AIBU to ask what you think should happen with Trans men?

See replies to others regarding prosecution and conviction rates for rapes by men - 97% never get as far as prosecution, let alone anywhere near prison.

That chart is junk data, a selective presentation of facts that, in order to exaggerate the risk trans women present, deliberately ignores the bigger picture around convictions for male violence to diminish the risk that the population responsible for 98% of all sexual assaults presents to women. Slow hand clap for the feminists. What a win.

I would however not countenance any change of gender between prosecution and conviction, or while in prison. I can't believe that loophole exists. I also would hold trans women convicted of sexual offences to the same standards as men, with identical sentencing arrangement.

That's been part of the problem though.

To make those decisions, you'd have to...

a) admit that there are some 'bad players' and that's not even been allowed to be considered or spoken about ('acceptance without exception')

And

b) TW are the most marginalised and vulnerable group in society (apparently) and, until last Wednesday, also women. You'd have to consider them to be men to subject them to the same sentencing arrangements as other men. Otherwise, they are vulnerable and traumatised women who need protecting from the big nasty men in prison who might hurt them.

It's also worth noting that TW have been able to request and access things like cosmetics and hair accessories in prison to allow them to express their gender identity, whilst women have been denied sanitary protection and then mocked for leaking during the same timeframe. I mean, if there was ever any doubt who the real women were...

And it's this obfuscation, blurring of the lines, and these loopholes that is exactly why the ruling was necessary and made.

(And it's also why people arguing about the definition of 'functional' and what sort of penises TM have is largely irrelevant, IMO. Especially as the ruling made it clear that TM can also be excluded from women's spaces if they pass so convincingly that a woman would be unlikely to tell them apart from a man).

I haven't changed my stance at all. There IS no statistical evidence to support transwomen being a risk to women in spaces like changing rooms and toilets.

I suppose you could read this as me believing there is zero risk. I suppose my statement was sloppy in that regard. But then you'd open yourself up to me giving you a list of how risky things like getting out of bed, opening cans of beans and sneezing are. It's a stupid conversation, and a daft 'gotcha' to try and trap me in.

I'm not backtracking anywhere. I'm just not going to accept one vile attack in a loo as statistical evidence for a risk because statistically, it is insignificant.

Which, to just cut off your next 'gotcha' attempt, doesn't mean that it wasn't extremely significant to the two girls involved.

And your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is flawed. The ruling introduces a legal framework that permits, but does not require, the exclusion of trans women from female spaces

This is incorrect. The Equality Act permits but does not mandate single sex spaces but if there is a single sex space all persons of the opposite sex are excluded.

It is the single sex space that is optional not whether you can exclude people of the opposite sex from them.

There is also separate legislation that requires single sex spaces in some circumstances eg school toilets for over 8s and workplace changing rooms if employees are required to change clothes

I'm a 46-year old woman. Bring on your particular contempt.

And your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is flawed. The ruling introduces a legal framework that permits, but does not require, the exclusion of trans women from female spaces.

Organisations and service providers are now legally permitted to restrict access to single-sex spaces to biological women, but not required to.

I don't believe the law is wrong. I think the ruling is logical and balanced. To bring me round to agreement with you and release me from the shackles of your contempt, you'd need to provide evidence that women and girls are being assaulted by trans women (not men) in single sex toilets and changing rooms. Because I can't find any data at all to support that position, and the only data I've seen on here relates to men in unisex facilities, which doesn't prove a thing.

We don't assume all men are rapists but we do recognise that 98% of sexual assaults are carried out by men which is one reason for single sex spaces.

We also don't assume that all teachers are peadophiles but we still DBS them all and expect them to follow safeguarding rules.

Agreed. It's actually quite chilling to see women and girls essentially designated as cannon fodder to the feelings of men.

The Mum of one of Dolatowki's victims (I use that name but I'm sure he's changed it again and horrifyingly, one of the amendments to the GRR to stop convicted sex offenders from obtaining a GRC was voted down) is, somewhat unsurprisingly, very supportive of the recent judgement -

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14674350/trans-paedo-supermarket-toilet-ruling/

And unsurprisingly, Dolatowski was all for the GRR -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/11/katie-dolatowski-trans-paedophile-nicola-sturgeon-gender/

when I say that, statistically speaking, the risk is extremely low.

You’ve changed your stance, you just said ‘there is no statistical evidence to support any risk to any woman in spaces like changing rooms and toilets, from trans women’.

See what happens when you try to minimise the risk to women? You have to backtrack immediately.

That's a good point and not something I'd considered when others have presented that same prison data to me today. I still wouldn't legislate or create policy from this baseline, just like we don't assume all men are rapists and construct society from there.

