Some thoughts on trans, the media and society

No one thinks all trans people are bad or violent but when the end point of an ideology is to accept anyone who says they are women (up to the most violent and dangerous) is advocating for a very dangerous situation for women.

However devastating it is to read is not the same as being a vulnerable woman locked in a cell and being assaulted.

Please campaign for safe wings or separate facilities for transwomen to keep everyone safe, which is what we all want.

And I am focussing on the worst bit of this ideology (note ideology not people) because as rubbish I think it is for women to self exclude from sports, changing rooms etc knowing that a) women imprisoned with sex offenders will be the ones that come off worst and b) women who self exclude from DV shelters may end up being murdered. And I’d like both women and trans women to avoid that. I wish the same could be said for some vocal activists.

I feel really disgusted, having looked at all of it. We're not all like that, believe me. These are just examples of the worst kind of behaviour possible

Great. So seeing as male pattern violence doesn't change when a male identifies as a female, can you tell me how we are supposed to know which born males are ok, and which ones aren't, when they are identifying into women's spaces? Because it's not possible to look at someone and just tell. Is it.

We are not saying that all men or all transwomen are violent or predators but as a sex class, they are more likely to be.

I think it's worth saying here that, yes, a value judgment has been made, and a cost-benefit analysis.

Generally speaking, society is against risk profiling. It is explicitly outlawed in some ways, for example race.

There may or may not be real statistical risk differences in certain other areas where some form of group-based profiling might possibly make sense. But the statistical differences are small enough that we let the principal of non-discrimination take over and say, no, we will not treat people of different racial groups differently.

However, male vs female is utterly different in terms of the actual risk statistics. Perpetrators of violent crime are overwhelmingly male and sexual crime almost exclusively male. There is a predator/prey relationship between males and females. (And this is hardly unique to humans). And this isn't just an indirect correlation, it directly arises from non-human-specific sex-based behaviour.

The actual behaviour differences, and physical ability to defend oneself, differs so much between males and females, that acknowledging that and permitting male/female discrimination - IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES - is ultimately the fairer solution. Like male/female categorisation in sport, this limited sex discrimination is ultimately INCLUSIVE. It allows women to take part more fully in society. Not having that limited male/female separation would EXCLUDE the female 50% of the population from many parts of life.

The UK's Equality Act 2010 was quite carefully worded to bring all this together. Discrimination on grounds of sex, race, disability etc are all broadly outlawed. Then certain limited exceptions are granted to permit sex discrimination for the reasons above. The overarching principle is non-discrimination, but sometimes we have to discriminate for equity and inclusion, and to avoid a form of indirect discrimination where women are disadvantaged by their physical sex.

You're all female, how would you like it if you'd been born with male genitalia

If I had been born with male genitalia, then I would be male and would have benefited from the same male privilege that born males have. If I had been born male, I would use that privilege to support women, not insist that I was also one of them and aggressively insert myself uninvited into the spaces that are supposed to keep women safe.

Whatever sympathy I offer just doesn't seem like enough, Chickenyhead. It makes me very cross that people don't realise that being kind and "inclusive" to transwomen means ignoring the needs of women who have been traumatised by men. There are so many of you and so few people paying attention.

And how do you feel about the fact that biological women who belong to certain religions are not able to mix with biological men, to whom they are not related? I am talking about places where there might be some undressing / medical procedures etc.
BTW, I'm the last person to have any religious beliefs, but I can understand the immense distress caused by such actions and empathize with them. Why should a trans person's rights take precedence over their right to be observant?

On another point;when I was working, I had to have a criminal records check as I worked with vulnerable people. I didn't take offence. As others have said, I understood that one person being harmed was one too many, so everyone had to be checked to find that one person who could cause harm. If you start from that base, then you can understand why women want to keep their safe spaces.

Chickenyhead

I don't hate you @Nefelibata33, I don't know you. I do, however, hate your attitude and have zero respect for you due to the way you have behaved on this thread, and that's down to you not me.

