Transwoman in shared accommodation, take 2

we just can’t get over the case of the lesbian couple and their son killed by a prominent TRA

Worth repeating this. The TRA who was central in getting MichFest cancelled.

It isn't really a separate subject, well of course it can be, but this information is integral to this thread too.

The OP is writing from a position of concern regarding safety of women at these events, and the implication is that the presence of transwomen there will make lesbians and bisexual women more unsafe.

I don't think there is good cause to consider them at any more risk from transwomen attending than from other women who might be present / former partners.

If safety is not the issue, what are we looking at then?

People are asking about why trans lesbians would attend in the first place. The trans lesbians that I know are looking for friendships, to be part of a community, for support networks - just like everyone else of course, but they generally find these much harder to access than many other people.

They have been pushed away by family, former friends, colleagues. They are often shunned and isolated. If they are from less populated areas this is compounded further. There seems to be an attitude from people at times that 'Why don't they have their own support networks with just themselves, why don't trans lesbians exclusively look to date trans lesbians? Why should we care anyway?'

Well imagine if you were told that, out of a few hundred thousand people you were only allowed to consider 20 other people as potential friends or dating partners. 8 of them you don't particularly like, 4 of them don't really like you, 4 are in relationships and don't have the time to socialise, 2 have mental health difficulties including social anxiety and aren't keen to meet up...well what are you left with, maybe 1 or 2 people to try to forge some some of support network with?

There are trans lesbians in relationships with other lesbians. I know some, it does happen. So a militant 'no trans lesbians allowed' policy in social settings would have prevented those lesbians from meeting their partners and those good relationships that exist.

When you set a policy like that you are making decisions beyond yourself. You are saying 'Not only do I not want to be in a social setting with trans lesbians, but no other lesbians should want to have them present either.'

When self ID is allowed you give scope for individual decisions and judgements to be made. There will be plenty of lesbians that perhaps don't want to develop friendships or relationships with trans lesbians. In which case, they simply don't So they speak to other people, they go out with other people. Believe me, trans lesbians are not interested in developing friendships or relationships with people that want to shun them!

But there will be other lesbians present in these social settings who might be interested and that self ID allows those friendships and potential relationships to develop. And that's a win for those lesbians and those trans lesbians. I have told a trans lesbian who asked me for a date that I wasn't interested in her that way - that was no problem and she's now a friend I see most weeks in a larger social setting.

Will be an interesting case if someone turns up, leaves in disgust and then sues for breach of contract. The organiser would probably settle sharpish.

Same here re women only/ wouldn't go as not for me.

I thought the DV stats, so often used by MRAs, misrepresented that the high % of lesbians being victims were from previous male partners, and whilst women do still abuse, it’s nothing like on the same scale as men.

I'm a woman, but straight. I really enjoy woman-only events (looking forward to FiLIA, yay!) but would not attend a lesbian and bi-woman event, because - I'm not lesbian or bi-sexual.

It's simple, isn't it?

Me too, it really is that simple.

Its a shame but in my experince it does seem true that it is a certain type of person who inserts themself into spaces that aren't really for them.

[quote suggestionsplease1]@EmbarrassingAdmissions OK. More obfuscation.

Let's take my statement and work through it.

"This evidence that I have referred to indicates that, at a population level, lesbians are at a higher risk of DVA from each other than straight women are from straight men"

This evidence that I have referred to (which, bear in mind, I was asked to provide by a poster on this thread):

"Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. When episodes of severe violence were considered, prevalence was similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbian women: 29.4%; homosexual men: 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013)"

So, in this evidence that I have referred to, a lifetime prevalence of experience of IPV for lesbian women at 43.8%, compared to 35% of heterosexual women. For episodes of severe violence, 29.4% for lesbian women, vs 23.6% for heterosexual women.

43.8% is higher than 35%, and 29.4% is higher than 23.6%. This is the evidence that I have referred to. This particular evidence indicates lesbians are at a higher risk of IPV compared to heterosexual women.

A definition from: .rcpsych.ac.uk

Although definitions vary,
in England and Wales
DVA is defined as any incident or pattern of
controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour,
violence, or abuse between current or former intimate
partners or family members aged 16 or above.9 Much
DVA comprises intimate partner violence (IPV),
perpetrated by partners and ex-partners. DVA
includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial,
and other abuse.

My statement is correct. I used the specific language I did in that statement intentionally. If you want to try to pull my statement apart go right ahead.

I'm quite aware how people attempt to discredit studies because they don't say what they want to hear. I'm sure there are people out there doing the same with male domestic violence studies to try to underplay the extent of this too.[/quote]
This is really fascinating @suggestionsplease1. Definitely worthy of its own thread and its a shame that it is being lumped in with this subject which is completely separate.

Why don't yu start a new separate thread to discuss it, I'm sure it will be a very interesting conversation

Interestingly, there was a thread recently about an event aimed at gay men (in the US if I recall correctly), who made a statement on twitter unequivocally stating that transmen were not allowed because it was for biological same sex attracted men only. Good on them!

And you know what kind of pushback and abuse they got? Pretty much none. And yet lesbians would be absolutely hounded for doing the same thing. Because women always always have to pander to men.

I'm sorry OP, this kind of thing is so infuriating.
Why the hell can't women have anything for ourselves anymore?

