@CuriousaboutSamphire thanks for taking the time to respond. I am working my way through a thread that another poster recommended which I believe is on the women's rights section. I am finding it very interesting and certainly illuminating in a number of areas.
@Bluepolkadots42 sorry, I am going to go through that bit by bit again. It seems to be the only way to make sure we can carry on politely agreing to disagree - a real discussion is bloody rare here, thank you smile
So the 'transwomen aren't women thing' - firstly, I acknowledge that sex cannot be changed because it is genetically dictated. However when we consider 'woman' as a social construct and as a gender then this is where I accept transwomen are women and I am happy to view them as women within society. I am now reading on the thread a PP shared around how this can be problematic and you've also referenced a number of things too such as sport. So I accept that my position is by no means perfect or unflawed. I think I struggle when people insist on calling transwomen 'men' because it feels unkind, disrespectful and against their wishes- in the same way it would be to call religious people fantasists for believing in an invisible deity. However, as I've said- after reading part of the women's rights thread: break it down for me, I can now see that there are still areas of life where it is necessary to differentiate people according to their biological sex in order to ensure biological females are not disadvantaged. I think this was not an area I had been fully aware of properly- I had seen it referred to on here and in a few other places, but always loosely or seemingly hyperbolically.
Mmmm! We may be at cross purposes there. Transwomen have the same human rights as women. They have protections under the EA2010 but not the same as women as those additonal protections are sex based! But they are given additonal legal protection, te same as women, disabled people etc. Yes think we are at cross purposes- rights and privileges are not always the same thing. I still believe that as a minority, in some situations transwomen will face difficulties and encounter discrimination I would never encounter as someone who is born female.
Yep! Which makes the discrimination they encounter the same as that of many ther people, for many other reasons. But not the same as women when you break it down into who dies and how? I agree- the discrimination they face may not be or look the same, this shouldn't detract though from the point though that they are a group that faces significant discrimination and, in my mind at least, therefore are a group that are deserving of allyship.
! I remember a thread about that programme. There are figures. One transwoman was killed last year(?) in the UK, there was only 1 over a number of years. Meanwhile 2+ women a week are killed by their partners. There are also ONS stats that show transwomen are slightly more likely to be the perpetrator of violence than men! The search I did earlier said there wasn't any specific official figures, but I will have another go. What the figures do say is that transwomen are more likely to be victims of violent crime than those born female. Obviously there will be a number of different categories that fall under 'violent crime' so it isn't really useful to compare DV stats in this context I don't think. Also, the DV stats for this country are appalling, but I feel it is possible and right to acknowledge them AND also to acknowledge the fact that some stats show transwomen are more likely to be victim of violent crimes. Neither of those stats are acceptable and compel me to want to support both DV survivors and transwomen who have been victims of violent crime.
I think it would be nice if we could discuss the truth behind that statement without the TRA responses as seen here, on Twitter, in real life, doxxing, police action, at womens meetings etc. Women are trying to discuss this. To set boundaries they consider they need to feel and be safe. TRAs are overleaping and refusing any discussion, refusing and thrteaning with violence. Why? I can't comment on this really because I haven't tried to have that conversation with any TRAs. As someone who has never been either a TRA or considered themselves GC from where I'm standing it seems both sides feel the other is taking something from them- GC stance is TRs take from women's rights and from TRA's side, GC people are taking their right to exist safely and be accepted fully in society. I'm not saying my surmising of those positions is correct or accurate, but based on what I have read (which isn't extensive) this seems to be what it boils down to. Part of me feels that both these positions have a strong point- I think the issue is how to give both sides what they need. Is it possible to do that? How could that be gone about?
Really? There are so many ways. If you think about why thiose figures are collected in the first place - crime, health, any social data. Why is it collected? Yes- sorry I'm still stuck on this one. I don't really know why those figures are collected in first place outside of being a measurement for the powers that be of how what social issues in this country are the biggest problems and need most urgently addressing? I guess health data will be used to inform future services etc.?
I am not a twitter user at all yet I can do a quick Google search and find many... and many are collated on many FWR threads - as are the threats of violence! I don't deny there are vile people affiliated with the TRA groups- but as I've stated before, there is good and bad in every group and I wouldn't use it as a reason to necessarily ignore the key points/ideas TRA group make/have.
It doesn't until they demand to use the same safe spaces as women. Then rape crisis centres are no longer safe spaces for women. The presence of a male bodied person, any male bodied person will be scary for some. That's why such places exist in the first place. Fought for, funded by, staffed by and for women. What kind of person would want to make such places less effective? I can totally see and agree with this line of argument and thought- can I ask if GC people only feel like this towards transwomen who still have male genitalia? Or is this stance just generally towards any transwomen using spaces like rape crisis centres/ women's refuges?
Side by side in the very same space, the same sport, the same law? No. Because transwomen are men and there are sex segregated spaces, sports, laws, etc etc etc for good reasons. Even if transwomen do not believe those reasons are valid any more tehya re not their spaces to give away and women have the right to say no, to be heard and to speak without threats of violence Again, similarly with the toilet issue, I think the focus should be on powers that be creating 'third' spaces to avoid any existing spaces being encroached upon. Let's be honest though- it isn't in the powers that be's interests (certainly not their financial interests) to cater for a minority like the transcommunity and so instead I'm sure they're sitting back enjoying the conflict that happens between GC and TRA groups, rather than helping to provide a solution.
You type as though there has been no history of TRA aggression, as though there is no history behind this. I am most likely not aware of all instances of TRA aggression, however I expect if we looked hard enough there would be examples of aggression from both sides of this argument. I think aggression and threats are unacceptable whichever side it comes from. I am reading on the WR thread now though about concerns that misogynists are trying to hijack TRA stuff to help shutdown women's voices etc. and that, of course, is a serious concern.