I don't know what to say. Just because there are bad people in a group, it doesn't make everyone bad

No it doesn't make everyone in that group bad, but it is the core starting point of safeguarding as it is built on the worst case scenario as it should be. No-one, absolutely no-one, no group, absolutely no group is or should be deemed a sacred caste and given a free pass. Recent history is full of the consequences and damaged, broken humans as a result of ignoring this basic tenet of safeguarding.

Single sex spaces and services for women are there for the safety, dignity, comfort and privacy of women, the female sex class of humans. Transwomen are not women, they are of the male sex class of humans, not the female sex class of humans and therefore should be subject to exactly the same rules applied to every other member of their sex class.

We're not all bad. I'm sorry, a few isolated cases don't make a whole group of people bad.

Yes, we know. But the whole basis of safeguarding is to assume the worst of everyone until proven otherwise (and even then, there should be further ongoing checks). The vast majority of people who want to work in schools are no threat to children. But we know through horrible experience that there are some predators who will seek to work in schools and so we have checks for everyone.

We are not saying that all men or all transwomen are violent or predators but as a sex class, they are more likely to be. Self ID in particular gives a loophole to predators, however they identify, to evade safeguarding (in this case, single sex spaces) and have access to women when they are vulnerable.

Women aren't human shields. Women should not be used as part of an experiment about the value of single sex spaces. The acceptable number of women being harmed by the inclusion of males in female spaces is 0.

Transwomen, being male, are part of the blue circles, of course.

You sound like a lovely thoughtful person. Nobody is saying all trans ppl are bad though. Anymore than feminists are saying all men are bad - well 99% of feminists anyway. But comparing trans to gay rights just doesn't work in reality. Women's rights don't hurt men. Gay rights don't impinge on straight people's rights. Self ID does affect Women's and children's rights though - demonstrably. Men's rights also to a lesser extent . We can't just magic away this real conflict of interests with warm words or sloppy ill conceived legislation. None of which will help kids who are suffering body dismorphia , gender dysphoria or just confusion about their sexuality . I sincerely hope everything work out well for you in the future.

Perhaps this helpful infographic from Pommie69's thread on Feminism:Chat will help with the notion that there are bad apples in every group.

Yes, there are, but the proportions are very different.

But we recognise that males AS A CATEGORY are more likely to harm us. So we ask for boundaries so that we can keep ourselves as safe as possible.

Our fathers, husbands and sons are happy to respect those boundaries. Because they belong to the category of people who are a threat. It's only transwoman who want to trample those boundaries. Despite the fact that they too belong to the category of potential threat.

OP you asked for intelligent responses only of which you've had many and you haven't engaged with a single one of them. The closest you've come to that is say you don't have the energy (CBA) to respond, but you do feel able to continue with the non coherent, self absorbed rants.

What conclusion do you expect other posters and people reading this thread to make from that?

@NecessaryScene

Your post made me cry.

Thank you for putting it so well.

That’s an almost impenetrable word salad. I’m afraid I couldn’t finish it

Do you think my husband should be allowed into female only spaces? If not, why not?

"I mean people posting stuff about trans women raping and murdering women and children. PLEASE! When has that ever happened?"

Why have you not read the posts referencing when that has happened? Or the posts explaining the issues around self-id opening safe spaces to any man?

It is such a basic courtesy to read or listen to what people are saying when you're talking to them.

And isn't emotional intelligence on the list of 'feminine' stereotypes?

Another "why can't you just accept my viewpoint is the right and only one and stop having ideas and opinions of your own, women?" thread. Ho hum.

Can I just say to the people that suggested that I "hate women". What planet do you live on? I really want to try and work out how some of you think, because if you think that I hate women, you're just insane.

I kind of agree with this. I don't think you hate women, as such.

You just don't think they're real, unlike you.

So you're prepared to ignore them, trample over their rights, and pretty much do anything if it's what you want and they're in your way.