As one poster is determined to show on this thread, it's always 'won't somebody think of the menz'. So tiring.

It really takes a special kind of asshole to turn up to an event that is not aimed at them at all, and demand to be allowed access, even though they know that their presence makes everyone else uncomfortable.

What kind of person does that? A deluded narcissist.

The trouble is , we just can’t get over the case of the lesbian couple and their son killed by a prominent TRA...

Is the organiser going to ask the women who sign up to confirm that they self identity as women? And if not, refuse their booking?

@EmbarrassingAdmissions OK. More obfuscation.

Let's take my statement and work through it.

"This evidence that I have referred to indicates that, at a population level, lesbians are at a higher risk of DVA from each other than straight women are from straight men"

This evidence that I have referred to (which, bear in mind, I was asked to provide by a poster on this thread):

"Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. When episodes of severe violence were considered, prevalence was similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbian women: 29.4%; homosexual men: 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013)"

So, in this evidence that I have referred to, a lifetime prevalence of experience of IPV for lesbian women at 43.8%, compared to 35% of heterosexual women. For episodes of severe violence, 29.4% for lesbian women, vs 23.6% for heterosexual women.

43.8% is higher than 35%, and 29.4% is higher than 23.6%. This is the evidence that I have referred to. This particular evidence indicates lesbians are at a higher risk of IPV compared to heterosexual women.

A definition from: .rcpsych.ac.uk

Although definitions vary,
in England and Wales
DVA is defined as any incident or pattern of
controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour,
violence, or abuse between current or former intimate
partners or family members aged 16 or above.9 Much
DVA comprises intimate partner violence (IPV),
perpetrated by partners and ex-partners. DVA
includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial,
and other abuse.

My statement is correct. I used the specific language I did in that statement intentionally. If you want to try to pull my statement apart go right ahead.

I'm quite aware how people attempt to discredit studies because they don't say what they want to hear. I'm sure there are people out there doing the same with male domestic violence studies to try to underplay the extent of this too.

Can you walk me through where my statement is incorrect please.

When somebody makes an assertion and then produces evidence to support it that does not match that which has been requested, there is no presumed duty of others to offer analysis beyond that which has already been presented.

There is commentary on this thread from people experienced in the design, analysis, and interpretation of trials, studies, and statistics.

Readers might decide for themselves which studies or surveys they find relevant or persuasive and how well grounded any interpretation is.

Shedbuilder - it's very public spirited of you to wish to help the organiser and your friend. If you choose to offer them further advice I would hope that it is received in the spirit in which you attend it.

suggestionsplease. So no recent research then? Are we to take it that what you are actually talking about is the “ drama” you have encountered on these holidays? A bit different to the intimidating creepy behaviour we experience from men who we don’t want to be present..

Can you start a thread about your concerns re violence and lesbians and stop derailing this one please?

You know DVA stands for domestic violence and abuse, right? I can imagine if you had a misunderstanding of what that referred to you might think my statement was incorrect.

There’s a question I’ve begun to ask more frequently in various places. What decent man would insist he must have access to women’s spaces as it became more and more clear that his presence would cause distress to some of the women who had previously used that space?

I'm a woman, but straight. I really enjoy woman-only events (looking forward to FiLIA, yay!) but would not attend a lesbian and bi-woman event, because - I'm not lesbian or bi-sexual.

It's simple, isn't it?

@Antinerak
I don't get the issue? It's an all women event and you're worried about women being there? I'm just glad men aren't invited to share the space with women

I can’t make up my mind if you are being deliberately obtuse, or goady

Woman are not born with penises. Not all woman want to share a room with someone who has a penis

Personally I don’t have an issue with a TW who has been through full surgery, nor to I have an issue with them in most daily interaction I may have with them. I do with someone who still has a penis and wishes to invade women only spaces. There are to many occasions when woman have been assaulted

I have, many times.

They are often attended by women well known to each other, often different friendship groups, often couples, often exes of each other as well (there aren't that many of us unfortunately, and there aren't that many events for us either).... as well as others that are less well known.

They are also commonly viewed by people attending as an opportunity to get to know other potential romantic partners. They're aimed at lesbian and bisexual women, after all, not simply women overall.

So your understanding is flawed. These are not generally all complete strangers. There are existing relationships, there are often exes with history and there is often hope to start new relationships - with some people attending proving very popular/ desirable to several others, with all the drama that can bring, lol.

I want to see those who care so much about inclusion show equal championing of female only resources and events and all needs being met as opposed to a situation that can feel like a demand that women's events and resources always centre people born male and no care at all for what that does to female people. Either it really is about 'all women' and 'inclusion' which is the reason given for including male people, or it's just about male people dominating and taking away resources from female people

This!

The issue comes when the events are advertised as women only but are actually mixed sex. So long as they are clearly advertised as mixed sex people can make informed choices about what suits them.

The zeroing in on women's events to 'ensure they are inclusive' is definitely a thing - however when every women's event is inclusive of male people, then every women's event is excluding and discriminating against the female people who cannot attend mixed sex events.

I want to see those who care so much about inclusion show equal championing of female only resources and events and all needs being met as opposed to a situation that can feel like a demand that women's events and resources always centre people born male and no care at all for what that does to female people.

Either it really is about 'all women' and 'inclusion' which is the reason given for including male people, or it's just about male people dominating and taking away resources from female people.