To wonder if there's any actual evidence that's trans women are not safe in male loos?

[Evedence]

I feel, as a FWR lurker, that I would have seen linked articles to bank up the fact that trans identifying men aren't safe in men's loos, and therefore that's the rational why women should budge up and accept trans identifying men in their spaces.

I'm pretty sure with a quick Google I could fund evident that trans identity men have made women's spaces unsafe (Kate delowski? The one who worked for a charity and made a masturbation video).

So AIBU to wonder what hard evidence there is?

Nope.

The law disagrees with you on this. Trans women are men.

You put the wishes of men like Sarah Jane Baker over the safety of women.

We are not human shields.

Enough harm has been done to women. We deserve better.

Men can sort their own safety out now.

There are trans identified male who are not delusional who do know they are men and who use men's bathrooms and facilities dressed in what would be considered women's clothing. One of them posts often on twitter and he's never had any issues as far as I know.

These men know they aren't at risk but for these men what is at stake in that the illusion of their female identity will be shattered by having to use male facilities. They need for everyone else to go along with the fantasy or be compelled to go along with the fantasy in order to feel validated and to gain satisfaction from their paraphilia. If they must use the male facilities then the whole acting out of their fetish becomes redundant and their female identity is destroyed. So to them it is like a kind of death. However, hard cheese, women should not and will not give up their hard one rights so that a bunch of deluded men with an out of control sexual fetish can use both women's spaces and the women in them to satisfy themselves.

That’s not women’s problem. If some men are afraid of using men’s spaces, that’s up to men to sort out. Maybe tell men to #bekind.

Are there any statistics for how many men are assaulted by other men specially in lavatories?

Statistically, this means very few offences overall are committed by trans people, and where they are, it’s still overwhelmingly by those assigned male at birth (i.e. trans women), not as a unique category of risk.

The ones 'assigned male at birth' (sic) are the ones you want to be able to choose to use women's spaces! Transwomen offend at at least the same level as other men, as PP posted the evidence of upthread. 70% of the transwomen in prison in the UK are sex offenders. They are men and offend like men because they're men.

There is no evidence that trans women, as a group, pose a heightened threat to women:

Please see stats posted upthread. They offend like men because they're men.

Where risk exists (e.g. in custodial settings), it is based on individual risk profiles, not group identity.

The group they belong to is men. That's not an 'identity' it's a fact. They are at least as much a risk to women as other men are. Because they're men.

What's the difference between a transwoman and a man? Not in the transwoman's own head, but in the world, which you seem to like calling messy? There is no difference for anyone other than the transwoman. The fact that you are willing to prioritise the transwoman who has no right to be in a female space, over the women who do, shows you up.

Does that mean that depending on my financial circumstances I can make my own call as to whether to commit fraud or not?

Readers note:

UK hate crimes record misgendering as abuse. As well as being exposed to stickers that are offensive, if I remember correctly.

Be very wary of self reported hate incident statistics. Always check where the information is sourced.

And this:

There is no evidence that trans women, as a group, pose a heightened threat to women:

• No peer-reviewed UK studies have shown trans women to be a significant source of risk to cisgender women in public or private settings.

• Where risk exists (e.g. in custodial settings), it is based on individual risk profiles, not group identity.

is a poor faith statement.

There is prisoner statistics that show that male people with transgender identities continue to have at least the same risk of committing sex and violent crimes as all other male people in the UK, regardless of transition status.

Strong safeguarding principles are based on GROUP not on INDIVIDUAL for the purpose of creating policy. If the policy is for INDIVIDUAL cases to be assessed on risk of that individual, then that is done.

Access to FEMALE SINGLE SEX SPACES RISK ASSESSMENT is based on CATEGORY RISK ASSESSMENT. Not on individual basis.

Just as all male people are assessed to have high risk of harming female people in a female single sex space, this includes even nice male people who are friends and family AND it includes all male people with transgender identities (who could also be those friends and family).

Statistically, this means very few offences overall are committed by trans people, and where they are, it’s still overwhelmingly by those assigned male at birth (i.e. trans women), not as a unique category of risk.

Yes, indeed. It's still overwhelmingly the trans people who are male at birth (and also male every day of their lives up to their death and even after their death, because humans can't change sex) who commit these offences.

Because trans women are male and retain a male offending pattern which is why there is no coherent argument for treating them as a special category of male people who pose no risk to women.

Because they are just like all other males and pose the same risk - or possibly even an increased risk - to women as all other males do.

You're this close to joining the dots.

In short, transwomen are more at risk from men than women, and despite the law should in my opinion make their own call which loo to use based on that risk. The chance of encountering a trans person in a bathroom is infinitesimally small, the chance of them doing anything violent even smaller.

Yes, we know trans women are more at risk from men than from women.

