AIBU to think women should not be banned from Social media for asking the question - Thread 3

[Thewithesarehere]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:

“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

@RootyT00t
You said this: “No, but by saying you can't change your biological sex, people are effectively denying the existence of trans.”

This is something you wrote after spending time in this and two previous threads.

And then you feel upset that I am doubting your job competency. Of course I am!

There is ample evidence that trans women are highly vulnerable to male violence as well you know. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that 47% of transgender people are sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime: www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF

So that IS interesting reading.

Because my first thought was "only 47%? How does that stack up against sexual assault in a lifetime for females?"

So I looked at the stats (page 197)

It's broken down by birth certificate sex as well, which is helpful

What that overall 47% doesn't tell you is that trans people with a biological sex of FEMALE have higher rates of sexual assault than bio-males. The transwoman rate is 37%. Interestingly, the rate for non-binaries males is higher than transwomen (though still not has high as the female rates)

The report also notes that sexual assault rates are 1/3 higher for those in the shadow economy.

Notably, assault by a stranger is only 30% of the total.

And because this data exists then it has been examined by at least one peer reviewed study which demonstrated that trans inclusive policies do not place women at risk:

It's some data from one small group in one US state. Not "all over the globe". It didn't demonstrate anything outside Massachussetts. There is also a disincentive for women to report sexual asssult and harassment by MTF trans people, where policies favour their inclusion at the expense of women.

more charts

And the fact remains that you have no data that MTF trans people (an exceedingly heterogeneous group) are at greater risk than other males in the male toilets.

Notably, assault by a stranger is only 30% of the total.

I wonder how much higher that figure might be if we didn’t have safeguards - like single sex spaces - given many stranger assaults are attacks of opportunity. Make the opportunities easier, by opening up all spaces as mixed sex, and the number will increase (as the result of Target making their spaces mixed sex demonstrates).

As we both know, jj, the vast majority of sexual attacks go unreported. The other issue is privacy and dignity for women and girls, and freedom from sexual harassment.

Transwoman being a biologically born male who transitions, physically or emotionally, into being a female.

I think we all know that it's just not possible. A biologically born male is male. Forever.

Rooty what do you mean?
jj this is AIBU. Thanks for passing by

Shame how these important discussions always ending up talking about toilets - the original point was about girls and women undressing being faced with male sexed people in showers and changing rooms .

@Tyoesofcatalogue

There is only confusion because Stonewall and EHRC have deliberately introduced it by publicising false versions of the law.

That’s not quite true though is it? The actual legislation published by the government quoted below does more than imply that generally people should use the facilities of their acquired sex and to exclude a transsexual person based on their birth sex should be the exception, not the rule:

Gender reassignment: paragraph 28

Effect

739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.

Background

740.This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Example

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
(My bold).

I don’t think excluding trans women from female toilets is going to be seen as objectively justifiable.

that's not quite right though is it Types?

The EA 2010 and Explanatory notes makes it clear that it is the type of provision that allows discrimination, so ALL single sex spaces where women are undressed or sleeping and other types listed below. Stonewall's version that they have directly or indirectly disseminated into gullible Hospital Trust policy makers (note, single sex hospital wards are specifically mentioned) is quite plainly wrong. Stonewall lied and continue to lie.

The law is perfectly clear. There is a protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment which protects from discrimination on the basis of GR ie. employment, bullying etc. It does absolutely NOT confer the rights of the opposite sex onto the person with GR as a protected characteristic. Therefore the comparator when assessing discrimination in the case of a transwoman without a GRC (most of them) will be a man. Possession of a GRC allows slightly different treatment but even possession of a GRC doesn't trump most key single sex exemptions as listed below.

Examples
738.These exceptions would allow:

a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;

a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;

a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;

separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

@Tyoesofcatalogue

There is only confusion because Stonewall and EHRC have deliberately introduced it by publicising false versions of the law.

That’s not quite true though is it? The actual legislation published by the government quoted below does more than imply that generally people should use the facilities of their acquired sex and to exclude a transsexual person based on their birth sex should be the exception, not the rule:

Gender reassignment: paragraph 28

Effect

739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.

Background

740.This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Example

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
(My bold).

I don’t think excluding trans women from female toilets is going to be seen as objectively justifiable.

A person with a who has under gone gender reassignment is formally protected by the Equality Act. it is a protected characteristic as is sex. However a person who comes under the Stonewall trans umbrella is not ALWAYS a person with a GRC, the definition of trans which Stonewell is trying to suggest is law incorporates self ID, a cross dresser for example is trans.

So whilst employers should not discriminate against a person based upon their Gender Identity this is not specifically covered by UK legislation at the moment. The Eq A does not give an exception to the Single Sex Spaces and other single sex provisions to people who self iD to trans.

Therefore what TRAs and what Stonewall are saying is wrong. There is no right at law for people at law who does not have a GRC to use single sex spaces. The Equality Act does not intend for these provisions to be based on Gender Identity. For people to have access to these provisions there needs to be a change in the law to say that they should be based on Gender ID rather than Sex.

