Will society accept transwomen ARE women in future generations?

[interestingdebatetoday]

Today I debated with a young woman I adore. I'm in my 30's, her in her 20's. She attended uni in a very liberal city and has studied psychology. Definitely armed to hold an opinion.

We disagree currently on several of the current topics re trans. I personally hold what's probably the norm on the feminist boards of mumsnet in my views.

It made me wonder though - she claims not to feel women are really impacted, uses unisex bathrooms as a norm, and obviously has been socialised to not find an issue in accepting transwomen as women. Is it possible that actually society will progress in a way that her generation down simply won't have the issues which I feel exist when trying to include transwomen AS women?

Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?

It has to go one way or the other really doesn't it? Either a big u turn and the idea that transwomen ARE women becomes laughable and delusional is mainstream and acceptable (as many of us might feel on the boards) OR transwomen ARE women and we were the ones who were wrong

It made me wonder... I was really suprised tbh. 10 years later made a huge difference to whether we felt our rights were under attack...

I doubt that she will ever really give a shit who is having a shit in the cubicle next to her but it’s a real intellectual leap to have children and still think that trans women are in the same boat as physical women

There are more and more women never having children - see lots of articles like this:

Childless women on the rise

So while I agree it with the idea it may not happen.

Plus, there a trend and now political pressure to have smaller families. I've read on here the suggestion that perhaps that's playing a part in the more rigid gender expectations.

I do wonder as I had girl then boy - and some things we assumed were down to sex especially DS being a boy then DD2 come along and it’s just not so.

It’s also how conspiracy theories work.

Convince them they belong to a minority who aren’t ‘fooled’ by the media and you’ll have them believing Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings and George W Bush personally detonated explosives in the basement of the World Trade Centre.

Here we go, this is a 10% figure of men saying that they had committed an actual rape based on 1645 responses. Is that enough rapists yet? www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/presence-mind/201507/troublesome-new-research-about-sexual-assault-perpetrators

What’s your point then weetabix ?

My point is where is the study that shows 1:10 randomly selected males are rapists?

'16 Days of Action following International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women'
#IDEVAW

16 Days of Action following International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women'
#IDEVAW

16 Days of Action following International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women'
#IDEVAW

I have no doubt that the youth of today will accept that trans women are women. As a teacher, it is clear that young women feel far more empowered and don’t need to use prejudice and vilification to fight for their rights and their safety.

Men who would rape are rapists to me, I said so very clearly. I am well aware the study was about what men said they would do.

And as for your complaint about the sample size, how do you think they could have gotten to such a high percentage of rapists (and I think that was just the Lisak study, anyway) accidentally?

Unless you can prove that there was a meeting of rapists at that campus at the time, there's no reason to believe this is not at least roughly representative.

Sorry, but I know there's enough creepy males around I easily believe those numbers.

If you want to argue against that, go find a study that proves that ... what do you wish to believe? 99% of men are NOT rapists. Find a study that at least proves 99% men, when asked, would say they wouldn't "use force to get sex". (Which, by the way, means rape. In case you didn't understand.) They could be still lying, because it is in every rapists interest to pretend he isn't one, but it would be interesting to see, anyway.

And it is very interesting that you come with that argumentation only now ... not too lazy to google things NOW, are you?

EverardDigby

Yes I saw that when I was doing the Google search that I was told to do.

But that is looking only at college students. The poster specifically said 1:10 of randomly selected men are rapists which says to me that if I stopped 10 men at random that 1 of them would be a rapist. That just doesn't ring true to me and so I wanted to look at the study.

The poster has since linked to a study that they say shows it's actually 1:3 but on looking at that the sample size was only 72 and again college students so still not a random sample and such a small study size that I doubt any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

I just get very suspicious about motive when a poster has to make up statistics to back up their argument.

HestiaParthenos

None of what you say explain your assertion that 1:10 randomly selected men are rapists. None.

You just made that up and are frantically back pedalling now because I calked you out on it.

As a teacher, it is clear that young women feel far more empowered and don’t need to use prejudice and vilification to fight for their rights and their safety.

You’d hope so wouldn’t you, but no:

There is a concerning finding that young people (18–24) tend to see more pressure on women to conform with feminine norms than older people. For example 73% say society tells us it is important for women to maintain the home, compared with a national average of 59%.

(Pg 58, publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/701/701.pdf)

It shouldn’t be up to us to prove that males are a threat to be allowed sex seggragation it should be up to males to prove that they aren’t a threat before we let them in our space.

Exactly.

