Debunking some myths

[pallas81]

I know I will be crucified for this but I aim to reach out to those who consider themselves open minded on the issue of reform to the Gender Recognition Act.
There is a great deal of talk about the dangers of male predators in female only spaces. It needs to be pointed out that this has nothing to do with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act or its possible reform. As the law currently stands, transgender women are perfectly entitled to use female toilets, changing rooms and facilities such as shelters and rape crisis centres. A Gender Recognition Certificate is NOT required. In fact, in law, it is illegal to demand such a certificate.
Transgender people are protected under the 2010 Equality Act. For those who are vehemently opposed to trans people having certain rights, you should be campaigning against the Equality Act instead of occupying yourselves with self identification.
However, I should point out that in the countries that have already adopted self identification as law there is no evidence that male predators have used it to prey on vulnerable women.
I'm afraid that much of the anger around this issue looks like paranoid fantasy when one knows the facts. Despite the best efforts of squalid sites like Transcrime, the rates of criminal behaviour among self-identified trans people is much much lower than the societal average and there is ZERO respectable evidence that self identified transgender females represent any threat to non-transgender females of any age.
If you wish to comment, please try to be courteous. Thank you.

in the countries that have already adopted self identification as law there is no evidence that male predators have used it to prey on vulnerable women.
‏
But - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it?
‏
Women KNOW that men can be dangerous. We have to protect ourselves from predatory men EVERY day. Most men have no clue how much this affects us. It's every woman. All of us have all been raped or abused or made to feel uncomfortable by men who don't respect our boundaries.

So, we know men in our spaces ARE a risk. But what proof is there that men who ID are less prone to sexual violence than men? There is none, is there You are asking us to go along with this idea without evidence.
‏
So, here you are, @pallas81 telling us there is no proof Self ID is a risk to women.

But, please can we think about what is meant by "proof" in this context?

If there are no studies being undertaken, then the proof that SelfID is a danger is for enough real women & girls to be hurt that people start paying attention. "Proof" translates to real women & girls being raped, abused, intimated and being the victims of voyeurism.

How many women & girls would need to suffer sexual violence for there to be "proof" that #selfID is a problem?

Especially since the reporting & conviction rates are so very low? (In the UK, only 15% of sexual violence incidents reported and only 5.7% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.

I've got a better idea. Instead of waiting to see if women & girls suffer such "proof" how about we say the risk isn't worth it, until we have proof that transwomen aren't a danger.

Why aren't we asking if it can be proved that Transwomen don't pose the same risk as any man -BEFORE giving them access? Why wouldn't we do this?

‏If we go ahead with Self ID & wait for "proof" of risk, while not finding out if transwomen pose the same risk as any man, we're asking women to be unwitting participants in an experiment where our sexual abuse is the measure.

Can you see why we're not up for this?

The burden of proof should be to prove transwomen don't have male pattern violence, not for the rest of us to put our safety at risk till this social experiment goes wrong. If you expect us to provide proof you're saying you don't give a fuck about the safety of women and children - your belief system is more important.

That should say But what proof is there that men who ID AS WOMEN are less prone to sexual violence than men?

I always wonder why the word hate is thrown about so much. Maybe because a lot of women are beginning to hate the debate, hate being marginalised, hate being told they are on the 'wrong side of history' because they are losing their rights to protection based on their sex.
So maybe we are coming over a bit strong, but it is really frustrating to see the transactivists (being male) being listened to and women being told to shut up.

No attacks you say. Well a quick google found these 'misunderstandings'.

1. A Toronto man claiming to be transgender was arrested and sentenced to jail for sexually assaulting several women in a women’s shelter after he gained access to the shelter and its shower facilitates as "Jessica."

As Life Site notes, “A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed ‘indefinitely’” in early March. Christopher Hambrook, 37, using the name “Jessica,” was able to gain access to Toronto women’s shelters. “Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” reads a court document of one of the incidents. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.” The Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard. The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.

1. Richard Rodriguez, 30, filmed a woman in a bathroom stall at the Potomac Mills Mall, Prince William County Police said,” reported NBC Washington. His victim was a 35-year-old woman who was in a bathroom stall when “she saw a bag moved toward her under the stall divider.” According to police, Rodriguez had been filming her.

