that exists outside of right-wing opinion piece imaginations, and blogs that suggest trans women have anything remotely like 'male criminality'.

That evidence simply does not exist, only evidence to the contrary.

But some people really really want you to believe Propaganda outlets like fairplay for women, whose whole raison detre is anti trans, claims to have evidence and a convoluted juggling of figures to show trans women are male, despite the M.O.J. making exceedingly clear with the F.O.I. none of those figures are reliable.

But then the conspiracy theorists and anti-trans brigade tell you EVERYONE is desperate to push through trans rights, and it is being forced through despite EVERYTHING saying it is bad and wrong.

Ohhh aren't we all brave standing up against the scourge!!

This is precisely the thinking of people susceptible to conspiracy theory and quack pseudoscience, and propaganda.
They end up isolating themselves from the rest of the world and actual reality.

The worlds moved on, this endless cycle of mumsnet transphobia, contrarianism, and clique-building is really sad to see grown ups acting this way. Some people are really super-unhappy I guess.

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:03:51

Um, my link that one in fifty prisoners identifies as trans was according to the annual report by Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons. grin

yes these could be nefarious men pretending to be trans women,

How can you pretend to be trans, when the only criteria is you are, if you say you are!

Is the penny in the air yet...?

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 15:10:11

a convoluted juggling of figures to show trans women are male

You don't need figures to show this, it's factual, trans-women are male, this isn't as you put it quack 'pseudoscience'.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 15:11:45

Is the penny in the air yet...?

Are you kidding the penny is firmly glued to the pavement.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 15:12:11

yes these could be nefarious men pretending to be trans women, that is not the fault of trans women.

Well it's not the fault of female people either, is it? confused It's TW insisting that male people must be allowed into female spaces regardless of how they look, and that they cannot be challenged for ID or proof of transition that's caused this issue for female people.

TW need to take responsibility for this. How are they proposing to do this in a way that protects the female people this is going to negatively affect?

The worlds moved on, this endless cycle of mumsnet transphobia, contrarianism, and clique-building is really sad to see grown ups acting this way.

Why don't you try again and be a bit ruder and more patronising this time? wink Guaranteed to win hearts and minds that is. No, the world has not moved on, that's a chant like 'TWAW' that's supposed to convince the general public it's too late. The average person in the street has no idea what a TW is, or what any of the jargon means, or what a GRC is, and most of them are horrified. What you have on MN is what happens when ordinary women get educated on what's happening to women's rights.

The trans lobby is responsible for this damage to women, they need to own it. If they won't, and they're not interested in the impact their demands have on female people, then female people are going to get increasingly pissed off and resistant with them. Why on earth wouldn't they?

And grown up? Seriously? Excluding vulnerable women from any services so males have more choice is 'grown up' thinking is it?

Fromage Mon 02-Dec-19 15:13:01

Sorry, I've not read the thread.

My feelings (and thus reply to the question in the OP) are these:

Well, these 'cherry picked' examples do exist. And yes, there are of course transwomen who are as much danger to women as any other female woman. And yes, they just want to peacefully get on with their lives. And of course it's wrong to pick out one example and use that to judge all members of the group. But that's not the issue. The issue - and my question to those who go make the cherry picking comments - is this:

How do we tell the difference between the Karen Whites/wax my balls/creepy weirdy men, and a bog standard, harmless, normal transwoman?

And is it OK to use women as bait to lure the dangerous men out?

And is no one harmed if they are letched over, or stared at in a changing room, as long as they aren't touched?

Is that how we tell the difference, put them to the test?

Are you OK with that?

Do you get to decide and judge those who feel differently about themselves, and about vulnerable adults, and children?

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:14:22

Are you kidding the penny is firmly glued to the pavement.

Yeah, I thought I'd be polite.

Fromage Mon 02-Dec-19 15:16:07

And I do get that times are shit for normal transwomen. It's awful.

But I think a normal man, for example, would understand that late at night, if he's walking down the street behind a lone woman, the decent think to do would be to cross to the other side of the road, and dawdle, so she doesn't feel followed.

