Critique this logic for me please?

[Gentlygently]

I think the following sentences are fact:

Some men commit crimes.

Violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by men.

This leads to the logical conclusion that a unisex space is more dangerous for women than a women only space.

Another fact:
Self ID is an opportunity for men (some of whom commit crimes) to commit a crime by abusing the process.

This means that Self ID will give some men (men using whatever definition you use, i.e. even if you exclude trans women from this definition) more access to women’s spaces.

This means (following logic above) Self ID increases risks to women.

Other facts that people may choose to add in don’t actually change this logic. So ‘some women do bad things’ or ‘not all men do bad things’ or even ‘trans women are women’ don’t alter the analysis above.

So surely the only argument should be ‘is the benefit to some people of Self ID worth the detriment to others’?

Have I gone wrong somewhere? Or if not, why are people so reluctant to name it on these terms?

Trans women are the most vulnerable, are more likely to suffer DV and abuse, more likely to commit suicide, more vulnerable, more opressed, more important and you are showing your cis privilege.
I think is the right answer.

What she said ^

Yes but, that doesn’t alter my facts! Any additional facts you are using may frame the ‘is the benefit worth the harm’ but it doesn’t alter the fact there will be harm. Does it?

Presumably that is why suicide is used? To show the benefit (preventing suicides) is worth the harm?

There is no evidence that trans people are more vulnerable, so no.
Mixed sex spaces are known to be detrimental to women's safety.

gncq are you being sarcastic?

I read it as what the opposing argument would be.

All perfectly logical.

Of course there's always "I'm sure you're lovely but I'm the opposite sex to you and I'm unwilling to give consent to sharing intimate spaces with the opposite sex. I don't get undressed in front of my dad either, and he's lovely, so nothing personal. But, no. I don't consent. Thanks for respecting women's boundaries"

Self ID is an opportunity for men (some of whom commit crimes) to commit a crime by abusing the process.

Speaking as someone living in an already-self-ID country, I don't think they'd be committing a crime by taking advantage of the process. The laws apply to everyone, meaning everyone has equal rights to change their legal sex designation if they fill out the right form. In a truly self-ID situation, there is no legal bar to meet to 'prove' that you 'really feel like a woman a lot, honestly, with extra sparkles'. It's just a form you fill out, and anyone can do it.

This neither adds to nor takes away from your argument, simply pointing out that true self-ID means that the system isn't being 'abused' when it's being used. The system itself is abusive. If there is no coherent definition of gender identity, then there is no way to criticize anyone for changing theirs in accordance with the law. As it seems to me, at least.

Yes I agree with that. I was trying to preempt a ‘only trans women will do this’ argument (and then of course you say ‘some trans women commit crimes’ but you may fall down on the ‘men commit the most violence’ if someone believes TWAW).

Yeah but transwomen are more important than natal women so who cares if 100 natal women are assaulted as long as Cherry can do a stand-up piss like a horse in the cubicle next to you.

I've tried this before, and usually get something along the lines of 'no man would do that' or that we have no proof that they would to that (so they simply deny that any harm is possible - don't ask me how they come to this conclusion, because I have arse-all idea). Sometimes this leads to a complete backtracking to 'men aren't dangerous at all' but that gets flipped to 'wait no, they are dangerous but only or primarily to transwomen' if you point out therefore there should be no issue with transwomen being in men's spaces.

There's no real barrier to being a transwoman - unless they commit a male crime then they are (usually) suddenly a man. Despite the fact that 'transwomen are women' #nodebate. But that also somehow doesn't constitute proof that men can abuse the system.

If a transwoman has her dick out in the changing room that's fine, because she's a woman and we are comfortable around women. It's not harassment if it's a woman's dick. I've been told explicitly that it's ridiculous to worry about men harassing me because harassment is illegal anyway. Presumably dick flashing only becomes harassment if I find out it's a man's dick. Nobody has told me how I'm meant to tell the difference. Or maybe it's just not actually harassment at all and I should just get over myself. (In case not abundantly clear...sarcasm)

I think the Girl Guides issue threw this up too - leaders were supposed to be able to tell the difference between a 'genuine' transgirl and a boy. I don't recall there being any sort of instructions for how, save for if an incident happened it would be proof. I'm also pretty sure you'd be in deep shit for not believing a boy was a genuine transgirl. Somebody elaborate if they remember?