Apparently, when the victim rushed out of the stall to confront the man, he had already moved to another woman just one stall over. “The victim alerted the woman and then contacted mall security of the shopping center on 2700 block of Potomac Mills Circle in Woodbridge, Virginia,” noted NBC Washington. Reports suspect that this was not Rodriguez’s first time peeping on women by dressing himself up as woman to enter a restroom; disturbingly, he likely spied on a 53-year-old woman in May of 2015 and a 35-year-old and her 5-year-old daughter back in October. “Rodriguez, of Fredericksburg, was charged with three counts of unlawful filming of a non-consenting person and three counts of peeping,” reported NBC Washington.

1. A Los Angeles man dressed in drag, entered a Macy’s department store bathroom and videotaped women under bathroom stalls.

Charges were filed against Jason Pomare, 33, for allegedly disguising himself as a woman, sneaking in to the women’s restroom at a Macy’s department store and secretly videotaping hours of footage of women in bathroom stalls. Pomare reportedly disguised himself with a wig and fake breasts; he kept his video camera with him in a small purse. The suspect "was charged Tuesday with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of sexual gratification. After his arrest, investigators said a video camera found in his purse had 'hours' of video of women using the restroom inside the store," reports NBC4 News.

1. Two male students were caught at the University of Toronto exploiting “gender-neutral” facilities to peep on women in the shower with their cellphone cameras.

The University of Toronto had to change their gender-neutral bathrooms back to bathrooms separated based on biology “after two separate incidents of ‘voyeurism’ were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.”

Anyway, here's some proof. Things that women and children had to suffer because the burden is on us to provide the proof by out bodies and privacy being violated:

Target case study

"voyeurism-related offenses increased significantly after the publication of Target’s policy—doubling or tripling according to all measures... The findings are consistent with the “sex-predator” theory which has posited that sexual offenders may use gender-identity policies in private spaces to gain access to women and children in order to perpetrate sexual violence..."

Key Findings:
• Sexual incidents increased across the entire timeframe, with 44 incidents in the four pre-policy trimesters (Jan ’15-Apr ’16), and 80 in the four post-policy trimesters (May ’16-Aug ’17).
• Females were the victims in over ninety-four percent (94.5%) of the incidents, and children the victims in thirty-four percent (34%). All perpetrators were male.
• The three-season forced-category measurement found a 2.3x increase in the amount of upskirt incidents after the policy, and a 2.9x increase in peeping tom incidents after the policy.
• A Poisson regression found the 4-year pre-policy to post-policy rate change to be 3.03 for Upskirt and 3.14 for Peeping Tom, and the 2-year to be 2.16 for Upskirt and 2.34 for Peeping Tom (both using Trimester as a variable).

I always wonder why the word hate is thrown about so much.

Because it's a mechanism to shut us up.

There are laws against hate speech, if they can get people to think our valid objections are hate speech, they can use the law as a tool to shut us up.

@EmpressOfSpartacus I'd disagree with you here. They're separate issues. As a bisexual cis-woman I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

@sanluca - I think it's pretty hateful to say that you don't believe in the experiences of a marginalised group of people (those experiences are backed by extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research) and that you have a right to debate their validity as human beings and their rights because it doesn't fit with your world view. And a great many cis-women, like myself, don't hold your views and find a lot of your discourse highly offensive and rude.

Bibijayne you still haven't explained why penis should be allowed in women's changing rooms, prisons and refuges?

I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

I don't think anyone here is saying the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

The point is that trans activism is a political ideology. And that ideology clearly states that transwomen with penises can be lesbians and that lesbians who are same-sex attracted are bigots.

Lesbian culture is being erased. Just look at the state of Stonewall FFS. And please don't tell me it's fine because they have a Lesbian CEO. That's like saying Tory policy is great for women as they have a woman leader - i.e. total bullshit.

Young lesbians are made to feel they're bigots for not wanting to accept dick. This is rape culture FFS.

This is the kind of nonsense that's going on.

