Stonewall really are throwing women udner the bus aren't they [sad]

She's totally missing one point (among many others ) about self-identification.

How are women supposed to tell the difference between a harmless just-want-to-get-on-with-my-life transwoman and a man in a dress and bad make up with criminal intent (like Ian Huntley or that multiple rapist who says he's a woman. But kept on raping).

Given the fact that women are always vulnerable to sexual assault, even if supposedly safe spaces, why is it STILL up to us to sort out the harmless trans women from the criminally-inclined men?

And then we have the bonkersness of a Gren Party member who, at the time of the non-men debacle, said that he

"Presented as a man, but identified as a woman"

So hey, let's just let anyone who feels like ogling women into our safe protected spaces. What the hell. We're only women, after all.

That's shocking Wormulonian

It was a very confused and muddled article. I couldn't believe it when I read it yesterday. The 41% statistic is nonsense - in my home town I'm pretty sure 90% of young men would avoid walking down certain streets come twilight never mind women or transsexuals.
And as for the implication that if you are attacked in formerly female only spaces then there are good services to deal with that beggars belief.

I saw this today (not fully enough reported) but since when is thinking you might be transgender a mitigating factor for stockpiling child porn?
www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/pervert-wins-jail-sentence-cut-688023

The 41% statistic comes from some survey or another, and has been translated into 'more than 2 out of 5 transgender people don't feel safe walking down some streets' Facebook meme, which a friend of mine shared.

My only response was that this is a normal experience for all women ie to not feel safe in some areas, and 3 out of 5 women feeling safe anywhere is unimaginable.

But we all just think that's normal and okay, don't we?

I was deeply shocked by Ruth Hunt's piece. It lacked any consideration of women's perspectives and our realistic fear of male violence, as if this is what the transgender community's problem is.

Her attitude to rape was basically 'we can't ensure that women are safe, but never mind, if you are raped, you can go to Rape Crisis who will help you'.

Oh, that's alright then.

All of Ruth's statement is missing the basic point that equality is not about everybody being the same. The equality act aims to help equalise a field for those who are disadvantaged by a difference.

OK, Ruth, how about this scenario?

If teenage boys can self-declare their gender without the bureaucracy and paperwork, they will simply say “I am a girl” in order to access the girls' loos to wind up, tease and possibly abuse teenage girls.

And, for added fun, groups such as GIRES are going into schools and making sure the boys know this, and that the girls are being told it's a 'hate crime' to challenge it.

Is there, somewhere in the small print, a clause that says 'Of course, Ryan in 3G is a known piss-taker, so if he says he's a girl on Monday lunchtimes, you can still chuck him out of the girls' loos'?

If not, why not?

fern
I think I might get that made into stickers and put it up in local female only spaces.

"The reality is that if a man wants to dress up as a woman to access women-only spaces, he’ll do it anyway. No piece of paper will prevent it."

And under this new law, if it is passed, it will seemingly be a hate crime to question the presence of any men in a women's space. Whether they are or appear to be male or female.

I had this discussion with DH a few months ago. He didn't get it. Of course, the fact that he is significantly taller & stronger even than most men was irrelevant (!) He seemed to think that no-one would take advantage of this & that if they did, it would be ok because they would be dealt with by the police. Because of course all rapists are successfully convicted.

I am very worried about the safety of my DD, and her generation, if (sadly, it's probably when) this law goes through.

Well done Alittlebit, very well said.

There are some great and truthful comments on that article. Hopefully readers will become a bit more educated.

If granting all men access to a womens only area does not make anyone less safe, then allowing trans people in cannot be necessary for their safety.
Ruth has completely denied womens agency, and does not believe privacy is an issue.

Men aren’t worried at all.

Indeed. This might not be exactly on topic but it's also reminded me that the way this is giving some men licence to attack women and dismiss our concerns whilst presenting themselves as oh so progressive and fantastic allies is grating on me. Men who claim to be progressive are being able to dismiss women's concerns and attack some feminists for being concerned about women's safety, knowing full well their safety isn't at risk and they have nothing to worry about with this. It's rather easy to shout at people for being "bigots" (and use this as a helpful vehicle for their misogyny) when they have no fears for their own safety in this area.

There are also probably a few others who support the TRA line without really considering this kind of thing because the safety concerns don't register to them as males - this happened with a boy I know who's at least started listening since I pointed all this out.

For me it’s the comments on male violence, violence that is connected to the biological male. The exact same group that trans women share the same genetics. The majority of men I know are not violent but enough of their sex are that women need shelter and support from them. I am not sure how the writer can label “male violence” whilst at the same time reducing male/female to just a feeling. How does she know these violent men are not really trans women still presenting as male. it just seems contradictory.

Agreed formerly.
It's like they are saying, we need men to come into our "gender" and tell us how to do it right in order to achieve (what they view as) equality.

Women and trans people both exist in a world where they are prevented from accessing true equality because of their gender.

It's shit like this that fucks me off no end. Women do not have equality because of our SEX not our fucking bullshit socially constructed gender. If we could identify our way out of it we fucking would.

When will misogyny become a hate crime?

Datun, yes, boundaries....it's more than just the actual threat of real violence, but women's right to feel comfortable in a safe space.

I get mightily pissed off at the scholarships and awards thing, too. Why should someone with two, three or more decades of male privelege pop up and grab a subsidised ride? Something Ruth Hunt fails to address, focussing solely on the hurt feelings of individuals who want 'access'.

Not just better - literally incapable of wrongdoing.

Surprisingly good comments there. The TRAs look pretty out of place. See for example:

Every police force in Britain deals with voyeurs, street harassers, flashers, illegal hidden cameras and spy holes, public indecency etc so man in store changing room pretending to be a woman in the run up to an attack on a woman is on that spectrum somewhere but not at all common a a means of carrying out a crime.

which is based on the belief that no transwoman could ever be in this group. In other words, when a person becomes a trans person, they become a better person.

And it’s not just about safety and the risk of being attacked. It’s about boundaries. It’s about women's boundaries now being controlled by men.

I was interested to see the comment from a man who said he couldn’t care less if men, women, transmen or transwomen used his bathroom, but he totally understood why biological women would.

This can’t be pointed out enough. Men aren’t worried at all. I wish someone could ask Ruth Hunt outright why she thinks this is coming from women. Why are there zero men who have a problem with this?

I was also glad to see a commenter to respond by saying it’s not just feminists. I’m sick to death of any objection being labelled a feminist objection, implying its extreme.

I meant to add that clearly the edited-down statements are bollocks until proven otherwise...

What she is saying, edited down a bit, is:

Some believe that men will access female-only spaces to abuse women. We all should be concerned about male violence, and we should all be concerned about preventing it and responding to it when it happens.
But granting all men access will not make women any less safe. We live in a society where, unfortunately, women’s safety isn’t guaranteed. But men are not to blame for this, and often they are at risk themselves

That is, unless she has some really sound stats that say transwomen are LESS of a risk than other XY people. Are there any?

At least half the comments are pretty sensible, which is unusual for a Guardian comment piece.

I notice she plays fast and loose with the statistics again - the figure of 44% of trans people avoiding certain streets out of fear is a priceless one. Who else avoids particular streets out of fear, I wonder? Oh yes, women. But we don't care about them, do we.

Alittlebit!
That was me!
Thanks.
It wasn't my finest comment ever.