Trans Women Should Be Allowed In Women Only Spaces

[KiBob]

I posted a few days ago that I need help arguing a case on the debating website Kialo. Thanks to your suggestions I've got one claim accepted that I was struggling with.

I'm now trying to get a new claim past admins.

As a supporting claim to:

"Allowing anyone who identifies as female into women-only spaces makes those spaces worse for cis women".

I put this:

"Trans women are 6 times more likely to commit a crime and 18 times more likely to commit a violent crime compared to female controls as found by this study In Sweden in 2011". With a link to this study:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Admin have responded:

"Hm, interesting link. However, the results don't differentiate between trans men and trans women, and also state this: "Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989." - so this might be a bit outdated - 30 years is pretty long.
Further up, in the Abstract, under results it also says "Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls."

Can you point me to the exact place where you get your numbers? Thanks!"

Help!

Ooh, you're right there Earlywalker, I need to look at the stats again. The problems of doing these things while supervising children grin

Yes, exactly. All of these figures quoted are being worked out "on the back of a fag packet" but god forbid if any of us should point it out huh?

You don't realise that you are repeatedly scoring own goals with this.

Even if you can find accurate figures you have to realise that they will be referring to a different time, one with no self ID. Surely if your hypothesis is true, crime stats will rise if self ID happens so why bother trying to guess what the crime rates were based on historical data?

It just makes no sense. It isn't about self ID it's about ostracising any entire group and trying to twist statistics to fit your narrative.

We know 1/4 of trans people in prison in the UK are trans men with none in male prisons.
This to me is incredibly inappropriate, if they are legally male. Why do some legal males get to choose to go to to a female prison, but not all legal males?

But surely following the logic on these boards, trans men are female because you can't change sex? Why do you think that women should be in a male prison?

eresh saying ‘whataboutary’ or similar everytime someone asks something you can’t answer

I'm saying that there is no need to try to prove that MTF male people are any less dangerous to women than any other male.

The very limited evidence we have does not support that conclusion, but even if we take it away completely there is no reason to believe that a for a male person to declare that they are a woman has any sort of effect on how violent and sexually violent they are.

Apart from magical thinking. Which we know is everything here.

Can anyone tell me at what point transwomen leave the risk class of men (recognised as a class as fairly high risk, hence the protected rights of women) and join the risk class of women (recognised as a class as low risk).

At what point does that transition happen?

Can anyone tell me at what point transwomen leave the risk class of men

I have no idea because how much of a risk are men? How do you work that out? Some men are a risk but that isn't all men by any stretch of the imagination so it's not going to be all transwomen either. How can you work out the risk factor of any group?

Weetabixandshreddies I'm talking about my own country, NZ. And I made one stupid mistake because I was distracted. Now that's been pointed out (thanks Early!) and corrected, so they are now accurate for 2018.
NZ's population is 4,760,022.
The sex division is almost 50/50.
So dividing the population in half makes 2,380,011 males out of 4,760,022.

Studies have shown that transgender males are approximately 0.2% of the population. 0.2% of 4,760,022 is 9, 520.

According to "reports obtained under the Official Information Act"* as of 2018 there are 25 transgender prisoners incarcerated in NZ prisons, with no transfers to male prisons (so we can assume that none are likely to be transitioned FtMs, and more likely to be MtFs.) The incarcerated 25 is 0.26% of 9,520.

Even assuming that 10 of these (an unreasonably high number,) are trans females, that still means that 0.15% of transgender males are incarcerated. Still a lot higher than non trans females at 0.03%.

NZ has 2,380,011 females out of 4,760,022

There are a total of 774 female prisoners incarcerated in NZ as of 2018. That makes 0.03% of the total population of females. A MUCH lower percentage.

Out of the 2,380,011 males in NZ, there are 9,661 male prisoners incarcerated presently - 0.4%, which lines up almost exactly with the transgender numbers.

*www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1804/S00232/implications-of-changes-to-births-act-for-female-inmates.htm

You can disparage us women for trying to figure out the stats ourselves, (although "back of a fag packet" seems a bit classist to me, although I realise it may be a saying where you are,) and making a few silly mistakes quickly rectified. But the fact is, this should be recorded clearly in the data and we shouldn't have to try to figure it out! Why all the obfuscation and lack of easily accessible data? When race, sex, age, often sexuality etc are recorded, why isn't transgender status?

Also: My point is that if the current law is to have to put transgender male people in female prisons if they are legally female, then surely the opposite should be true - legal males should have to go into male prisons.
OBVIOUSLY I think that biological females should be in female prisons, and biological males male prisons. But that's not the current situation. So, why are (only some) legal males allowed in female prisons?

Can anyone tell me at what point transwomen leave the risk class of men (recognised as a class as fairly high risk, hence the protected rights of women) and join the risk class of women (recognised as a class as low risk).

No. They can't. So as it cannot be proven that MTF trans people are less of a risk, we should not be treating them differently in that regard to any other male.

I have no idea because how much of a risk are men? How do you work that out? Some men are a risk but that isn't all men by any stretch of the imagination so it's not going to be all transwomen either. How can you work out the risk factor of any group?

Yes but we lump males in together for the purposes of sex segregation, regardless of the risk factor of individuals and the fact that we know NAMALT. And no one has too much of a problem with that, people (well apart from a few who don't really get it) don't tend to say it's 'discrimination' not to allow men in female changing rooms or female prisons. We know its not all transwomen either, but my question is at what point do transwomen come out of the 'risk group' of male and into the 'risk group' of female?

Plus it's not even about just crime, its about privacy and dignity.

So at what point am I no longer allowed to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable about changing in front of male bodied people? Is it when they have had surgery to remove their penis? When they have had breast implants? When they have grown their hair long? When they have put on a dress and grown their hair? Or is it simply when they have declared that they are a woman?