Everyone is more at risk from men than from women.

This is why we keep women a little bit safer from men by giving them spaces which have no men in them.

We can't protect men in the same way by segregating some men from other men so men need to come up with a different solution to making some men safer from other men.

Removing women's protection is not the answer.

I am getting confused now
So WHICH Transwomen are we supposed to allow into women only spaces now?
Ones that "pass" (so none then)
Ones that are harmless (how do we know?)
Ones that have had their penis removed (I really don't want to have to check that)
Ones that have never threatened women on SM?
Ones who aren't doing it just for sexual kicks?
Ones who are in their 70's?

If a TW is a woman just because they say so then any man can be one, and in fact in order to be a TW one first has to be a man.
So who exactly are we supposed to let in now? Men?

None of them.

We let none of them in.

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574509827022848

Well I feel so much safer sharing my toilet with this person around

I don't think there's any confusion from @HangryLikeTheHulk

You're supposed to let them all in. If this makes you less safe, who cares? You're just collateral damage a woman. And if you don't do this willingly, you're a hateful bigot.

Good to get that cleared up.

Looks like I am a hateful bigot by that definition then, oh well.

Oh I'm with you 😉

Statistically, this means very few offences overall are committed by trans people, and where they are, it’s still overwhelmingly by those assigned male at birth (i.e. trans women), not as a unique category of risk.

Blimey. I just read this.

Has anyone said that female people with transgender identities are committing crime at any rate other than at the same rate of all female people generally?

Which more or less sums the situation up. In many, many cases, how do you tell? And what must it be like for masculine looking women to be constantly challenged when they are using the facilities they're perfectly entitled to use?

The offices in which I (occasionally - we mostly WFH) work have shared, but perfectly private facilities. Each cubicle had a ceiling to floor door and its own basin, but not many companies, public services etc can afford that.

I'm afraid it's the genital inspectors or nothing.

OR men can just stay out of women only spaces and then it could safely be assumed that anyone in them IS a woman.
And if they dont - we can certainly tell

Cant people just do the decent thing and obey the law? Every one knows what sex they are.

"In short, transwomen are more at risk from men than women, and despite the law should in my opinion make their own call which loo to use based on that risk. The chance of encountering a trans person in a bathroom is infinitesimally small, the chance of them doing anything violent even smaller."

READER'S NOTE:

As has been repeated on this thread many times already, female single sex spaces are needed not just for safety, but also for PRIVACY AWAY FROM ALL MALE PEOPLE over the age of a child needing care.

For SOME female people, the chance of encountering a male person with a transgender identity is 'infinitesimally small' . For SOME people female people, the change is 100% every day.

The only fair way to deal with such a situation is to fully exclude all male people over a certain age from female single sex spaces. That way, female people know that any male person entering the space is doing so with intention to harm female people.

TO BE CLEAR, the 'harm' may not be an attack. The 'harm' may simply be to intimidate female people or to knowingly make a decision that is known will likely cause distress to female people who understand that their expectations of a female single sex space has been negated by a male person entering it - making it a mixed sex space. This 'mixed sex space' effect was specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court judgement.

NO attack is needed for a male person's presence in a single sex space to cause a female person harm.

I think that will be mostly fixed by reestablishing the norm that facilities are single-sex. It’s pretty rare that a transman looks male, because of height and build mainly, so I suspect this will be a problem more in theory than in practice.

Genital inspections aren’t going to happen, as no one on any side is proposing them or would accept them. I’m always puzzled what that point is meant to add to the argument. (Interestingly, AI iris scans are already 70-90% accurate for sex, so even as a rhetorical point that might be moot soon).

Recent article (link below) in the Scottish Sun featuring the mother of one of the girls "Katie" Dolatowski, (6'5" male who selfIDed as a woman) assaulted in Morrisons supermarket female toilets. Then secretly filmed a 12 year old at an female toilets at ASDA.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14674350/trans-paedo-supermarket-toilet-ruling/

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/katie-dolatowski-trans-paedophile-praised-nicola-sturgeon/

In this artlcle, it mentions him being sent to female prison Cornton Vale, same as "Isla" Bryson another male masquerading a a woman was due to be sent .

And yet ... prior to male people feeling that they should have access to female single sex spaces, no 'genital inspections' were needed. And now still, no 'genital inspections' are needed.

What IS needed, is male people with any philosophical belief to respect that female single sex spaces do not include them and for them to respect that and to stay out.

Do you really really believe that genital inspections will be instituted for toilet use or are you being ridiculously hyperbolic?

So before all this gender hooha, how did masculine looking women cope? Either they were perfectly fine beforehand , and any confusion is caused by the fact that some men felt entitled to enter women’s spaces and do no one was sure if they were women or not, or there was a lot of confusion before this gender hooha but no one ever knew about it?