If you're looking for sense, you're going to go thirsty a long, long while. Basically a lot of what you get back is just...not logically consistent in any way shape or form. Not always. But usually. I've fallen into the logic trap many, many times, from people I usually thought of as being consistent thinkers. They purposefully leave themselves a huge blind spot to avoid any possibility of being/saying something transphobic.

You're all right.

Because :

The system itself is abusive.

The logic is you don't matter.

I don't get undressed in front of my dad either, and he's lovely, so nothing personal

This is a point almost as much as the safety issue. Most teenage girls would never dream of stripping naked in front of their father or brothers no matter how safe they felt so why should they do so in front of a stranger?

Most teenage girls would never dream of stripping naked in front of their father or brothers no matter how safe they felt so why should they do so in front of a stranger?

This brings immediately to mind Susan Faludi's telling of how her father, after transitioning, demanded that the two of them disrobe together, which she found very disconcerting.

what function is segregating spaces "by gender" supposed to fulfil?

It’s long been noted on these boards that #nodebate is down to the fact that the extremer trans arguments hold no logic and don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The obvious fact that predatory men will abuse self-ID is one I frequently use as it’s more palatable to not-yet-aware people.

I also cite the 2012 study that shows transsexual women continue to commit violent crime at the same rates as men, as those are the best stats we have produced by an unassailably unbiased source.

Personally, I believe adding in transvestites and cross dressers (as Stonewall insist we do) will inevitably increase the offending rate, which is backed up by the figures FairPlay collected. But presented with that, anti-women-activists dismiss it immediately, due to the source.

I normally add a bit of context for the numbers - so the crime stats are taken from the Govt's own figures compiled by the ONS.

I'd also highlight that it is not physically possible for human beings to change sex, so the law should not be changed to pretend that this is the case.

If the person you are speaking to has a daughter, ask them if they'd be happy for their daughter to compete in a contact sport against a male-bodied person claiming to be a woman. Like boxing. If they'd be happy if their daughter applied for a women's only scholarship or grant, and lost out to a male-bodied person who claims to be a woman.

OP, your logic is unassailable. The opposing arguments from TRAs which seem to be all about how women commit sexual offences too are idiotic.

One thing you say: "This leads to the logical conclusion that a unisex space is more dangerous for women than a women only space."

I've been musing on this since a discussion on FB recently about unisex toilets, and someone commenting she didn't have a problem with them because in her country unisex toilets were the norm. I have wondered if unisex toilets are potentially less dangerous than toilets open to women and men self-IDing as women. Because in a unisex toilet you might arguably have strength in numbers (ie lots of normal men) whereas a toilet for women and men self-IDing as women will inevitably attract predatory men, won't it? Because part of the kick for predatory men comes from invading women's spaces.

I could be wrong about this, of course. Just something I was reflecting on.

If transwomen are to be allowed across access to female spaces because they are vulnerable, by that logic we should be allowing access to any vulnerable male bodied person or groups of. Example - homeless males.

Hackmum www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk

Have there been any studies in your friend's country? I often see the line that other countries have unisex toilets but without evidence of their safety, how do we know how well they are operating?

Why does amnesty international campaign for sex segregated toilets in third world countries? It doesn't add up.

I take your point, WarmWishes, though I think changing rooms are possibly slightly different from toilets.

The country in question was Denmark. Of course the problem is that she could be generalising from her own experience - she hadn't experienced difficulties so assumed that no one else had.

Yes sorry, I forgot that article was on changing rooms not toilets. It would be interesting to have a study done on toilets.

"There haven't been any problems" usually translates as "everything is fine as far as men are concerned". There apparently weren't any problems with how Hollywood functioned until pretty recently (i.e., men there were doing pretty okay.) A lot of things apparently "don't really cause any problems" that f**k with my day - every day

"There haven't been any problems" usually translates as "everything is fine as far as men are concerned".

Yes. As well as "I haven't personally experienced any problems, therefore you're making it up".

There's a good piece of research by Paul Dirks that came out in January 2018 about the increased dangers to women and children brought about by Target stores in the US 'liberalising' its bathroom policy. It appeared on this board last night.

"Gender-inclusion policies and sexual violence: a longitudinal analysis of media reports at Target stores"

Sorry can't get a click link.