I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

No one is saying the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

The point is that trans activism is a political ideology. And that ideology clearly states that transwomen with penises can be lesbians and that lesbians who are same-sex attracted are bigots.

Lesbian culture is being erased. Just look at the state of Stonewall FFS. And please don't tell me it's fine because they have a Lesbian CEO. That's like saying Tory policy is great for women as they have a woman leader - i.e. total bullshit.

Young lesbians are made to feel they're bigots for not wanting to accept dick. This is rape culture FFS.

This is the kind of nonsense that's going on.

You know when John Worboys raped all those women in his taxi, do you think he did that on the basis of their sex or their gender identity.

You know when Malala wasn't allowed to go to school, was that on the basis of her sex or her gender identity?

You know when all those girls in Rotherham and Telford were groomed and raped, did that happen on the basis of their sex or their gender identity?

You know how two women a week are murdered by their male partner or ex, is that on the basis of their sex of their gender identity?

You know when a woman of child bearing age is turned down for that promotion, is that on the basis of her sex or her gender identity?

a right to debate their validity as human beings

Please point to anyone, anywhere, debating the validity of trans people are human beings? It doesn't exist.

This kind of rhetoric is inflammatory, untrue and helpful.

But I think you'll find you're on the wrong side of comprehensive medical and psychological research.

I am a scientist. I can categorically, and with absolute certainty, say you are incorrect.

Sex is immutable in humans.
Gender means very little. You want to smash gender stereotypes? I’m right behind you, cheering you on. I want to smash them too. Everyone should be able to wear, and ‘present’ as however they want.

There are some circumstances in which biological sex is important. These are generally wherevthe safty and dignity ofbthe sexes are paramount. Refuges, prisons, medical care, bathrooms and toilets, etc.

Since men cannot change sex and become women (which you accept? Given your assertion that sex is chromosomally determined?) then men should be able to be excluded from those specific spaces, as is currently the law.

If you want to change that law, you are accepting that protection of women and girls from Male violence is removed. And that safeguarding for children of BOTH sexes (and any gender you care to name) is diluted to he point of meaninglessness.

What extra rights do you want men who present as women to have that they do not already have?

Do you understand that this is a safety issue?

a right to debate their validity as human beings

This is childish nonsense. Please debate in a thoughtful manner using facts, and analysis. Not whimpering ‘you alllll haaaaaaaaate meeee.’ That’s not an argument, it’s shouting bigot to shut people down.

Nobody on here denies gender dysphoria exists. Nobody hates trans people or wants to remove the legal protections they already have. We are concerned about safety. About legal protections for women and girls and children of both sexes. These are serious issues that threaten the rights women have fought for for decades.

those experiences are backed by extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research

What do you think is backed by extensive research exactly?

The long term health of people who transition isn't something that's been extensively covered - as it's simply too new that people are doing this in larger numbers. Early evidence does seem to say that transition is not a "cure" and may even lead to worse outcomes (e.g. on mental health)/

The long term effects of puberty blockers on children for transition have not been studied, again as it's too new - although there is plenty of evidence that they can cause harm. puberty blockers are NOT licensed for treating dysphoric kids, they're being used off label.

The long term effects of children taking hormones for transition have not been studied, again as it's too new - and again there is plenty of evidence that they can cause harm.

Places like the Tavistock clinic do NOT do long term follow-up.

There are plenty of detransitioners starting to come out of the woodwork, but they don't get nearly the support that transitioning people do.

What exactly do you have proof of?

*that should say - The long term effects of TEENS and YOUNG PEOPLE taking hormones for transition have not been studied

I think many of your assertions are based on the assumption that all men or people who used to be men are going to sexually assault or abuse women. That's simply not true.

To take @whyaresquishiesnotsquishy 's point. You are not obliged to fancy or have relationships with anyone who you do not want to have a relationship with. That's not prejudicial and I think most people would agree that if someone tells you it is, they're talking BS. What is bigoted, is to refuse to acknowledge someone else's consensual relationship because you don't agree with the terminology they have used.

