Is it even possible to debate the trans-narrative outside MN?

@speenmum You more or less started off your posts accusing us of hating transpeople. Untrue - unless your definition of "hate" includes not thinking you are the sex you claim to be. People generally wont even say it to a trans person unless there is good reason to do so. However there is a lot of hate, including threats of rape and violence, from trans activists.

First a definition just for this post as some people get confused -transwoman means born male, transman born female. There is some research showing that trans people retain the offending pattern of their sex. So transwomen have an offending pattern similar to other men and transmen have an offending pattern similar to other women. Since males are more likely to offend than women that means transwomen are more likely to offend than transmen. A disproportionate number of imprisoned sex offenders are transwomen. I've not seen anyone but you talk about this meaning transpeople generally are a problem, on the contrary most people know about the Scottish study showing some "transwomen" prisoners promptly "detransition" when leaving prison. But trans activists have - and some still do -insist that anyone who says they are trans must be believed.

I have a trans relative, they have a trans partner. It is a same sex relationship. Both have permanently damaged health. Confused children too young to have sex or marry fell into the clutches of pressure groups and the Tavistock and were persuaded there was something wrong with their healthy bodies. You may believe it is "being kind" to support transition but it is nothing of the sort - it turns healthy young people into lifelong medical patients whose physical health will only continue to deteriorate. There is no evidence that it will permanently improve their mental health although in the short term being part of a supportive group may be helpful..

It’s an argument akin to the one about dog breeds. The dog attacks in the papers (the ones that kill people) are mainly the same few breeds. Some breeds like Jack Russells have tendency to be a bit nippy and some like golden retrievers are soft as butter.
Many dogs would literally never bite a human. In the same way most of us couldn’t kill anyone.

The arguments over “some” and “all” and breed/biology over training/ environment and similar to men/women, gender/ stereotypes and sex/biological.
We get the same division between “all dogs should be on leads” and “there’s no bad dogs only bad owners”. People get very upset by it.

What we’ve got is that some qdog breeds are banned because we know that whilst a few might be lovely, when they turn, their size and strength will kill you.
Everyone is required to keep their dog under control at all times regardless of breed.

So we acknowledge the biology of dogs, accept that environment plays a part in temperament and still have safe spaces like children's parks that no dogs are allowed in.

speen

While you are here, because you feel that the examples are rare and that female people are a risk too, could you please tell us on the thread how many additional girls and women you feel is acceptable collateral to be harmed by allowing a male person with a trans identity into any female single sex space?

Is it 1? Because well, we have past that number long ago.
Is it 2? same as above.
10?
50?
100?
1000?

We had a poster the other day on FWR tell us that they felt that an established trend of around 100 girls and women per year are acceptable to be sexually abused until we should be able to discuss these issues and campaign to ban all males in single sex space?

Do you agree?

That would be at least 500+ girls and women that should consider themselves acceptable in that poster's eyes to be harmed before they felt we could act.

What do you think? do you agree?

“Because if a trans person is a predator, the issue is that they are a predator and not that they are trans.”

Your argument about ‘female people do it too’ is ignoring the overwhelming statistics and it is again dismissing reality while you wish to prioritise male people’s wants over safety of female people. This is the type of argument people use to placate themselves about their decision to expose women and children to additional risk of harm. It is a falsity. Is that what underlies your decisions here?

Yes! Absolutely we should address same sex violence! No arguments from me and I doubt any poster on this thread. We should be doing that now while continuing to safeguard against male people in female spaces though.

I can only assume that you cannot either produce any evidence that male people in any stage of transition have a reduced level of committing sexual offences than any other male OR perhaps you don’t understand the significance for me asking the question.

The significance is why do you wish to include the same % of male people who ARE likely to commit sexual offences in the female single sex spaces as safeguarding processes are designed to keep out? Ie. Why are you determined to include some male people into female only spaces knowing that all other male people have been excluded for exactly that same reason?

Do you understand the dissonance in your statements? On one hand you say ‘yes, I understand why all male people are excluded’ but then you twist and say but these particular male people, who have at least the same % of risk, should be allowed to use the spaces anyway’. So you knowingly allow them in.

