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

Okay, I just don't see that this discussion (where we're discussing the difference between, say, cross dressers and transwomen) can really move forward unless that question is answered.

The crux of it is, as said above, some people think that TWAW and should be treated as women. I say they are male and therefore outwith the category.

By 'non transwomen', you mean women?

@DianasLasso I think when the study talks about problems it means sexual/physical violence or other forms of assault. I'd argue sport is a different issue.

But as I say, I'd rather not derail this thread with a long discussion about whether trans women are women and stick to the ops point, which is evidence of the risk of trans inclusion and whether trans women retain male patterns of violence and criminality.

The first of your links jj - among the states recording "no problems" is Connecticut, home of Andraya Yarwood and Terri Miller (I think I've got the right names), two trans-identifying teens who've been beating biological females in the 100m and 200m by significant margins. That's a clear violation of equality laws set up to protect women's sports, yet the article claims there have been no problems. There's a case going through the federal courts right now, yet the article says there have been no problems. I think the author maybe hasn't been looking very hard for problems.

I want to ask, jj, in what way are transwomen women? What do you think transwomen have in common with women?

Happy to discuss this in good faith.

Okay I can't find a link to the study but as I recall it covered more than just Massachusetts. There are a couple of reports by mediamatters on this which come to the same conclusion

www.mediamatters.org/sexual-harassment-sexual-assault/17-school-districts-debunk-right-wing-lies-about-protections

www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/debunking-big-myth-about-transgender-inclusive-bathrooms

Bb, remember that study seems to be comparing police reports between different areas of Massachusetts at different stages of a coming US “bathroom bill”. So it might not tell you much more than: in some Massachusetts toilets, at a specific time when conventions amongst the public may not have changed much, the law being just about to change and having just changed didn’t make much difference to police reports.

[quote Bb2019]@jj1968 not according to the stonewall definition - which I learnt about here - which is very broad. It includes for example straight men who dress as women. [/quote]
I'm not sure that's the case, they seem quite clear here that it is an umbrella term that covers a range of gender variance, so a cross dresser is trans, as is a trans woman,but that doesn;t make a crossdresser a trans woman if you see what I mean and they wouldn;t be treated that way in law

"Trans is an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, cross dresser, non-binary, gender queer."

www.stonewall.org.uk/what-does-trans-mean

Am looking for a copyof the UCLA study, it defintely was online for free because I remember reading it but I cant find it now.

Isn’t the burden on those who want to change the existing laws and social conventions to propose the new laws/conventions, and explain the benefit of the change?

At the moment there is no agreed definition of transwoman that could, for instance, be used by a premises manager to distinguish a transwoman entitled to join women, from a man who isn’t.

Without an agreed definition as a part of the proposal, it is hard to evaluate the impact of a change to the rules.

Could someone on the thread persuade me that they have a definition? Of transwoman, or a definition of transman?

I think wanting good evidence is a very sound approach. (And also remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!)

But at the same time, this is at heart a philosophical argument, between those who (like me) see being a woman as a biological category, and those who see it as a "performative" or socially constructed category.

I see sex as a contingent fact about one's biology (which has no impact on one's personhood, but does have impacts on one's lived experience in terms of a whole load of things from how to play a rugby game fairly and relatively safely through to one's risk of being sexually assaulted, and the asymmetric consequences of that - e.g. both men and women can be raped, but only women can get pregnant as a result of rape).

Someone who believes in inner gendered personalities or souls (thank you Layla Moran for being honest, albeit philosophically incoherent) thinks that womanhood lies in somehow possessing some intangible feminine essence or inner sensibility.

Take prisons as an example.

If you believe women are simply adult human females then it is a clear violation of the human rights of female prisoners to single sex spaces for safety and dignity to incarcerate them with male prisoners. The numbers of male prisoners -0.1%, 1%, 5%, 20% - aren't actually relevant. One is too many.

If you believe TWAW, then you think it's a violation of the human rights of transwomen not to incarcerate them with female prisoners (and bugger the human rights of those female prisoners...)

We as a society have to choose. This is one of those occasions where that fucking stupid "rights are not like cake" meme shows itself up for the completely brain-dead fuckwittery it is. Only one side can "win" this one. There is no half-way house, no way of having the cake and eating it.

Does anyone have access to Springer to read that American toilets analysis? It would be nice to know if toilets segregation by sex is justified on the basis of the count of police reports, which seems to be the basis of the study.
I think some women, like religious women who have to remove head scarves to wash before prayer would just have to avoid toilets that aren’t segregated by sex, so I would be concerned about those women.

Personally it’s more intimate care for disabled or elderly people or in hospitals, and again prisons.

For our US visitors, neither UK prisons nor UK hospitals offer single accommodation to residents. That seems quite a burden on the prison service and NHS.

From what I've read Monroe should have been segregated in my opinion, although it's probably important to note that as far as I can tell she haxsn;t been convicted yet of a sexual offence and her attorney says they werent proven. It seems to be a very complex situation from the story reported here: www.illinoistimes.com/springfield/transgender-inmate-accused-of-rape/Content?oid=11867999

But to answer the other question, yes I think trans people (and all people) convicted of sexual offences should be segregated in some way.

I beg your pardon, my error - 'approximately half of the known transgender population in prison are either sex offenders and/or highly dangerous prisoners'

And here's the BBC report on the same issue:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

Bearing in mind that close to 50% of TW in UK prisons are convicted of sex offences.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

How are you defining trans jj? An occasional cross dresser is trans according to the stonewall definition

The TW convicted of sex crimes, @jj1968 - which prison do you think we should put them in?

although there has been work done in the US which has shown that trans inclusive policies have not caused an increase in risk to women.

Oh really. Let's see this "evidence." My counter-argument is Janiah Monroe. The prison even covered it up and punished the victims.