Males are dictating my boundaries here, when I am allowed to feel uncomfortable when in a vulnerable state near them, so they least someone could do is tell me at what point I no longer have to feel embarrassed, cheers!

Avegemitesandwich
Yeah, as others have said, statistics aside that's the main issue - that male people and their supporters are attempting to destroy female boundaries. For no actual evidenced reason. There are no studies that show they are female brained, their penises generally work fairly normally, and they are ultimately in no way provably different to other males besides having a desire for a feminised body, and having some breast tissue if on HRT.
I am fully in favour of them having separate third spaces - in the case of prisons for example, having a small wing in the female prisons for ftms, and some supervised socialisation with other prisoners, and a small wing in the male prisons for mtfs, with again some supervised general socialisation.
I want transgender people to have good healthcare, employment rights, housing rights, and to be kept safe. But having transgender males be given free access to female spaces is not the way to do that. Especially not if self-ID becomes a thing.

I think that finally what I’ve been trying to say has become clear that we simply don’t have statistics or facts to prove that transwoman offend at the same rate as men which is one of the key points raised here, we also don’t have stats to show they offend at the same rate as woman. So statistically it’s a bit of a null point and my main issue is the misuse of these statistics as fact to paint transpeople as dangerous criminals.
Your issue with trans people doesn’t have to rely on non existent statistics anyway, you’re entitled to feel how you want and campaign accordingly.
What does worry me is that in the fight to say no to Self ID we all seem to have got a bit lost and it’s turned into nit picking everything trans people do.
I hope that those that are not as involved as those here, still get involved with the fight against self ID and don’t brush it all aside because of all the other things that have been muddled in with it.

my main issue is the misuse of these statistics as fact to paint transpeople as dangerous criminals.

No one is painting all transpeople as dangerous criminals any more than they paint all men as dangerous criminals. That is the point. Transwomen are male, males as a class are deemed a risk and no one can seem to answer the question of when transwomen leave that risk class of 'male'.

I hope that those that are not as involved as those here, still get involved with the fight against self ID and don’t brush it all aside because of all the other things that have been muddled in with it.

As has been established on multiple threads, you don't have a coherent definition of what a "trans woman" is, other than that they have a bit of paper saying so. This is not just about self ID.

Transwomen are male, males as a class are deemed a risk and no one can seem to answer the question of when transwomen leave that risk class of 'male'.

Of course they can't.

But there is no evidence that transwoman are the same as males in terms of pradatory or abusive behaviour.

With repressed testosterone levels there is possibility that the offending rate is far lower. Prison sentences show a strong link between testosterone levels, even woman in prison have higher than average testosterone levels.
Also, it’s been reported that transwoman in the latter stages of transition report lower levels of sexual desire than previously. The study concluded with this:
These findings are in line with previous studies showing that after gender-confirming interventions, trans women reported low levels of sexual desire and trans men high levels of sexual desire

Not everything is black and white unfortunately.

But there is no evidence that transwoman are the same as males in terms of pradatory or abusive behaviour.

Can you define 'transwoman' in this sentence please? What criteria is being fulfilled with 'transwoman' here?

When I talk about transwoman I refer to the GRC criteria.
So someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphroia, is receiving treatment for this, has had surgery or is planning to have surgery (or can provide a very good reason why they are not) have lived as their reassigned sex for atleast 2 years and plans to for the rest of their lives.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689101/t452-eng.pdf

This might be of interest to some of you, apologies if you’ve already seen it.

I think when people are arguing against self-id they are using the self-id definition of transwomen, which comes without any inference of lowered testosterone levels. Why would you use the GRC definition to argue against self-id?

That isn't the Stonewall definition. You're a transphobe to Stonewall and most transactivists.

Plenty of trans people by Stonewall's definition, in fact possibly the majority, don't take hormones so the testosterone issue is moot.

So you are talking about 5000 people in the whole of the UK then (a number so small that most people are actually unlikely to ever come across someone with a GRC)? Thats not really who we are discussing here is it? What about the other thousands who come under the 'trans umbrella' and would deem you highly transphobic for excluding them and not seeing them as 'transwomen'? 'Transwomen' as a group now is far bigger than just those with a GRC, but it's impossible to define that group.

I think a lot of people would probably agree with you on the GRC criteria. After all that is the current law. How many transwomen in prison have a GRC? Did Karen White have a GRC? (Genuine questions)

But there is no evidence that transwoman are the same as males in terms of pradatory or abusive behaviour.
Where is the evidence that they are not?

Early Walker

Some things are really quite simple, and that includes the fact that women's private spaces are very much valued, and very much required. Admitting men into women's spaces means that they are no longer women's single-sex spaces. The vast majority of women want to retain single sex spaces for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety.
It matters not how lovely a particular trans-woman is.

Self ID risks the admittance of anyone who claims to be a woman into women's spaces/short-lists/sporting competitions. this has already happened, and is continuing to happen around the world. Women reserve the hard won right to say "No" to this. We cannot wake up to find women self-excluding from women's spaces because they feel too uncomfortable, compromised, or unsafe. This is already happening in Norway, which has self ID.

The trans agenda is in direct opposition to women's rights and safe spaces.

Some things are really quite simple, and that includes the fact that women's private spaces are very much valued, and very much required. Admitting men into women's spaces means that they are no longer women's single-sex spaces. The vast majority of women want to retain single sex spaces for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety.

Exactly. It's surprising how some people just cannot grasp this.

There is a huge group between 'transwomen with a GRC' and 'self-iding chancers'.

For famous examples, Shon Faye, Paris Lees, Lily M, Munroe, Jess Bradley, as far as I know none of them have a GRC (I could be wrong though?) Then you have the Pips Bunce types. Where do they all fit in?