I would however not countenance any change of gender between prosecution and conviction, or while in prison. I can't believe that loophole exists. I also would hold trans women convicted of sexual offences to the same standards as men, with identical sentencing arrangement.

And sorry about your radar issue! Where are you? We don’t have radar here. I have only seen it once in a public park out of hours.

I agree additional accessible loos is the answer!

They are great.

I do think mens and women’s are useful from a volume and hygiene point of view. Men are frankly filthy creatures 😂

Trans men are women, they can and should be able to access female only facilities, because they're female.

Trans women are men, and there are male facilities for men.

No matter how anyone 'identifies' sex is binary and no amount of body modification alters that fact.

Born female, die female.
Born male, die male.

Yes it's clear, you for reasons only known to you, disagree with equality for women as set out by the Equality Act which was introduced to give equality to all people with a protected characteristic including women. The Equality Act specifically recognised that women need single sex provisions to keep us safe.

The highest court in the land has determined that the law has been misapplied for years and we know that women and children have been harmed.

The government has confirmed that the outcome of the judgements means that single sex spaces should exclude men, including trans women and that it agrees with the judgement.

But no matter, you think that despite all of this that the wishes of men who identify as transwomen is more important than the safety and dignity of women and girls in respect of those spaces.

You have not said whether you are a woman or whether you a man who identifies as trans. I hold women who let other women down under particular contempt.

We do need to try to reduce all violence against women and girls. We have the law in place and clarified to reduce the occurrence of this wrt to toilets and changing rooms but you think the law is wrong even though you know there is a risk of VAWG as a direct result.

That' s pretty vile.

That's not how risks are calculated. It’s a classic misuse of statistics, and misleading and logically flawed to use percentage increases from extremely small numbers to make any kind of argument. Statistically speaking, your big scary percentages reflect tiny changes in real-world impact, don't indicate meaningful trends and can easily be written off as natural variability in small datasets.

The data are also completely irrelevant without base population sizes for both parties.

I had a row with a friend today about this, she is firmly on the TWAW camp and I am firmly not. It’s really not women’s problem what trans men do now. If they are so masculine that they pass for men then they will use the men’s toilets unchallenged as they always have done, that’s up to men to challenge.

i will say though that my old dogs vet was a transman, I only knew because we’d been there for so long that we knew him before he transitioned, he wouldn’t have passed for a female at all unless you knew (but he was a tall, broad female before he transitioned). But I definitely would look twice if he walked into a female space. I’m sure he will continue to use the male toilet and I hope that he’s living peacefully, he was a lovely, kind man.

I'd quite like it if they're not cumming in the cubicle next to me! 😳 (Apparently, this is a thing/fetish! Who knew? Everyday's a school day on MN! 😂 )

I have a colleague who is a transman, colleague always uses the female toilets and has done for the 4 years since starting at my workplace. Colleague has had top surgery and takes male hormones, uses male pronouns and a male name. That said, the colleague is short and still looks effeminate despite facial hair. I expect my colleague feels too intimidated to use the mens which is why the colleague still uses the women’s toilets. When we’ve had work functions at pubs and restaurants colleagues uses the women’s toilets there too. Personally I don’t have an issue with it as I still consider the colleague to be female.

Some of these men only identify as trans after being arrested so they would be as easy or difficult to identify as any other man.

That's irrelevant to the data itself, though I agree that it's an absolute travesty.

We also haven't got to the fact that many trans identified men have been given more lenient sentences than other offending men because it would be cruel to send them to prison or because they claim that their crimes were due to their struggles with coming to terms with being trans.

For your argument to be consistent, you'd have to remove opportunity from all spaces where women are at equal or higher risk from men. Because I would rather there be less risk to women and children, but to achieve that I'd need to ban men from public transport, workplaces, pubs and clubs, the home... It makes absolutely no sense to me to focus on toilets and changing rooms and clutch our pearls over the risk to women and girls there, if we're not also seeking to restrict male access to all spaces where women are vulnerable.

I know which side I'm on, too.

So you don't think the ability to urinate through it standing up is "functioning"? I don't think anyone has claimed fully functioning (i.e. including the ability to ejaculate) - I certainly haven't.

There aren't many 6ft 4 women, with size 12 shoes. It's a fantasy that transwomen pass amongst us unseen.

We haven't got onto the fact that trans identifying men are extremely easy to track down and convict by virtue of their distinctive appearance, while only around 3% of reported rapes ever get as far prosecution, and of those prosecutions only 2/3 are convicted.

Trying to overplay the threat that trans women present by selectively presenting data that lets cis men off the hook is not the win for women and feminism that many imagine it is.

The claim was that phalloplasty gives you a functioning penis. It doesn't.