Feminism and trans rights, please enlighten me

From the weekend - women suing a women’s homeless shelter in the US that forced them to shower in front of a trans identified male.

OP as someone who is also in the field of research, yes it does work like that. You are surely capable of conducting your own study if you are in a research field? You'll know all about how to undertake your own research (which begs the question why you started this post in the first place?)

It isn’t necessarily about sexual assault (though that’s a consideration). Why not house gay men in women’s prisons?

Many women won’t feel comfortable sharing space (cells, showers) with a male stranger. That’s equally true of hospital wards, the showers at my gym, dorms in a youth hostel.

I’m absolutely sure my brother isn’t going to rape me. I still wouldn’t want to shower in front of him.

OP you could always fund a "large scale study" if you aren't happy with the stats and evidence that has been presented to you over here?

So the often quoted parts of the GRA dont apply to over 99% of TIM?

OP, you answered your own question on the previous page;

CornishPasty82 Tue 05-Jun-18 13:49:22
Gibberty which countries already have self ID? And may I ask, how is it possible to assess whether this has caused any problems if those people are now registered as female and therefore are presumably included in female crime statistics?

But my how noisy they are.

I wonder what percentage of TIM have a GRC?

There's about 300 issued per year. Let's use a figure of 14 years to get about 4000.

A "low" figure that's often quoted for the percentage of transgender people in the population is 0.3%. Let's call that 1 million.

Doing simple sums gives us 0.4% of transgender people have a GRC.

No. The argument being presented here yet again is that some transwomen have committed rape so that all transwomen should be regarded as risks to women and not allowed in women's spaces

No. The argument being presented is that, whilst some male bodied people with penises pose a threat to female bodied people then all male bodied people should be kept out of female bodied people's safe spaces amongst other things.

That's one of the reasons we have sex segregation in the first place.

If male bodied people have an issue with that and feel discriminated against because of it then, rather 'bullying' female bodied people, why not work towards ending male violence? Why is the focus on women accepting the risk rather than stopping men from posing it in the first place?

As the OP who started this thread, I have yet to see the results of a large scale study demonstrating that transwomen commit (sexual) violence to the same extent as men.

You know that there are TIM convicted of sexual offences against women. What risk do you think is acceptable?

As the OP who started this thread, I have yet to see the results of a large scale study demonstrating that transwomen commit (sexual) violence to the same extent as men.

Why wouldn't they?

Especially now that the umbrella of 'transgender' is so wide it encompasses near all people on earth anyway.

Twisting what the Equality Act says into what you wish it means is not going to work here.

Their sex may be legally valid but they are biologically still the same sex they were "assigned" at birth. By arguing against the law we are inherently arguing against their factually inaccurately claims of what sex they are.

We have sex segregation, in part, because some male people rape and sexually assaulted women and girls. I don't understand why a subset of males think that the segregation doesn't apply to them.

No. The argument being presented here yet again is that some transwomen have committed rape so that all transwomen should be regarded as risks to women and not allowed in women's spaces. Well, we don't put ALL men in the same prison as women for the same reason...

That stirring up hatred against trans women by portraying them as straight men and sexual predators. No, it acknowledges they have the same propensity for violence and sexual predation as men.

That's a totally unacceptable line of argument Or it is the logical thing to do!

I'm not sure there is a collective word for 'people who take the current trans agenda with some scepticism, nuanced views and a large pinch of salt', Cornish.

Gibberty: The argument being presented here yet again is that some males have committed rape so that all males should be regarded as risks to women and not allowed in women's spaces, surely - unless or until there is reason to change this well-established precaution.

"Just because the Gender Recognition Act or any piece of legislation states someone can become the opposite sex doesn't mean it is factually or biologically possible. We need to ensure we can hold open discussions and debates about the law otherwise we will enter a dictatorship or a complete censorship state"

By all means argue that the law should be changed. That is your right. But do it without denying the gender and sex of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Their sex is legally just as valid as yours.

No. the argument being presented here yet again is that the majority of sexual offences are committed by men and TIMs are not excluded from that pattern.

No. The argument being presented here yet again is that some transwomen have committed rape so that all transwomen should be regarded as risks to women and not allowed in women's spaces. That stirring up hatred against trans women by portraying them as straight men and sexual predators. That's a totally unacceptable line of argument

ooo I'll take a slice of carrot cake please FermatsTheorem

Anyway back to the debate going on....

Just because the Gender Recognition Act or any piece of legislation states someone can become the opposite sex doesn't mean it is factually or biologically possible. We need to ensure we can hold open discussions and debates about the law otherwise we will enter a dictatorship or a complete censorship state