Maybe this is a spinoff of you seeing "woman" as some sort of role that can be played, rather than a material reality.

To actually hate them, you'd have to think they're people. I don't think you do.

I always try to put myself in someone else's shoes, when I talk to them. Put yourself in my shoes. You're all female, how would you like it if you'd been born with male genitalia? You wouldn't be very happy would you? It happens to some unlucky people. Do you think I enjoy being like this? No. I'm about as low as it gets, in modern day UK. But I'm still a human being, and I would just like to get some sort of feeling that I'm not the antichrist, or a danger to humanity, or a danger to children, or whatever. Can't anyone see that?

We're not all female. I'm not. I was born with male genitalia. I cope fine. I like women, I identify with them, most of my friends have been women, I find myself hanging out with them in places like this trying to get through to people like you. Never did get the hang of relating to men. So I think I've got at least as much of a "female soul" as you do. But I don't force myself on women, insist I'm the same as them, and try to get into female-only spaces, or say "I'm nice, so you should let any male-bodied person into your spaces on demand". That would be fucking stupid.

Due to their actual, real, physical bodies, women are at risk in a way you and I, being male, are not. Fortunately it is possible to massively mitigate that risk by letting women have a few - not many! - female-only spaces. This is easy, and effective, and massively decreases risk. The actual incidence of crime against women is lower than that against men, but ONLY because of that mitigation. I can't imagine being female and having to go into mixed-sex public spaces with no female-only spaces to retreat to. And that's the situation you're trying to create.

Sure, for any single male individual, it is possible to make them safer by letting them into an (otherwise) female space, but that reduces the safety of all the women, and does not scale. A straightforward male/female split is the only workable solution maintaining the dignity and safety of 50% of the population.

Would I want to go to a men's prison? No. I'd feel much safer in a women's prison. Who wouldn't? But that option obviously shouldn't be open to me, because if it's open to me, it's open to every other male. Logically female-only spaces are only every going to be available to females, or they stop being female-only. Sure, it sucks being part of the violent, more dangerous half of the population sometimes. BUT NOT AS MUCH AS BEING PART OF THE LESS VIOLENT, WEAKER HALF. Having the relief of a few female-only spaces hardly compensates. And now people like you want to take even that away from them.

You sicken me. You may identify "as" a women, but you certainly don't identify with them.

And quit with the hyperbole. I know women don't want me in their spaces. I don't take it personally, and I don't think they think I'm the "antichrist". Jesus. They're not singling me out, they're not singling you out, it's a broad protection measure applying to us and 3.5 billion like us. And I can't see any practical alternative.

I know you, for whatever reason, really, really, really want to be "one of them" in a way that I don't, so it clearly hurts you more to be excluded. But sorry, that's not enough. Your feelings and safety are not more important than women's. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Provisions such as third spaces make sense, but logically you cannot allow males into female-only spaces.

There are transwomen who respect women and do not insist on entering female spaces. People like Fionne Orlander or Seven Hex on Twitter - here doing the right thing. Campaigning for third spaces.

twitter.com/FionneOrlander/status/1421536332774576130
twitter.com/seven_hex/status/1419197456533831686

Be more like them. Then I'd find your "female soul" more convincing.

You don't need to die to protect women. All you need to do is respect women's boundaries.

Women only spaces & services are single sex for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety. You have no right to demand they are made mixed sex.

We know that most transwomen are no harm OP. We know.

The same as not all men mean us harm.

But biological men and transwomen are a significant risk to biological women. That has been shown throughout history.

There is no way to identify the safe transwomen from the unsafe transwomen. The same way you cannot identify the safe men from the unsafe men.

Therefore biological women need protection from both. It really isn't unreasonable.

Not one person here thinks that.

I am a feminist. There, I said it. I would die to protect a woman.

Then what will you do to help female prisoners who are locked up with rapists, because the rapists claim that they’re women too?