It's about decency and respecting others' feelings. So it's shit for transwomen, but not because of women who want and need their own spaces, but because of tragic loser pervert dangerous men.

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 15:19:44

Free

It is increasingly difficult for anyone to study criminality and recidivism in the trans populations because trans activists through regulatory capture have made it nearly impossible to figure out who is trans.

One of the Things feminists in Scotland are campaigning for is to accurately report both natal sex AND gender identity in the census so that among other things we can at least potentially track these things. And in addition be able to do things like provide specialist accommodations and services for trans people (like setting up sufficient gender clinics etc).

Meanwhile trans activist groups are advising their constituents to lie about their natal sex on census forms. Which will ultimately lead to fewer or inappropriate services for trans and non trans people. We might ask who is really being transphobic and hateful toward trans people here?

Also the author of the study you’re talking about did “clear up” that she did not mean for people to say trans women are all criminals and that there could be other reasons why males who identify as women have criminality rates which are not significantly different from natal males / are significantly different from natal females. Which, yeah, duh. But she did not “debunk“ her own stats. The fact remains that all of the very limited (thanks to trans activists) research we have points to no effect on overall criminality based on gender identity among natal male people.

That is not to say that all males are criminals obviously, regardless of how they may identify. That’s how statistics work. Trans activists are asserting without evidence that trans women are no different from natal women in patterns of violent criminality then prove it with data. Same with sports.

One could look at the evidence and say, well, then sex segregation should be abolished because it’s discriminatory. I think this is a morally defensible position. I personally have not experienced male violence and I don’t mind being exposed / naked in front of males or females. However based on feedback from women here I respectfully disagree because clearly many women still require single sex accomodation. I encourage you to listen to women as I’ve done. I never saw the problem being relatively sheltered. But, now I do.

In any case very few trans activists are taking this position. Instead they are arguing that all males who identify as women should be granted access to women’s sex segregated spaces and services, fully on their own say so and any woman who protests to male bodies in her spaces is a bigot who should mind her own business. That is, trans activists believe that trans women deserve rights above and beyond those of any other male person. And not after working hard to assimilate and “pass” so they wouldn’t make a fuss. No. They want special additional rights over and beyond what other males are entitled to immediately when the idea of being a woman crosses the lips (or thumbs) of the male person. Without question. Without debate. And when a case occurs which shows that this can lead to problems for women that would not otherwise occur it’s called cherry picking. No. Women are allowed to have and to enforce out own boundaries.

freethegenders Mon 02-Dec-19 15:30:05

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SonEtLumiere Mon 02-Dec-19 15:31:08

Of course the other thing is that in a situation where a country decided to keep all the foreigners out. It would be the citizens who make that decision rather than the foreigners.

If others from outside insisted on over-riding that decision because they didn’t like it/knew better then it would be an invasion, and if they insisted on staying that would be a colonization. Wouldn’t it?

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 15:34:29

I assume it is against mumsnet rules to assert all trans women are abusive, or violent offenders? Thats shows clearly that there is an anti-trans bias at work.

It is smile please report where you see that, because I've missed it.

You said yourself that nefarious men would take advantage. I pointed out this is because of TW's demands without taking the faintest consideration of the impact on women.

You're pissed off that women mind?

You think the answer is women do..... what exactly?

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:36:54

FWRLurker

Excellent post. Calm, comprehensive and clear.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 15:38:41

Yes I understand you really really want innocent trans peopleto pay for what men may or may not do.

How is treating transwomen the same as any other man making them pay?

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:38:43

Yet you claim so some cis man in charge of prisons who makes an entirely ridicolous and unfounded claim as though he has the remotest idea of peoples innermost identity,

No one has the remotest idea of anyone's innermost identity, do they? You're quite right.

calllaaalllaaammma Mon 02-Dec-19 15:39:29

You could ask them if they think women deserve this safeguarding measure, after all the intention is to take sex segregated spaces away from 31million women-all re-developments in the future will be unisex.
Other measures against dysfunctional men include:
Speed bumps to stop joyriding.
Airport security tightened to protect against terrorism.
Security in every other area gets tighter over time not more lax! Why is there a huge cultural experiment being run on women when just a very small tiny % increase in crime will result in a lot of misery for so many women.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 15:39:47

Are you claiming men are disadvantaged because of safeguarding put in place by factual statistics?