@Moonkissedlegs saying that trans-people are persecuted and marginalised does not detract from other groups who are also persecuted and marginalised. Your argument is akin to saying that if antisemitism exists, there's no room for any other kind of racial prejudice. That's simply not true. It's entirely possible that people suffer discrimination based on gender identity and other people can also suffer sex discrimination.

There seem to be so many illogical leaps made on this board. A lot of people seem terribly fond of the slippery slope fallacy. Which is why this forum has such a terrible reputation. It's a toxic echo chamber where a small group of people continuously validate their own bigotry to feel better.

there is ZERO respectable evidence that self identified transgender females represent any threat to non-transgender females of any age

If that's the case, then how do you account for the fact that half of transwomen prisoners are either sex offenders or the most dangerous category A prisoners?

Women prisoners simply don't have the same profile.

Given that there are about 4,000 women in prison, that means about 3% are there for sex related crimes.

I don't see how you can assert transwomen are not a risk, given those figures? Not all transwomen of course, but it's not all men either is it?

From this page:

It is extremely rare for women to be convicted of sex offences. In fact, over 99% of all sex offenders in prison in England and Wales are male. Figures released in 2016 show there were 13,808 male sex offenders in prison. In contrast, there were only 126 female sex offenders in prison; however, even this small number is artificially high because it will now also include [transwomen] with GRCs whose sex offending will be counted as having been committed by females.

I think many of your assertions are based on the assumption that all men or people who used to be men are going to sexually assault or abuse women.

Do you have a problem with logic?

Nobody is saying that ALL men will sexually assault women. If we knew which ones were going to, there would be no need for single sex facilities in the first place, we could just keep out the abusers!

But as we don't know of a system that will keep the abusers out, we segregate men and women.

You have offered no proof that transwomen stop being like men, as far as crime is concerned, as soon as they say they ID as women.

Apologies, if my post about crimes is hard to read! I meant to put this line at the bottom as it follows on from the line saying there are 126 female prisoners there for sex crimes:

Given that there are about 4,000 women in prison, that means about 3% are there for sex related crimes.

What is bigoted, is to refuse to acknowledge someone else's consensual relationship because you don't agree with the terminology they have used.

If male bodied people take the word lesbian for themselves, it's an attack on lesbians. It's not bigoted to refuse to accept a male bodied person with a penis as a lesbian.

@whyaresquishiesnotsquishy I have a problem with poor critical reasoning and thinking as demonstrated by yourself repeatedly in this thread. I highly recommend you read more on common logical fallacies and critical thinking. You might be less inclined to use them at every juncture then. :)

And yes, it is bigoted. Where do you draw the line? Are you aying you'll accept a transwoman post-op? Or are you saying you refuse to acknowledge them as a woman at any point... even though the law and most of society does?

@sanluca - I think it's pretty hateful to say that you don't believe in the experiences of a marginalised group of people (those experiences are backed by extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research) and that you have a right to debate their validity as human beings and their rights because it doesn't fit with your world view. And a great many cis-women, like myself, don't hold your views and find a lot of your discourse highly offensive and rude

Wow, jump to conclusions much? This is a stereotypical tactic for demonizing a person by making nasty, rude and agressive statements as if the person in question made them and you are calling them out, when in fact nothing of that kind actually happened. Have you taken a course in online bullying? Because in that case you passed with flying colours.

@Bibijayne you haven't offered any proof, or replied directly to any of my points. All you seem to have is personal insults or sweeping statements.

Do you think you you might be able to respond to the actual content of my posts, rather than attack me?

You've made lots of statements but backed none of them up with evidence. Go on, give it a go...

You mentioned "extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research" for example. I'm particularly keen to see this - what do you think it proves?

If you don't offer any attempt at proof and continue to post personal insults or statements with no attempt to provide proof, then I will have to conclude you're here to sealion. But you're not, surely, are you?...

I think several people have covered the point about lesbians so I won't worry about that, but Bibi, I'd be interested on your thoughts on my earlier point about the increasingly vague definition of trans. You seem to be mainly focusing on severely dysphoric, passing post-op transwomen. Stonewall's definition could be summed up as anyone who either has a gender identity that doesn't exactly match a sex-role stereotype, or who doesn't have a gender identity at all.