Male people have huge physical advantages that have be proven to not be diminished with reduction or removal of testosterone. These are advantages that the very few female predators do not have. Therefore other female people are considered an acceptable risk because no area can be risk free unfortunately.

I also point out that female predators most likely have very different ways that they predate. So not only is it consistently shown that about 2% of sexual offences are perpetrated by female people across different countries, they are different in motive and how they access their victims.

Also, most traumatised girls and women will not be distressed by seeing another female in a place they expect to be only female people.

They will be distressed at male people’s presence. And it would be foolish to believe that women and girls with heightened senses due to male abuse are not likely to pick up male cues that a person is male. That women and girls can’t tell is another false trope that people repeat.

It is a trope often fed by female socialisation to not react adversely to a male in the female single sex space. And to never let those male people they know that they are uncomfortable with sharing single sex spaces with them amongst other defensive actions.

To repeat the point, the attempt to reframe the discussion to ‘all predators including female predators’ is meaningless. Amongst other things, It ignores the massive difference in prevalence and nature of predating, the male cue issue and glaringly, the physical differences- including grip strength, punch power, leverage, bone density, height and average muscle mass.

That you, personally, have chosen to ignore those aspects is your own choice and that is fine.

However, doing so you also then need to accept that you choose to create a special group of male people. A group you willingly exempt from safeguarding protocols. This has historically been shown to be very harmful to women and children. You are, in effect, using a form of positive discrimination for male people in doing so while then negatively discriminating against female people.

You can keep following your choice. But please don’t try to shame people, largely women, who disagree with you and seek to restate stronger safeguards for women and children by having single sex spaces that remain single sex.

You said "cis" women, not "women". Please can you be clear in what you are saying, as you constantly change language.

A "cis" woman is a female person who has a feminine gender identity. Being a predator would mean the 'cis' bit is doubtful.

I now assume you mean female people when you say "women". Do you? You haven't said, despite being asked. Can you at last clarify that, otherwise it's utterly meaningless to use the word "woman" when you could mean anything.

@speenmum so you're saying women get attacked already, so let's open the floodgates and let any male identify as a woman enter women's toilets?

Thanks for continuing to answer. However you have not answered at all about why you believe that girls and women who might be traumatised by any male in their spaces and need privacy and their dignity should be ignored by you and others who state that some males should use female single sex spaces. A minority of women who want to share space with these male people should not get to make this decision. Yet, they have.

So can you please explain why you feel that you prioritise male people above female people in this way? Do you understand that doing so dismisses their needs?

And can you tell us what you believe that those girls and women who are now beginning to self exclude from using female single sex spaces should do because other women have dismissed their needs to prioritise male people?

Please also address women and girls who have religious needs which is also an additional protected characteristic. Do you understand the impact of your dismissal of their needs on their lives and why do you dismiss their needs?

In real life I don't find anyone cares - in that nobody I know believes trans women are actually women or that they should be allowed in sports etc but does agree that we should be kind, respectful etc. I've definitely found it's just not a debate or taking up much brain space. The only real life friend who's had to put any headspace into it works for a housing association who have recently had a massive inclusivity push and she seems to find the whole pronouns on emails, gender neutral bathrooms, bring your whole self to work etc just a bit baffling and a distraction from her actual job. As a parent she hasn't found bring your whole self to work actually involves making accommodations for parents though!

@HagoftheNorth
I completely agree. We should be able to ask questions and express concerns without the fear of being accused of transphobia. As is so often the case in life though, when the extreme wing of the 'other side' is behaving so unreasonably, we need to model the kind of debate we want to be part of, not sink to the crappy level they attack us with.

Of course women can be predators.
What exactly are you meaning here?

Why are they so less likely to be?

@Farmageddon
I didn't say 'this board' was like the daily mail, I said much of the discussion was like the DM, how lazy of you to misquote me. And again, you add a straw man to the end of your criticism with the 'pesky little women' jibe. That's utterly unconnected to my point, just you shoehorning another one of your favourites in, eh?
And, what's that? You didn't even see the discussion to which I referred and yet you felt qualified to lambast me about it? How very lazy of you.