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:42:49

freethegenders

Please give me one, single solitary benefit to women provided by mixed sex facilities, that were previously women only.

dayoftheclownfish Mon 02-Dec-19 15:50:40

With all due respect, free, you're the one who is ranting here.

Nobody on FWR wants transwomen to suffer (I'm surprised you left out the space between trans and women) but even you acknowledge that there are differences between "trans people and women" (your words), and that these groups have different needs and therefore need different provisions. Which is what many posters would be happy with - third spaces. But the problem is the aggressive demand for access to women's spaces for people who are born male and always remain male because you cannot change your sex.

I'm really sorry but I will never change my mind on this point. You cannot change your biological sex. Can you tell me what is kind about peddling the lie that it is possible?

OldCrone Mon 02-Dec-19 15:52:17

A good sign that someone us spreading propaganda is the endless use of blogs as sources.

I should have pointed out that the medium article I linked to contained statistics obtained via a FOI request made to the MoJ by the BBC. The figures are from the MoJ. I linked to this because it gives you the figures in an accessible format.

You are free to do your own analysis of the statistics if you disagree with the analysis done by the author of that article. But the statistics are still those supplied by the government.

If you think the government has manipulated the statistics before supplying them as a response to a FOI request, that is another issue altogether.

OldCrone Mon 02-Dec-19 15:54:22

You can simply read up this thread and see the defensive reactions of people invested in a one-way nefarious narrative.

That seems like a particularly accurate description of what you are doing freethegenders.

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 15:55:51

These threads are always brilliant.

Sunlight.

OldCrone Mon 02-Dec-19 15:56:22

The only trans people that are counted in prisons in the UK, are those that satisfy two requirements, to be long-term, and to have requested a case review outing themselves.

So the ones with a GRC giving them a legal sex of female, who are automatically sent to women's prisons, are not counted? Worrying. Especially if self-ID becomes law.

OldCrone Mon 02-Dec-19 15:58:41

But some people really really want you to believe Propaganda outlets like fairplay for women, whose whole raison detre is anti trans, claims to have evidence and a convoluted juggling of figures to show trans women are male, despite the M.O.J. making exceedingly clear with the F.O.I. none of those figures are reliable.

Have you published your analysis of the MoJ figures? I'd like to see it.

dayoftheclownfish Mon 02-Dec-19 15:59:11

Seconded, Crone.

I wonder whether projection is a psychoanalytical cliché or just a useful concept.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 15:59:47

On the plus side, we've seen extensive application of the word 'nefarious'. Someone's English teacher will be proud smile

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 16:01:48

all logic and data points that currently exist

I am very interested to read more studies that include any data at all on rates of criminality among trans gender people of both sexes. Can you provide links? As far as I’m aware the data we have is very limited and So far, no study I know of has shown a significant difference in criminality between trans women and other groups of natal male people. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong as it would be something of a relief.

I will say however that even if trans women were shown to have female-typical rates of violent and sexual crimes (again please send links!), there still is the issue of women in vulnerable situations being unable to tell if the person in front of her is a trans woman minding her own business or a natal male person taking advantage of the situation (who presumably would be a male-typical risk for sexual or violent assault). What specifically should a woman made uncomfortable by a male in her intimate spaces do to clarify the situation? Are her feelings of unease bigoted? If she should accept both male people in her spaces then why have single sex spaces at all??

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 16:04:55

Are her feelings of unease bigoted? If she should accept both male people in her spaces then why have single sex spaces at all??

Not to mention: why are the male people's feelings and right to be in her space against her will more important than considering the impact on the female?

Datun's question above - what single benefit to the female is there in this?

freethegenders Mon 02-Dec-19 16:07:35

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 16:10:07

No answers then?

It was going so well too.

littlbrowndog Mon 02-Dec-19 16:12:51

To me it’s also about the blurring of boundaries for girls and boys

Children

So there’s a guy in their single sex changing room but he says he’s a woman and not to worry.

