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

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.

@KingFredsTache
Sorry to break it to you, but it's not women's job to sort out everyone's problems.

I agree with that, and i understand the sentiment. I think the problem is that trans women have been using womens spaces since forever, and now a small group of people (both women and men) are now campaigning for that protection to be removed. And this is a change that is likely to place trans women at significant risk. So whilst on one level it is not the job of those calling for this change to solve the problem of male violence, on the other hand we want trans women out of women's toilets and tough shit if you get raped is not a great look imo.

On third spaces, I've discussed that a bit but it really depends what third spaces mean. Whilst I suspect unisex toilets would be less dangerous than men's toilets, and lets' be fair, assaults in toilets of any kind are quite rare, it would still mean trans women forced to share with men. I also expect the idea would be hugely unpopular were it to be somehow legally mandated, as it would likely result in many cases removing toilets altogether rather than spending money on third spaces.

I think third spaces become even less viable for other kinds of provision. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of trans women access the refuge system each year. 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? I just don't think it's practical, I don't think it would win public support and I certainly don't think it is likely to happen under a Tory government in the middle of a pandemic and upcoming global recession.

What the government certainly cannot do without further legislation is say that trans inclusion is illegal.

We would honestly get further if you would stop misrepresenting the issue.

It is trans rights organisations that have been saying that trans exclusion is illegal.

What the government has been asked to do is to refute that claim and to confirm the Equality Act as it stands.

No one has asked the government to state that trans inclusion is illegal. Not us, not the House of Commons Committee.

What we are asking and what the committee recommended is to advise organisations that trans exclusion is indeed legal in regard to the sex-based exemptions set out in the Equality Act.

For instance, we were told by an organisation funded to provide a single-sex service that trans exclusion is illegal and they could not deliver the service we need (and which the public believes they do indeed provide) for that reason. Not because they don't want to, but because they are not allowed.

As their service is the very example used in the text of the Equality Act that is demonstrably untrue.

P.S. we are not asking for a US style Bathroom Bill, which in any case is not enforceable in the UK.

Bathroom Bills aim to force those who identify as trans to use the toilet provided for their sex. Such a bill would not be enforceable under the Equality Act.

That is not what we are campaigning for.

We are campaigning to maintain female-only legal set asides for females only. What that means in practice is third spaces in some cases, alternative solutions in others. For instance, we are not campaigning for Women's Aid or Rape Crisis to stop supporting males who identify as trans. We are asking that these services provide support for such males separately from the support they provide to females. For some services that means male-only, mixed-sex and female-only, for others mixed-sex and female-only and for another service it may mean male-only and female-only. In addition to all of the above, yet another provider may also offer specialist services for those who identify as trans only. All of those options are acceptable to us.

The only one we reject is the abolition of female-only legal set asides via the inclusion of males, regardless of how these males identify.

It's like some people think that women simply exist for men's validation and to sort their shit out. Not that woman actually have their own autonomy, thoughts and feelings about stuff, that maybe they don't feel comfortable with acting as human shields, that maybe they have their own things that they are dealing with.

This is obviously news to some people - you can see it in people like Owen Jones's tweets - he just cannot get his head around the idea of women saying 'no'.

Gay men are also raped and assaulted in toilets and prisons by other male people. So should we just open up female only spaces to all vulnerable men or should men take responsibility and sort out their own propensity for violence. Women are not human shields.

What would be an acceptable number of trans women raped or beaten up in men's toilets if laws protecting trans inclusion were revoked?

But why is that women's problem to solve? Why do women have to act as human shields? Why do women have to be made to move over and feel uncomfortable because some males can't cope with other males not conforming to their idea of masculinity?

Sorry to break it to you, but it's not women's job to sort out everyone's problems.

What about third spaces?

