Of course women will be safer

You cannot tell who's a man and who's a woman from looking. So this ruling changes nothing. Rapists and abusers will continue to break the rules and go where they like.

In fact, if we become accustomed to seeing trans-men in female spaces, that makes it really easy for male-presenting people to go unquestioned.

If a week ago we assumed a rapist was willing to claim to be a trans-woman, why on earth would they not now claim to be a trans-man?

I’m asking for the evidence which shows I will now be safer following the Supreme Court’s judgement. Where is the evidence that I was unsafe prior to the ruling? As per OP’s observations.

Sorry, your response is nonsensical and bizarre. I am making zero claim that trans women should be treated differently. The OP has said ‘of course women are safer’ - I’m asking for evidence to prove that to me. If you want people onside (assuming I am not) surely you’d provide that? Why on earth wouldn’t you?

It’s not up to me to provide any evidence whatsoever. I’m not here making any claims. I’m asking you all to help me understand your viewpoint. So far no one is. You’ve done a fair job insulting and dismissing my own lived experience though!

Question for you, which I keep asking and you keep not answering ...

What is the justification for exempting one group of men from the rules we've established for all men? Why do that in the first place?

Sorry, your response is nonsensical and bizarre. I am making zero claim that trans women should be treated differently. The OP has said ‘of course women are safer’ - I’m asking for evidence to prove that to me. If you want people onside (assuming I am not) surely you’d provide that? Why on earth wouldn’t you?

It’s not up to me to provide any evidence whatsoever. I’m not here making any claims. I’m asking you all to help me understand your viewpoint. So far no one is. You’ve done a fair job insulting and dismissing my own lived experience though!

There is evidence of course, but you miss the point entirely.

In order to make a case for this group of men to be treated differently to other men, it would be incumbent upon you to find the evidence that they offend at similar rates to women.

So where is that evidence? (I'll help you out here, you won't find it, though you're welcome to try).

If you can't see the issues arising for these vulnerable women in having men access their spaces then you clearly are privileged in many ways.

I understand that a woman who has never contemplated that they might go to prison, might not give much thought to the women who do end up here. But these women exist and habe very little voice in society.

“They offend at least the same rates as other men…”

Evidence please.

Also, again, like everyone else in this thread, you are using emotive language and misjudging me as privileged (and so dismissing my actual and plentiful negative experiences with men). I am simply just asking for evidence to support your claims about trans women. How many of the 99% of male offenders identify as trans women?

Yes transwomen are men. They offend at least the same rates as other men, so why would they be given special treatment in this regard?

As for your safety, I agree there are plenty of privileged women who are unlikely to see much difference.

The people who will see themselves better protected here are female prisoners, women in domestic abuse shelters, women in hospital wards, women needing rape counselling services, sick/disabled women needing intimate care. Also, for slightly different reasons, women playing contact sports.

You’re presupposing my views. The OP has stated that as a female I’ve woken up safer because trans women now can’t enter single sex spaces. I’m asking for evidence relating to trans women specifically to demonstrate that I was ever unsafe. Is it because ‘trans women are men’ ? Is that it?

You cannot tell who's a man and who's a woman from looking. So this ruling changes nothing. Rapists and abusers will continue to break the rules and go where they like.

In fact, if we become accustomed to seeing trans-men in female spaces, that makes it really easy for male-presenting people to go unquestioned.

If a week ago we assumed a rapist was willing to claim to be a trans-woman, why on earth would they not now claim to be a trans-man?

You absolutely can detect sex by looking with a very high degree of accuracy. Don't be silly.

And now that the law has been clarified, any man who tries to infiltrate women's spaces, knows that this is wrong and they are breaking the law. Those men need to act with decency and stay out.

Back to first principles.

If we agree that it's best to keep men out of women's spaces, then why would we make an exception for one group of men without exceptionally good reasons?

Why single out trans identifying men for access to our spaces but not disabled men, gay men, old men, etc, etc?

The question for you is, what's the justification in the first place for giving this one group an exemption from the rules put in place for all men?

I haven’t made any claims in this thread? The OP says that women are safer. I’m asking for the evidence to prove that statement.

Where is your evidence that they pose less of a risk than any other men?

The Times article referenced in the link you sent is the source of the data and that article is behind a paywall. It’s not my job to go searching for the evidence, I’m asking the people making the claims (that I’m safer because trans women can’t access single sex spaces) to supply the evidence. Also, for information, that times article is the only one that’s whipped out when making claims like this. Anything more recent? Anything other than just one single source?

Remember that I’m asking for evidence regarding trans women. Not men. Trans women. You may not agree that trans women are not women, but they are not men. They are trans women. I’m asking for evidence regarding trans women specifically. How many of the 99% of male offenders are trans women? I’ll engage when someone can provide reliable evidence.

The Times article referenced in the link you sent is the source of the data and that article is behind a paywall. It’s not my job to go searching for the evidence, I’m asking the people making the claims (that I’m safer because trans women can’t access single sex spaces) to supply the evidence. Also, for information, that times article is the only one that’s whipped out when making claims like this. Anything more recent? Anything other than just one single source?

Remember that I’m asking for evidence regarding trans women. Not men. Trans women. You may not agree that trans women are not women, but they are not men. They are trans women. I’m asking for evidence regarding trans women specifically. How many of the 99% of male offenders are trans women? I’ll engage when someone can provide reliable evidence.

Any evidence that isn’t behind a paywall? Please bear in mind that I’m asking for evidence that trans women pose an increased risk.

You cannot tell who's a man and who's a woman from looking. So this ruling changes nothing. Rapists and abusers will continue to break the rules and go where they like.

In fact, if we become accustomed to seeing trans-men in female spaces, that makes it really easy for male-presenting people to go unquestioned.

If a week ago we assumed a rapist was willing to claim to be a trans-woman, why on earth would they not now claim to be a trans-man?

It isn’t behind a paywall, I’ve just double checked.

For future reference, you can type a URL into archive.ph to get around paywalls.

You’ll have to look at the stats on trans prisoners. They are out there, but I don’t have them to hand at the moment and am about to go out for the day (though someone else may oblige you).

Remember, trans women are men, not women. You’ve had evidence that males do 99% of sex offending. What extra offending will satisfy you? 99% is extremely high!!

If you can’t imagine how that having clarity in the legal backing to demand policies that exclude men who identify as women is going to make women safer than it’s going to be hard to help you.

Try reading up on events of the last few years and find out? There is a long list of women and girls that specifically would not have been raped or sexually assaulted, had the authorities followed the actual law including Dolotowski’s young victims, the women raped in a female hospital ward by a trans identifying male (at least two off the top of my head) and the women in prison punished for complaining about being sexually assaulted. All if those utterly preventable.

How many raped and sexually assaulted women would be enough for you to agree there been an issue that we at least now have the tools to fix?

I’m asking for the evidence which shows I will now be safer following the Supreme Court’s judgement. Where is the evidence that I was unsafe prior to the ruling? As per OP’s observations.