How are children able to enforce their boundaries or to even know their boundaries if we don’t allow them to see what they are seeing
It’s a biazzare and worrying time

Ereshkigal Mon 02-Dec-19 16:14:12

Yes I agree littl.

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 16:15:53

No answers then?

There never are any. Sadly. ☹️

PurpleCrowbar Mon 02-Dec-19 16:20:24

I'm nodding along to free's point about it being impossible to know if how people choose to describe their innermost identity is accurate, though.

We can't, can we? So it's a bit pointless to let anyone 'self ID' as anything. There's no reason to believe them.

Probably more sensible to go with the traditional empirical evidence of sex, not gender, then, really. Glad we cleared that one up...

merrymouse Mon 02-Dec-19 16:21:52

Nobody, not trans groups, certainly some cis guy has the foggiest idea how many trans people are in prison or for what.

There is not a single statistic that exists outside of right-wing opinion piece imaginations, and blogs that suggest trans women have anything remotely like 'male criminality'.

Looking at these two statements, It's not clear how it's possible to draw any conclusions about a population that you refuse to define, or at what point somebody self defining as trans would be less likely to possess any traits or qualities associated with their sex.

KatvonHostileExtremist Mon 02-Dec-19 16:21:59

This was my favourite bit:

A good sign that someone us spreading propaganda is the endless use of blogs as sources.

Um, my link that one in fifty prisoners identifies as trans wasaccording to the annual report by Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons.

gringringringringrin

Ereshkigal Mon 02-Dec-19 16:22:28

You cannot convince every woman that male people are 'really women', because they really aren't.

So their presence in female facilities is intrusive, their presence in female sleeping areas is the same problem as other men, and their presence in female sports is just as unfair.

This is what it all boils down to.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 16:23:56

There never are any.

At least with insightful posts like frees more and more people are seeing FWR for what it actually is, he/she certainly showed us and the rest of the world that mumsnet is a site of 12 people who aren't worth 4 pages of incoherent rants because nobody agrees with FWR.

PurpleCrowbar Mon 02-Dec-19 16:36:24

The thing is, I do agree that it's entirely possible that no one knows how many prisoners regard themselves as trans.

Because:

A) some of the 1/50 who so self describe might be lying. We can only speculate as to why someone would invent such a story about themself, & what advantage they'd hope to gain by so doing.

But if we admit that some of these people are liars, that's quite a blow to self ID as a goal.

And/or:

B) some of the other 49/50 prisoners are secretly trans, but not open about it. They are choosing instead to present as their biological sex.

Again, could be. Who knows?

But then we are saying that 'being trans' is even more over represented in the criminal population than 1/50.

Which is tricky, if we're committed to trans people being just as law abiding as the gen pop.

& we are still saying that self ID is wholly unreliable.

I'm not sure either of these is the conclusion Free was actually going for, but I can't see any others.

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 16:46:25

Well, free appears to be arguing actually that the source is right wing propaganda and is entirely made up.

Which is why it would be helpful to have any other data and more studies on this issue. And indeed on other issues such as the causes of poor health outcomes for trans people. Currently such research is not being conducted as far as I know. I’ve been advised that bad health outcomes for trans people are due to bigotry against them but I’ve never seen A study that measures that specifically. More seems to be a hand wave to explain the data from other studies.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost Mon 02-Dec-19 16:53:47

I'm not sure either of these is the conclusion Free was actually going for,

I'd guess free doesn't really know what they were going for either but the idea to argue against EVERYTHING we say sounded good in their head.

IfNot Mon 02-Dec-19 17:34:03

A male prisoner "Identifying" as a woman is no different to them "identifying" as Jewish to get the kosher meal.
If it makes their time inside more pleasant, trust me they will identify as a three toed sloth.
I don't think (I might be wrong) that anyone has said transwomen are more of a threat to women and children than men are?
I thought the issue was that allowing men to self id in effect allows any man to walk into a woman's space (or be locked up with women).
Whenever I have mentioned the men in women's prisons things to anyone, the first thing they say is how it really isn't safe to put transwomen in with men. So the general perception is of tw as very effeminate and vulnerable.
Well some will definitely be at risk in a men's wing, just like some younger, weaker men will be,and protecting them from harm IS really important, just not at the expense of ALL the women.
The only people who get straight away that men really can't be housed with women are actual prison staff, who are dealing with this every day, and are just not listened to by the decision makers in the MoJ.