Ah good to see the old 'look ladies, men are gonna rape you anyway, so we might as well just remove current safeguarding and make female spaces mixed sex because that is what males want' chestnut is still alive and well

@ANewCreation That case predated the Equality Act 2010, this is the only case so far I think under the act regarding trans inclusion in women's spaces: www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

If self-ID is to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc (and bearing in mind that predatory people - regardless of their trans status - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

What would be an acceptable number of trans women raped or beaten up in men's toilets if laws protecting trans inclusion were revoked?

And all of those places with the exception of prisons already work on the principle of self ID.

Though I guess given the nature of this post, all you want to do is spread hysteria and misinformation.

If that is the case can we expect all trans groups to state publicly that single sex exemptions should remain part of the EA and that henceforth they will not actively lobby for their removal.Will they also accept publicly that the legal definition of women remains a female of any age as laid down in the Act.

jj
"in the only case so far on the question of trans women in women's spaces they have found in favour of trans inclusion"

I am aware of Croft vs Royal Mail which came to the opposite conclusion. What is this case?

And while you are here, jj, you haven't yet answered CharlieParley's and my question:

If self-ID is to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc (and bearing in mind that predatory people - regardless of their trans status - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

Thoughts?

@CharlieParley It is the government's job to introduce laws and the courts jobs to interpret them. So without further legislation or amendments to the EA all they can really do is state the law as it stands, which is that trans exclusion may be permitted as a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. It is for the courts, not Liz Truss, to decide where that threshold lies, and in the only case so far on the question of trans women in women's spaces they have found in favour of trans inclusion.

What the government certainly cannot do without further legislation is say that trans inclusion is illegal. It will remain as it is now, and as all service providers are aware, an option to exclude trans people in some cases but not a requirement. So without further legislaton then I expect things will stay pretty much the same.

As I recall it was reported that she broke away from her support worker and went into the toilets. I very much doubt a bathroom bill would have prevented this assault.

I feel confident the law protects trans inclusion, so if there is to be no strengthening of the exemptions in the EA then personally I'd be quite happy for the law to stay as it is

That law protects trans inclusion unless the protected characteristic of sex takes precedence.

The recommendation from the House of Commons report on strengthening the sex-based exemptions is not about changing the law, but making sure that the law we have is enforced. So yes, it will stay as it is.

What they are referring to is that the government is to advise anyone offering or providing any female-only legal set aside* that they have the right to do so and that it is perfectly legal to exclude ALL biological males who identify as trans and who are still legally male from ALL female-only legal set asides that exclude ALL other biological males. And to advise them that once they have made a case for a female-only legal set aside that only allows access to biological females that they can also lawfully exclude all biological males who identify as trans and who are legally female (ie have a GRC).

Those are the sex-based exemptions that currently exist in the law, but that certain trans rights organisations and campaigners have been advising providers of female-only legal set asides are not lawful to enforce against males who identify as trans.

*This includes scholarships, clubs, programs, shortlists and awards designed to redress the inequalities that only impact on female people, single-sex services like rape crisis counselling and spaces like a mammogram waiting room or prison ward. It includes the right to political organisations and assembly outwith the presence of males, and to sports and single-sex sessions in gyms or swimming pools etc.

I very much doubt a ban on trans women entering women's toilets would have prevented that offence.

Now that's where you are wrong. Dolatowski was accompanied by a youth worker who would not have let his charge use the Ladies otherwise.

@CharlieParley There is considerable published evidence challenging autogynephilia theory as I'm sure you know. It doesn't make me stupid, on ignorant, or unresearched simply because I have come to a different conclusion to you, it is very far from settled science.

"That's not being planned. Neither the GRA nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are being removed."

If that is the case we are in agreement. I feel confident the law protects trans inclusion, so if there is to be no strengthening of the exemptions in the EA then personally I'd be quite happy for the law to stay as it is, although I would support moves to make it easier to change birth certificates without having to apply to a government panel.

But there are many in the GC movement who are calling for the law to be strengthened or some kind of bathroom bill to be introduced.

Ah, we're back to the eternal pivot between "that never happens" and "well, it's going to happen anyway so what's a few more cases?"

Been there, done that, watched it go down too many times.

Still a hard no to biological males in women's spaces from me.

