Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

Incorrect; submissions were made to Westminster by all the transgroups to have this safeguard for women removed

[quote jj1968]@ANewCreation Sorry I thought I'd been clear, I don't think that there is a risk of harm to women due to trans inclusion. As was much discussed upthread, there is no evidence that where trans inclusive policies have been pursued they have caused harm to women.[/quote]
Is there actual evidence that no harm has resulted? Or is that an assertion backed up by an absence of data?

Are all forms of harm included in that statement or is it just focussed on sexual assault?

I guess the only way to fully understand the harm done to women would involve large scale surveys to check that women have not changed behaviours, to see how many women report increased mental health effects as a result of the changes. Could you provide a reference to the survey and it's results?

Yes that would be legislative change. I don't happen to agree with it, and it's not something I've seen heavily pushed by either trans individuals or trans organisations.

What is legislative change is trans group trying to have the single sex exemptions removed!

How do you strengthen a law without changing it?

"The law needs to be tightened up and enforced"
Hardly legislative change .

@ANewCreation Sorry I thought I'd been clear, I don't think that there is a risk of harm to women due to trans inclusion. As was much discussed upthread, there is no evidence that where trans inclusive policies have been pursued they have caused harm to women.

@CharlieParley That quotes comes from a speech which Woman's Place describe as articulating one of their five demands. She begins the speech by calling for the law to be strengthened. That would mean legislative change.

@334bu Trans inclusive organisations are not breaking the law, they have either chosen not to invoke the exemptions, or they do not feel their services meets the threshold for being able to legally invoke them.

Yes indeed DialSquare

I think this thread has the most amount of words I've ever seen to basically say fuck women and girls, men are more important.

So, how is a transwoman different from a man?

What even IS a transwoman?

Apologies, Lucy Masoud

[quote jj1968]@334bu

Here's Woman's Place calling for businesses and organisations to be fined for not protecting female only spaces: womansplaceuk.org/the-law-must-work-for-women/[/quote]
Again, please stop misrepresenting the truth.

1. This is not a demand from Woman's Place UK, but a speaker invited to one of their meetings gave a speech asking that

Business and organisations should face fines or legal action if they knowingly, and deliberately flout the law.

1. This was Lucy Massoud, a female firefighter who went on to explain that the Fire and Rescue Service, which is legally obliged - as an employer - to provide female-only showers, changing rooms and toilets to female employees refused to do so until Lucy and her female colleagues forced them to comply with the law.

Her employer did not originally want to do this as it cost money.

But because trans rights organisations are advising employers that anyone who identifies as trans must be allowed access to opposite-sex spaces on their say-so, her employer then declared that they will abolish all single-sex provisions and turned all spaces mixed-sex.

Because her union agreed, she cannot get support in asserting her legal rights.

That is who Lucy wants to see fined: an employer who breaks the law. A union that refuses to help employees with a protected characteristic under the EqA to assert their rights.

(Some organisations can choose whether to use a sex-based exemption on a voluntary basis. Some are obliged to do so by law. Just FYI.)

Maya Forstater has produced some thoughtful work unpicking the Kirklees case.
Well worth a read if you haven't seen it already.

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/#respond

I would highlight that it really didn't help that the EHRC misrepresented the Equality Act's position with regard to single sex spaces at the time and has since had to row back on its position.

Still no empathy, I note, for the lived experience of women and girls plus no answer as to how many women and girls can be harmed by predatory people exploiting Safeguarding loopholes caused by Self-ID as acceptable 'collateral damage'.

Just a 'what about the males'. Who have been potentially making females feel uncomfortable in their own spaces for decades 'as trans women have been using womens spaces since forever'.

Got you.

Asking for sanctions against companies who are not abiding by the law as it stands doesn't really strike me as seeking "much more than that"

@CharlieParley

When it comes to the strain on funding, that was created when the initial demand was made that the services originally built, funded and run by and for women accommodate males. It's nice of you to worry about it, but we've been dealing with the fallout of that demand for years already.

I'm sorry but this is ahistorical nonsense. The funding crisis in the refuge sector (and it has never been adequately funded) has nothing to do with including trans women as anyone who has any familiarity with the sector knows, but years of ideologically driven austerity.

In a lot of cases trans exclusion is illegal.

Not when it comes to the sex-based exemptions. Please provide an example of an illegal case so that we may see whether we are discussing the same issue.

Here is an example from me:

An employer (let's say an advertising agency) asks all senior colleagues to present their departments' most recent campaigns to showcase the agency's versatile portfolio to a prospective new client.

One such senior colleague is Iris B who has recently come out as trans, entirely complies with all workwear rules set by the employer and is most importantly not only a senior colleague, but an experienced and charismatic presenter who prior to transitioning was instrumental in winning several new accounts.

However, the agency's CEO asks a more junior department colleague to make the presentation instead of Iris. It's obvious that he is either himself embarrassed about having an employee who identifies as trans and doesn't want this to become public knowledge or he worries that the prospective client won't accept it.

In either case, he has unlawfully discriminated against Iris by treating other colleagues more favourably.

Iris could bring a claim for unlawful discrimination at work.

@334bu

Here's Woman's Place calling for businesses and organisations to be fined for not protecting female only spaces: womansplaceuk.org/the-law-must-work-for-women/

" .. who seek much more than that."

Examples??

@CharlieParley In a lot of cases trans exclusion is illegal. However if all you want Truss to do is re-affirm what it already says in the Equalities Act, then that's great, I have no problem with that. In fact I don't really see how it will change anything.

But the fact remains there are many in the GC movement who seek much more than that.

Would a trans only refuge really be viable? Would it be acceptable to you that a trans refuge which was empty half the year was perceived to be diverting funding from desperately under resourced women's services? Given what is happening in the world should we realy be embarking on rebuilding hospitals to ensure a third space that is barely occupied?

Hmm, I'm not sure now that you are in the UK based on this. Every single thing here you raise as an impractical solution is entirely doable in the UK.

Indeed, the original trans inclusion policy by Scottish Women's Aid for instance had emminently sensible guidelines on providing a separate service to males who identify as trans. Every hospital here has single occupancy rooms assigned on the basis of an individual's specific circumstances which would obviously easily accommodate a male patient who identifies as trans.

When it comes to the strain on funding, that was created when the initial demand was made that the services originally built, funded and run by and for women accommodate males. It's nice of you to worry about it, but we've been dealing with the fallout of that demand for years already.

We know that all of the things we're suggesting can be accommodated easily, and without putting males who identify as trans in danger, because that's how they were initially organised. What our solutions do not provide for is affirmation of a male person as a woman.

But as the problems you have mentioned throughout don't seem to be about the usual demand that women affirm a male as a fellow woman, you should be relieved to hear that we can solve those problems without denying women their rights.

But you expect traumatised women to share accommodation with members of the opposite sex!!

There is already some provision for male rape victims in the UK . So no need for any make victims in female spaces. If there is insufficient provision for male rape victims perhaps they should lobby for more.

Do you really think that a trans women, who may be traumatised by male violence, is really going to go live in a refuge full of men?

Would you really be okay with funding being diverted to trans only services at a time when women's refuges are being starved of funds?

There is already some provision for male rape victims in the UK . So no need for any make victims in female spaces. If there is insufficient provision for male rape victims perhaps they should lobby for more.

Yes, and we are always told that refuges risk assess all of their clients very carefully, so why can't trans women use male refuges - and as you say, if the service is not sufficient then lobby for more, like females had to.