How many people on here have come across a trans woman with a beard in a woman's space? How many people have come across a male presenting man claiming to be a trans woman in a woman's space? Has this happened to anyone you know? Anyone in the world?

Not someone I know, no, but... there's a video on tik tok of exactly this which I saw earlier this year. Male presenting man (sounds Mancunian) standing up having a pee, door open, who turns his head round to say 'how can u say I'm not a transgender? I am a transgender' while a girl behind him pulls a WTAF type face.

cross post GardenBird you worded it better than I did, I'm on my second .

@persistentwoman

Shame how these important discussions always ending up talking about toilets - the original point was about girls and women undressing being faced with male sexed people in showers and changing rooms .

all single sex spaces where women and girls are undressed or otherwise vulnerable. It doesn't really matter what the space is, it could be the Women's Swimming Pool in Sydney, a single sex hospital ward or the Hampstead Swimming ponds.

Women have a legal right to single sex spaces. If male bodied people are allowed into that space (however they identify) it is no longer a single sex space.
Now, in the three Hampstead Swimming Ponds, males have a choice of all three. There is the men's pond (which female protestors were bundled out of by police for identifying as men), there is the mixed sex pond which anyone can use and there was a women only pond for women that for whatever reason cannot share with males, except that now the City Of London (who runs the ponds and has a prominent trans rights activist) has decided that any male who identifies as a female can also use the women's pond.

So Muslim and Jewish Orthodox women, women traumatised by men and women that just wanted a bit of time with no men around now have precisely nowhere.

@RootyT00t

Hiding this thread now. A genuine thanks to those who have helped to educate, taken time to teach me things and given me a lot to think about. Lots to think about moving forward. Lots of robust debate but I believe we found some kind of understanding. I certainly will continue to research this.

But I no longer believe OP to have good intentions here and she's crossed w line there's no coming back from.

That's shame, because the OP is by no means the only person on the thread, and certainly doesn't own it.

Your belief about her intentions should not be the only criterion by which you judge everyone here.

a shame, drat it

@Ereshkigalangcleg

And because this data exists then it has been examined by at least one peer reviewed study which demonstrated that trans inclusive policies do not place women at risk:

It's some data from one small group in one US state. Not "all over the globe". It didn't demonstrate anything outside Massachussetts. There is also a disincentive for women to report sexual asssult and harassment by MTF trans people, where policies favour their inclusion at the expense of women.

There are millions of people living in Massachusetts. It's the size of many small countires. You won't get a better data set than that.

There is also a disincentive for women to report sexual asssult and harassment by MTF trans people, where policies favour their inclusion at the expense of women.

Classic conspiracy theory tactics, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is only further proof of the conspiracy.

Three threads on this topic, well done Thewithesarehere

Some facts for a young poster who seems intent to miss the point:
A woman is an adult human female; a man is an adult human male.
Human beings cannot change sex. Surgery and different clothes are cosmetic changes that do not alter the demonstrable biologic fact that adult human females are always and only women.

Those who believe it is possible to be "born in the wrong body" - please explain how. Our bodies are determined at conception, and barring organ transplants they are the bodies we will have until we die.

There is no "right" or "wrong" body, it is the one each of us have. Those who believe they were born in the wrong body deserve medical advice and therapy about the matter as there is no physical basis for their belief.

Women's sex-based rights are not to be given away or taken by any male-bodied person no matter what that person thinks or wants.

There are millions of people living in Massachusetts. It's the size of many small countires. You won't get a better data set than that.

You would get a better dataset if you looked at other regions, states or countries as well as this one. So yes you could.

Classic conspiracy theory tactics

The well known fact that sexual assaults mostly go unreported is "conspiracy theory" now? I've heard it all.

So what do you think is meant by the phrase Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified?

Do you honestly think the law was intending to ensure that trans women don’t get thrown out of men’s toilets?

There is ample evidence that trans women are highly vulnerable to male violence as well you know. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that 47% of transgender people are sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime: www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF

There is no evidence on how often this happened in men's toilets because trans women don't use men's toilets

an old self-selected US survey reporting 47% have experienced sexual assaults is not any strong evidence. That gives no real argument as to why transwomen should not use the facilities appropriate for their sex.

Please provide some proper UK based evidence that there have been enough attacks taking place in the men's toilets on transwomen that means they feel the need to use women as a human shield.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (what evidence do you have that all transwomen use the ladies - I have heard from quite a few that don't), there is no reason for transwomen to feel that they are in any excess danger in the men's toilets.

@Tyoesofcatalogue

So what do you think is meant by the phrase Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified?

Do you honestly think the law was intending to ensure that trans women don’t get thrown out of men’s toilets?

There is no right to throw a transwoman out of a man's toilet though is there.

They share the same Sex. There is no objective justification to denying a person of the sex the facility was intended for out.

You are conflating the words Sex and Gender.