Wanna bet Dolatowski "not really trans?"

It doesn't matter though does it? No-one can know except Dolatowski. Fact is, trans policies allowed Dolatowski to enter spaces where D could offend more easily. So it doesn't matter.

I wonder how long it will take until Dads start to do a Pip Bunce and id as a woman long enough to accompany their daughters to the loo.

jj1968

”... just that it happened, and I'm not aware of that causing any harm to women.”

”... reaching for absolutes is futile.”

”... it's an observation of what seems to happen where trans inclusion has taken place. It hasn't seemed to have caused harm,...”

”... and I don't think this solution will be solved by statute, clear definitions...”

These are your statements, despite the many, many posts and links given to you here, you still are looking out your eye sideways. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And who needs absolutes like ‘law’? Resistance is futile huh.

Or as CharlieParley posted
Mind you, much more telling than your science denial or false claims about the law is that you have throughout this entire thread point blank refused to acknowledge any of the harms happening to real women and girls as being unacceptable enough to rethink these policies you support. Anecdotal you say. Not really trans. Not happening.

How many of us being harmed by these policies would cause you to rethink?

Charlie parley

If you had your way, jj, and self-ID was to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc, then (bearing in mind that predatory people - trans status immaterial - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would you consider to be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

Wanna bet Dolatowski "not really trans?"

Has anyone mentioned Dolatowski yet?

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/866968/sex-offender-who-targeted-young-children-in-fife-supermarket-toilets-given-jail-warning-for-breaching-strict-community-order/

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/819644/mum-of-supermarket-toilet-sex-assault-victim-warns-freed-attacker-could-strike-again/

I don't find autogynephilia theory very persuasive and don't think it is well evidenced (and also contains some highly reactionary assumptions)

Flat earthers don't find Galileo's heliocentrism persuasive and creationists reject the theory of evolution. And yet disbelief does nothing to rebut scientific research. Only evidence to the contrary does.

Autogynephilia is the most researched paraphilia in the world and researchers have collected empirical data from many thousands of affected males. Many of whom fully agree with the diagnosis.

You might want to do a bit more reading. I mean you don't know what's been happening in the UK even though trans inclusive policies are in schools and hospitals and prisons that explicitly include part-time crossdressers and those who make no changes as trans; you haven't taken any notice of the harms reported on worldwide (self-id and trans inclusion policies based on self-id have been abused in every single country where they have been introduced, including Ireland and the US); you don't seem to have any idea about today's trans community or the trans rights movement.

In any event 1 in 4 is significantly higher than 1%,

OK, I'll do this again. A maximum of 20% of those who identify as trans seek help from the health service. This help consists for the most part of counselling and hormonal treatments, a smaller part involves cosmetic surgeries not involving genitals and a tiny part involves genital surgery.

Both the numbers of annual surgeries and the numbers of actual patients from various studies suggest that no more than 1% transition all the way to full penectomy and neo-vagina. I was being generous by saying 5% do. For every 1 homosexual transsexual (HSTS) there are estimated to be 4 non-homosexual transsexuals, as per the research I referred you to. That gives you 1% of the total male trans cohort being fully post-op HSTS.

And nor will it be solved by the removal of current protections for trans women.

That's not being planned. Neither the GRA nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are being removed.

Assumed rights are not law. Women acquiescing to the presence of males who may seem less dangerous or remaining silent out of fear with males who do seem dangerous does not give these males nor all others like them the legal right to be there. Misrepresentations of the law by trans rights organisations do not change the law. Even the EHRC had to correct their guidance after misrepresenting the Equality Act from the beginning. Statutory powers or not, they cannot supersede the actual law. And that law is being undermined by the policies you support and we oppose.

Mind you, much more telling than your science denial or false claims about the law is that you have throughout this entire thread point blank refused to acknowledge any of the harms happening to real women and girls as being unacceptable enough to rethink these policies you support. Anecdotal you say. Not really trans. Not happening.

How many of us being harmed by these policies would cause you to rethink?