Fieldofgreycorn Mon 02-Dec-19 18:09:46

That men will identify as women to get access to females or escape the male estate isn’t in question as James Barrett comprehensively described in his submission to the government.

Many of those identifying as trans women in prison did so after conviction as they have been refused access to the female estate.

The MoJ made a mistake allowing KW in to a female prison. They went against recommendation. Why?

Probably more sensible to go with the traditional empirical evidence of sex

Going with birth sex in all situations is calamitously unfair to trans women who have established lives as women and have not been convicted for sex crimes.

Prisons should should be doing competent risk assessments, as with any prisoners shouldn’t they?

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 18:11:32

Not going with birth sex is calamitously unfair to female people, who have not been consulted about including males in their spaces at whatever stage of transition, without ever checking or gatekeeping their sincerity of purpose or agenda.

Kind of the whole issue for female people.

Michelleoftheresistance Mon 02-Dec-19 18:12:46

Some of those female people will be excluded from access to any space by the presence of biological males regardless of how those males identify, in order to provide male people with more choice and respect for their feelings.

Please do explain how that's just, right and fair. Please. Because that defeats me entirely.

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 18:14:46

I’ve read on trans rights forums the following advantages for female people who are forced to use mixed sex spaces

1) closeted trans men (women) will see other trans people and have a Chance to escape their compulsory cis gender oppression.

2) children, and women who have experienced male violence will have the opportunity to get over their unreasonable fear of erect penises, which are completely natural and nothing to be worried about

Yes, the people making these arguments appeared to be serious and were encouraged in the correctness of their thinking by others in the forum.

PurpleCrowbar Mon 02-Dec-19 18:20:17

I think a nice competent risk assessment would have trans women 'of good standing', if we are arguing that such a male category exists - & I'd concede the Jan Morrises of this world, should JM ever have their collar felt...

...could be offered trans units in male prisons.

Other provision for vulnerable males already exists. It's not perfect, & I'd happily support campaigning for it to be better.

But no, not males in women's jails. Not under any circumstances.

If you're in prison, you certainly didn't choose to be there. If we believe in sex segregated spaces to protect women at all, that has to be an inviolable one.

I can decide to eat elsewhere if the restaurant has unisex toilets. I can decide to not shop in shops that have unisex changing, or not swim at leisure centres, or not vote for a political society.

I can't decide that, having been incarcerated, I'd rather not shower with a male or share a cell with a male, unless the penal system agrees that this is unacceptable.

I think they must.

ChattyLion Mon 02-Dec-19 18:36:37

What an excellent thread thank you OP. So many women have posted insightful, analytical points. Literally indisputable. grin

IfNot Mon 02-Dec-19 18:41:57

Yes, male born people should be with other make born people only, but obviously vulnerable males should be housed separately. I don't really see why that would be do hard to do (and is often done already, as a pp has said).

Datun Mon 02-Dec-19 18:46:05

Going with birth sex in all situations is calamitously unfair to trans women who have established lives as women and have not been convicted for sex crimes.

God, it's so tedious and unbelievably misogynistic that women are never, ever considered. Ever.

Fuck off with that shit.

If you don't want to be the men's prisons, sort it out, do something about it. Get off your bloody arses.

You can't inflict it on the women. No thanks.

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 18:46:58

Anywhere with long term sleeping / showering accomodation should be single sex. This would include universities, shelters for the homeless and especially abuse shelters, and hospitals where single rooms don’t exist.

Third spaces should be made available for those who prefer or do not care about mixed sex services. I would use such mixed sex services.

It’s fine to say young women can choose to go to another university if they don’t want a male roommate but that is asking for her to turn her life upside down by delaying her education for a year... dunno how often this is happening. Like a

FWRLurker Mon 02-Dec-19 18:48:22

Cut off. Like a lot of what we are discussing no one seems to be collecting these vital data. Just kind of... doing things without thinking about possible issues.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »