Trans vs other protected characteristics

[Rudest75]

As somebody who has always been an advocate of both women's rights and LGBT rights I'm struggling to get my head around the recent trans debate. It seems to be an issue where you can't really support both sides, yet it's so less clear to me than is the case between most opposing ideologies like conservative vs liberal, nationalist vs multiculturalist, etc.

A common question around the bathroom debate seems to be "what rights exactly are trans people being denied?" When I try and apply this question to other protected characteristics I'm even more confused!

If we take the statement "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men" how does this differ from the following examples?

"Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Christian spaces because of a small minority of terrorists/suicide bombers."

"Immigrants shouldn't be allowed in native spaces due to a small minority of rapists."

"Black people shouldn't be allowed in white spaces due to a small minority of gang members/Bloods/Crips."

I can't get my head around it!

Black people shouldn't be allowed in white spaces due to a small minority of gang members/Bloods/Crips."

Thing is, women are not advantaged as a group, in the same way that white people are in relation to people of colour.

Women’s protections under Equality legislation are because as a class or category we do not have the advantages of men. As a class or category we have, historically and still in the present, suffered substantial systemic and structural disadvantage.

So the analogies you give aren’t really accurate.

Someone draws your attention to the entirely factually correct statement that 98% of incarcerated sex offenders are male, and your response is to witter on about the misandry within feminism?

Seriously?

Now I know you're just a goady fucker and not in good faith. Bowing out of this thread now on the grounds that you are just trolling us. (But before I go I'd like to thank @TallulaFulla for engaging in civil debate on behalf of the "other side").

I do agree that the bar for declaring yourself the legal entity of woman should be a bit higher than ' because I say so', and that would remove a bit of the debate for many people.

Goady thread. The OP has no interest in understanding anything.

Black people commit homicide more frequently according to stats but nobody is advocating a return to apartheid.

Black people suffer from racism. They are an oppressed group on that basis.

You are getting this back to front.

Women are an oppressed group, backed up with statistics, evidence, studies and real-life examples.

Your race analogy would only work if white people trying to self define into black culture, claiming they were black and that black people were doing their culture all wrong.

Group with all the power (men) are trying to appropriate the group with all the disadvantage (women).

It's perfectly obvious!

Transmen are bloody nowhere. They are identifying as those with all the power, and failing utterly to gain any of that power.

Transmen are famous for giving birth and being raped.

I'm amazed people can't see this.

Goady thread. The OP has no interest in understanding anything.

True.

Good job I'm not really talking to her.

OP is here to be inflammatory.

Anyone that uses the word misandry = MRA.

Anyone that compares sex segregation to Apartheid is so intellectually challenged, they shouldn't be out alone.

Black people don’t commit more homicide, black MEN do (though I’m not 100% sure that’s true about black men being more violent than white men especially in the uk).
If you cannot see that women are vulnerable to Male violence then how can you on any level call yourself a feminist?
Was the #metoo campaign misandry too?

Rudest75

You are framing the problem entirely as one of managing potential risk, and comparing that to apartheid.
It has been explained to you why sexual segregation is not the same as apartheid; it is not entirely based on risk management. But oyu can conveniently ignore that.

Men are not oppressed because they cannot enter womens spaces.
they are not treated as second class citizens.

If men are not violent then there is no risk to trans women who use their spaces.

Black people commit homicide more frequently

Black men do. Well, they get caught/accused/found guilty. Nothing is going to make a cop drop the doughnuts and race to the office quicker than the opportunity to nail a black man. Whether they did it or not. [NACALT].

I'm confused too about this debate OP. On this point though your sentences would also be similar to saying:

"Men shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men."

Which is surely why we have women only spaces such as domestic violence refuges etc in the first place? If this is being challenged, so is a lot of the progress feminism has made.

I don't for a second d believe that TW are literally women, but I believe that living as a woman is integral to their identity and that having a 'trans' bathroom is about as appealing to them as wearing a Trump t-shirt is to the average liberal.

Maybe I'm just too empathetic as an individual, but I think I'd be content to make what is likely in reality to be a small concession if it spared an entire group from abject misery. I mean, how often are we likely to encounter trans people in the real world and what proportion of them are really predators as opposed to young, confused teenagers.

I think part of the issue (as I find with much feminism) is that it's a theoretical battle more than anything else.

If men are not violent then there is no risk to trans women who use their spaces.

This is the classic, never-ending goalpost moving.

First it was because TIMs were at risk in male toilets. Then it was pointed out that if male violence is a problem, giving TIMs access to female toilets is not the solution.

So the goalposts moved. TIMs are not a threat.

It was pointed out that they retain male pattern violence, in fact they are more likely to commit sexual offences than non trans.

So the goalposts moved again.

Now it's not due to violence in male toilets, it's due to validation of their womanhood.

So women are being asked to validate something they know isn't true, they don't believe, that is a lie, which will compromise their own privacy, safety, comfort and boundaries.

And if they don't agree they are bigots and threatened with rape.

But you go right ahead, OP, and dismiss that as misandry!

Women! Your safety, dignity and preferences should be swept aside to validate the gender identity of TIMs.

No.

‘I don't for a second d believe that TW are literally women, ’

Whhhhaaaaa???

But you’re happy for the definition of woman to change to include men? So we can’t say pregnant woman anymore as it’s transphobic, or give rape victims the guarantee that they’ll examined by a natal woman.
All to save some men’s feelings?

"I encounter a lot of misandry in feminism in general"

Oho.

Just catching up, interesting.

"In fact, personally, if this madness goes ahead, I'd prefer the removal of all sex-based segregation, because the sort of man who'd pretend to self-ID to get into women's spaces is precisely the sort of man I wouldn't want in there,"

100% agree.

OP has still not really said whether they agree with sex segregation as a general principle or not.

I think part of the issue (as I find with much feminism) is that it's a theoretical battle more than anything else.

Theoretical????

You have a 19-year-old boy appointed as women's officer, claiming biology is meaningless and that he can get pregnant so please don't single him out.

You have men beating women in weightlifting, fell running, roller derby, boxing, cricket, cycling, running and football.

You have men calling women bigots for not accepting a smear test from a man insisting he's a woman.

You have men taking to Twitter to demand access to teenage girls' changing rooms at Topshop, whilst his best friend calls little girls kinky and deviant. And Top shop caved.

You have the first ever woman on the front line, who is a man.

You have the first female directors of a trilogy, who are both men. Quite upfront about their cross dressing fetish.

Have woman of the year, who is a man saying the hardest thing about identifying as a woman is deciding what to wear.

You have the first woman on the Forbes 400 who is a man.

You have convicted rapists being transferred to female prisons, on the basis that they are women.

You have male rape being recorded and reported as having been committed by a woman.

Theoretical. ffs.

Maybe I'm just too empathetic as an individual, but I think I'd be content to make what is likely in reality to be a small concession if it spared an entire group from abject misery.

Sharing the public toilets with someone you know not to be female, but are prepared to humour, IS perhaps a minor concession in the grand scheme of things (I disagree, but let's start from there). How about if you become elderly or disabled and request a female carer to provide intimate care (bathing, changing, toilet care etc) but are given instead a male who 'identifies' as a woman. Would you still be happy? How about if you commit a crime and end up in prison: are you happy to be locked in a cell with a transwoman with a penis? What if you are raped - will you be okay to discuss about a traumatic sexual assault with someone who is himself an intact-male? How about if you become homeless? Do you want to have to make the choice between sharing a room with a male-bodied stranger or risk a night on the streets? If you become infertile and want to join a support group for infertile women, but find the group dominated by (fertile, male) transwomen? How about if you come out as lesbian, realise that you have no sexual attraction to male bodies, but find yourself pressured into dating transwomen?

Saying that accepting transwomen as women is a minor concession seems to be coming from a place of incredible privilege, frankly. Perhaps it is of no great consequence to you, but there will always be more vulnerable women that are forced to bear the consequences of these changes so that those with power can bask in the glow of their own 'progressiveness'.

I'm not really writing this for the OP, but for others: I wonder, how does this 'just let people self identify and it'll be fine' thing work for transmen? Just to add to redtoothbrush's point, these conversations are always about transwomen gaining access to female spaces (and for an obvious reason).But, if we/you believe that allowing access to changing rooms or prisons should happen according to gender identity rather than sex, how will that work from transmen? Would you think a (pre-op) transman would feel comfortable, safe and 'in the right space for them' within a male changing room? a male prison? Given the choice between a sex-neutral, cubicle based changing room and an all-male one, what would they choose? I'd be genuinely interested to hear the voice of transmen (esp the number of young women who identify as male is massively increasing at the moment) but I've got a pretty good guess. So what you are asking for is only going to benefit 50% of transexuals (Mtf), be no use to the other 50% (f2M) and have a negative impact on women. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me:

Rudest75 Wed 17-Jan-18 17:38:47
I think I'd be content to make what is likely in reality to be a small concession if it spared an entire group from abject misery.

No you wouldn't. You wont let women have women only spaces even though it wont affect you at all. You don't care how much misery you cause us.

I think it would be a terrible idea to house a transman who had had no surgery or hormones in a men's prison, and I don't believe that the authorities would allow it.

TBH I would think that most post physical transition transmen would be at risk in that situation as well.

I don't know if it's come up in the UK - the female population commits much less crime than the male - even if that changes a bit with hormones (?) - it's still a tiny % of a tiny %.

This is why the prison issues are all around TIMS and the disproportionate numbers of sex offenders who are looking to transition after imprisonment gives a clue to what is going on, the submission to the GRA thing from the prison officers group (or whatever they were called) highlighted this specifically.

Anyone who calls for sex offenders with dicks to be put in women's prison is a right bastard quite frankly. "misandrist" indeed this is pure misogyny.

"but I think I'd be content to make what is likely in reality to be a small concession if it spared an entire group from abject misery."

What about the woman who tweeted this to her MP?

I am survivor of child abuse. Been raped 200 times as a girl & woman. Still traumatised. Terrified re GRA & giving women only space to self-identifying trans women with penis. Please keep fighting the fight for women like me.

Maybe I'm just too empathetic as an individual

I, for one, am bowled over by the cup than runs over with the empathy you show towards female survivors of abuse and vulnerable teenaged girls.

There was a thread on the asktransgender Reddit asking transmen whether they'd rather go to a male or female prison. Aside from one or two jokey replies, the majority said that they would feel happier/safer going to a female prison. I wasn't surprised.