Please explain how a woman cannot be a predator.

They can. I can name the two or three in prison who meet that description, because they are notorious. It's vastly less likely than a man will be, whatever his "gender" identity.

The number of male vs female sexual predators are nowhere close. There are more transwomen - a small population - in prison than there are female sexual predators.

This is why, for example, there was recently something of a campaign to make sure refugee camps has sex segregated toilets - many women were being assaulted when going to the shared toilets, and this was identified as a safety issue.

It's a major part of why prisons are sex segregated.

Men of course can assault other men, and it does happen. It's less of a risk though because the majority of men are heterosexual, and also men are likely to be closer in terms of physical strength.

Being a "predator" is not feminine behaviour
Of course women can be predators.
What exactly are you meaning here?
Unless you mean it's not a group behaviour like you perceive men to be so therefore can't possibly be feminine or something women do?
What is feminine behaviour anyway?
Wearing your pinny, cooking up apple pie and smiling when husband says "honey, I'm home?"

Please explain how a woman cannot be a predator. Women assault and harass people all the time

This whole board was created on the insistence of those who couldn't apparently stand to see feminist arguments about sex/gender. It was hived off from 'Feminist Chat' (link at the top) to keep it away from those who didn't want to read about it.

And now we get people coming on and complaining it's an echo chamber. The logic is baffling.

You mean, people disagree with you? That's really the opposite of an echo chamber.

Agree

A trans woman might harass a man in a men's space

That's up to men to find a solution for though. Shifting them into the women's spaces isn't the solution.

Being a "predator" is not feminine behaviour so by definition they cannot be a "cis" woman.

Again. The actions of anyone, trans or otherwise, do not mean that the definition of woman should be anything other than "female". If you disagree, explain why.

Many cis women are predators too

There's no such thing as a "cis woman" unless you mean those women who self identify as "cis" for whatever reason.

I'd love to see your statistics of predatory biological females

“Many cis women are predators too?” Leaving aside the use of the insult cis, what % of women are “predators” compared to men?

@Helleofabore I mean trans people in general. Because if a trans person is a predator, the issue is that they are a predator and not that they are trans. I'm definitely not saying all trans people are good
I would be happy to share women's spaces with respectful trans women but there is always a risk. Many cis women are predators too and there is danger whatever space you enter. A trans woman might harass a man in a men's space so there is never an easy solution but as i said the problem is not their gender, but the behaviour itself. Even if we did exclude all biologically male people from women's spaces regardless of gender identity, assault would still occur so we really need to tackle the entire issue of this behaviour and not make generalisations across a whole group of people, most of whom are innocent

I suggest that you rethink your belief that people on this board don’t regularly interact with trans people and don’t have them in our daily lives. That is a common statement that we get all too often.

You are also continuing to make statements such as ‘they aren’t the problem’. Who? Trans people? Or just your friends?

As we have said repeatedly already, policies and laws are not based around your friends that you assure us are lovely, they are based around the people you admit exist that are the minority who will harm women and children. And discussing the issues, including those who are those who harm others, is needed and is not hateful or phobic or deserving of derision.

However, do you also acknowledge that girls and women are fully entitled to privacy and dignity in their own single sex spaces? No male people. Not even the nice ones that you choose to vouch for. Otherwise many of us can vouch for many just as nice male people to come in.

“trans women are women so can go in women's spaces”

This is your statement.

Safeguarding and needs arising from many valid reasons really comes down to the fact that if even one woman or girl says no, that they are traumatised or distressed by a male coming into a single sex space, they are the ones that deserve priority. Those male people need to find alternative solutions.

Many female people who take testosterone and change their facial cues and voice to be more in line with male people understand this. Some post on this board and they tell us the respect the potential distress that they may cause and they find alternative solutions. They even have developed apps to help with that they are that conscious of the need.

So why are people who profess to care about women and girls prepared to subject women and girls to potential harm and/or distress to prioritise male people? Why are the needs of female people dismissed so male people “can go in women's spaces”?

And if female trans people understand and work to find a solution to respect the needs of other female people, why don’t male trans people also respect the needs of female people?