I don't think there's any study that even can prove that any significant percentage of men would deny being rapists in an anonymous study.
Which wouldn't even prove that they are not rapists, just that they think being a rapist is something to be ashamed of.
Many men don't even seem to be ashamed of it.

Oh, and I recently was at a talk where a woman said that an estimated 13 percent of men (that's adult human males) paid women for sex, i.e. weren't in the least concerned with mutual enjoyment in the sex they had. (I might be misremembering and the number might actually be higher.)

Those might be too afraid of punishment to rape a woman they don't pay, but I wouldn't bet my safety on it.

Mammal's are distinguished from other invertebrates by their reproductive system. They have live births, not eggs, and the mother produces milk.

Damn my eyes - I meant vertebrates.

There is one species I know of that produces eggs - the platypus - but after the eggs are laid, the egg is replanted into the mother's body until birth. It has fur and produces milk, so it's considered a subset of mammal, but I forgot the actual classification used.

Mammals are defined by the reproductive system.

It's not prejudiced to point out the species is sexually dimorphic, nor is it prejudiced to point out one sex has more to fear than the other.

On the point of society changing...
Some things change, but many things stay the same.

Case in point, we still have ridiculous amounts of male violence.

So again, I'll be happy to consider change when the violent blokes actually change.

So, what is the lesson here wheet? Should we bar college educated males from unisex toilets because they are these exceptionally predatory males, so different from the rest? (Maybe India should close its higher education to males?) what can we do.

Also: statistically, if only, say, 0.1% of men are determined to rape a woman in a unisex loo if occasion arises, and therefore they linger in those loos ten times longer than other men, and I need to use such a unisex loo 20 times a week and 5% of the time I am alone with a man and a theoretical rape opportunity arises, is it correct to say that on average I will be assaulted every two years or did I miscalculate?

How many violent blokes is enough for our wariness to be justified?

So, what is the lesson here wheet?

The lesson here is don't believe made up statistics.

None of what you say explain your assertion that 1:10 randomly selected men are rapists. None.

Have you read any of the articles I linked?

Here:

"A small survey of college men points at something equal parts interesting and disturbing: one in three of them say they would be willing to "use force to obtain intercourse" as long as nobody would find out and there would be no consequences."

I already corrected myself and said it was one in three and not one in ten. (In that sample. It miiiight be that if the sample size was larger, it would be only one in ten. That would still beg the question as to why this specific campus was so infested with men who not only were rapists but were willing to admit it if asked in the right way and promised they'd remain anonymous)

If you aren't able to understand that "use force to obtain intercourse" is a fancy way to say "rape", then you frankly have no business debating about anything to do with feminism.

You may find excuses for those males, I refuse to. If a man says he would rape if there were no consequences, then he is, deep down in his dirty heart, a rapist.

And I do not for one second believe that men with less education rape less than men at college, so you can just skip that argument, too.

Actually, all you believers in male goodness: Why don't you ask your male acquaintances if they'd "use force to obtain intercourse" if they had bought a woman a drink, or perhaps even dinner and she really, really owed it to them but refused to put out.

Just as a test. I'd be interested in your findings.

I had quite a few men tell me things that made me extremely wary of them, without any hesitation. It is all about listening, nodding and smiling and asking the right questions.

No wheet, the lesson here is that the exact rate of rapists among males does not make a qualitative difference. You will get high numbers of assaults when you put women into a situation where they are regularly secluded in a space with some random male, irrespective of whether 0.1% or 10% of them are rapists.

But that is looking only at college students.

"Men who rape tend to start young, in high school or the first couple of years of college, likely crossing a line with someone they know, the research suggests."

College students then would seem to be the perfect set to study, using opportunity rape as the first victim or two.

The article then goes on say that some only destroy one or two lives commit only 2 rapes then stop.

The problem doesn't seem to be made up statistics, to me. More like preconceived concepts, weet.

www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/health/men-rape-sexual-assault.html

This is what you said

If one out of ten randomly choosen males is a rapist,

So no, by quoting an article that cites a study of 72 college students apparently saying that they would (not had) if they wouldn't get caught you are not proving what you originally said, nor quoting an even worse set of data.

Your first post was a completely made up statistic and then when asked to prove it you've frantically googled and found this study, which you clearly didn't read or you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by quoting it.

Weet you've made clear on many threads you don't like the 'type' of feminism you think dominates the Mumsnet 'Feminism & Women's Rights' board.
I understand the points of specific conflicts between what might be viewed as 'liberal feminism' and 'radical feminism'
Scratching my head a bit about the type of feminism you might align with based on your posts here.