Bearded trans woman beaten in Oregon after using women's bathroom, beater charged with hate crime

Assault is wrong whatever the situation.
The question here is Lauren identifies as a woman but to all appearances is a man.
Does this mean that any man can enter female spaces but if challenged can declare ‘I identify as female’??

I am GC and this sounds like it was legally a hate crime, as well as a disgusting act of violence. It does seem as though third spaces would be safer for all concerned, though (some) men not violently attacking other people would be awfully nice, too.

*Q:If there were no evidence that the attacker knew about trans status, I don't think a hate crime conviction could have resulted?

A:In the UK at least a hate crime is determined purely by the person reporting*

I wouldn’t like to comment on English law but this answer does not accurately reflect the situation in Scots Law. To secure a conviction for a an aggravated or ‘hate’ crime, it must usually be established that the offence was motivated at least in part by the victims membership or perceived membership of the protected group. It would NOT be sufficient for example for a black man who had been assaulted to simply say that he had been targeted because he was black.

If it's a non-crime hate crime. But in both the Owen Jones case and the lesbians attacked on the bus it was stated that the judge needed to be sure that the attacks were homophobic in character.

I'm not sure whether that's for recording purposes, or just sentencing, though? It's possible that you can't pass an increased sentence without evidence, but it can be recorded as a hate crime on purely subjective belief, maybe? All sorts of messed up, if so. We need a lawyer to explain that one, either way.

The key point is that under Oregon law, transwomen can use women's loos. The victim was minding their own business, and was brutally attacked. I don't agree with that law, clearly, and don't want it to be that way here (bad enough that it's becoming that way via stealth) but the reality is that it exists and the victim was entirely blameless accordingly - and even if it didn't, the attack is appalling.

I want women's rights protected. I absolutely don't want anyone else harmed. The harm to us is the point here. I condemn any violence towards anyone, unless it is literal (in the truthful sense) self-defence.

I know the more aggressive transwomen don't want third spaces, but I do think they are the answer. For courteous transwomen, for transmen who are unsafe in men's single sex provision, and for fathers of daughters and mothers of sons, or opposite sex carers.

That’s the thing michelle women warned that this sort of thing might happen and were shouted down as transphobes

This situation just means women & TW aren’t safe from Male violence. Third spaces are needed.

Take the trans element out entirely, the initiation of the use of force is a moral violation, not to mention criminal. It is possible to realise that and then add the trans element back and be against Male bodies individuals access to female bodies persons spaces.

How many years now have GC women pointed out that a man would sooner or later beat up a TW they felt threatened the privacy or safety of their wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother/sister in a single sex female space? Men don't tut and move away, and many will respond aggressively to another male trespassing too near or presenting a threat towards a female they see as theirs. You won't prosecute that out of men as a population any more than rape's been successfully prosecuted out of existence.

It is a hate crime. It's been provoked, it's for a very obvious reason, it was wholly foreseeable, and we're going to see more of it.

Third spaces.

If there were no evidence that the attacker knew about trans status, I don't think a hate crime conviction could have resulted?

In the UK at least a hate crime is determined purely by the person reporting.

Violence is unacceptable (except in self defense).

That man sounds dangerous and I’m glad he’s been convicted. Hopefully he gets the help he needs.

Women are violently attacked and/or raped as a result of hate. It is not recorded as such because the female sex do not count under what constitutes a hate crime (well in the UK).

Misogyny absolutely needs to be added as an aggravating factor, yes.

They weren't beaten up because they were a transwoman. They were beaten up because they were a man in a women's bathroom.

I read a story that said reference was made to trans status during the attack. That, if true, means it was a hate crime.

If there were no evidence that the attacker knew about trans status, I don't think a hate crime conviction could have resulted? In the bus attack on the two lesbians over here, there was an evidence hearing on whether the attack was homophobic, as it's an aggravating factor. Perhaps I'm wrong; my understanding is that it's the same in the States.

Either way, it was a horrible assault and I'm glad the attacker was jailed.

Male violence is unacceptable and the reason why we cannot have males in our spaces.

I absolutely condemn such violence.

Presumably this will be a charge of assault/battery?

Women are violently attacked and/or raped as a result of hate. It is not recorded as such because the female sex do not count under what constitutes a hate crime (well in the UK).

Shouldn't have been in the women's toilets

Disgusting victim blaming. No-one deserves violence irrespective of your feelings about whether a Transwoman should be in a female loo.

It is a hate crime.

If the attacker made reference to the victim being a transwoman, or if the victim presented as a transwoman, then yes. Given the jury convicted on all three charges, it seems probable that there was that sort of evidence. If the attacker had any plausible defence on that score, it would have been presented - apparently there were a lot of witnesses, so what happened was pretty clear.

If someone is attacked, and the attacker references the protected characteristic, then surely that's a hate crime? A real one, not the nonsense Harry Miller was dealing with.

I hope the victim has recovered well. It's a horrific offence, and the attacker is a complete arsehole.

No one should be beaten / attacked so it is right that the husband was prosecuted.

It is important that single sex spaces are respected though, and I don't see why the above male felt justified to use the women's toilets.

I do not think that natal males belong in female spaces. I also think that physically attacking someone is absolutely unacceptable unless in self defence. Unfortunately it is violent males that make it unsafe for people like Lauren to be in either the male or female toilets. I support third spaces as well as strong action against male violence.

If I saw Lauren I would assume Lauren was a man, as Lauren does not look as if Lauren identifies as a woman

Saying that though, Lauren did not deserve to be attacked.

it is extremely tedious to have write Lauren instead of a proper pronoun

This is a good argument for third spaces.