Special trans taxi services to keep them safe

[BuzzShitbagBobbly]

Hey BBC, where's our front-page promoted article and video interview about all the things women have done for and by each other, for centuries, to stay safe in public? No?

The "look at poor ickle us suffering from these things nobody has ever had to worry about before" is so infuriating. We have been living this shit forever.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49516092/the-taxi-service-trying-to-keep-trans-people-safe

Roses some people care about gender. Hence a trans only service - which everyone here supports. Drivers can wear pronoun pins etc - it’s a great idea.

Other people care about sex, not gender. Hence a female-only service. TM are included. You don’t have to agree with such a service or use it. Just respect that others will.

How can anyone oppose a female-only service?

If some people can organise by gender, others can organise by sex.

How can anyone oppose a female-only service?

I don't, I've even said that I can see why some people want one.

Yes, non-binary.

There is no “utter splice.” A service which excludes people based on trans status would be discriminatory. I would oppose it.

A service excluding people who are male would be a proportional means to a legitimate aim.

I love my Dad, brothers, son and I like and respect all the TW I know. But I know that many women will feel unsafe in an enclosed space with them. Because they are bad or predatory people? No of course not. Because they are all male.

Ok if you support female-only, we are all agreed.

Some extremist TRAs want to force female-only services to include TW. I’m glad you disagree.

OMG 'tarring with the same brush' bad fucking luck.

People who are male belong to the class of people who are vastly more likely to sexually assaut females. That's a fact.

Why do women have to pander to males by pretending this isn't true, because 'good men and good TW' get their feelings hurt ? Imagine putting your male feelings ahead of female safety! That's actually a hint that those men and TW are not 'good' at all.

Good men and TW accept that females are vulnerable to males, as a class, and support single sex services on that basis, without making it all about their hurt feelings.

OMG 'tarring with the same brush' bad fucking luck.

It's just a variant of NAMALT, isn't it.

I love my Dad, brothers, son and I like and respect all the TW I know. But I know that many women will feel unsafe in an enclosed space with them. Because they are bad or predatory people? No of course not. Because they are all male

That's where we differ. I'm never going to feel unsafe in an enclosed space with my dad, brother or either of my sons. Why would I? Just because they're male?
Just why I don't see why because I don't know them personally like you say, must mean they're bad. Must be an exhausting way to live.

Just why I don't see why because I don't know them personally like you say, must mean they're bad. Must be an exhausting way to live.

She is not saying that just because you don't know them they must be bad. She is saying that women are usually wary of men they don't know because some are dangerous and all are stronger than most women.

It is an exhausting way to live, women spend far too much time, money and energy simply keeping themselves safe.

That's where we differ.
Comprehension?

I love my Dad, brothers, son and I like and respect all the TW I know. But I know that many women will feel unsafe in an enclosed space with them.
I love my dad and brothers, but I don't expect other women to love them all too.

I'm never going to feel unsafe in an enclosed space with my dad, brother or either of my sons.
I wouldn't feel unsafe with my male family or friends either but I wouldn't expect other women to be happy in that situation. It's not for me to impose them on other women, even if I pin a note to each man explaining how lovely he is.

I don't see why because I don't know them personally like you say, must mean they're bad
I don't see why it must mean they are good either. And if a man is bad he can do me much more damage than a woman could. So it's easier to assume they all have the capacity to be bad. That isn't the same as assuming they all actually ARE bad. If I thought all men were likely to attack me I'd live in a fort and buy lots of guns.

Must be an exhausting way to live. Not really, it becomes second nature. Is driving exhausting? Constantly checking mirrors, anticipating other drivers' movements, keeping an eye on the road, adjusting driving style for the conditions, keeping your own car roadworthy, etc... Most people do all this without consciously thinking about it. The same way that most women constantly assess the men in a room, what they are up to, their body movements, anything out of the ordinary.

"The Gift of Fear" is very good for things like this. There's a story from a client who was brutally raped. Her attacker was in her home. He went to the kitchen and somehow she knew he was going to return and kill her, although he was calm with her.

When she was being counselled by the author of the book he helped her realise why she knew he was going to kill her. He had shut the windows. To mask the sound. She hadn't even made a conscious decision about it - but she listened to her instinct and survived by escaping down the hall and out the front door.

We all have those instincts. We should use them. If that means occasionally a man feels slightly insulted, fine. If it means you don't understand my concerns, also fine. But you don't get to decide for me what is reasonable and what isn't.

Interesting that women want single sex taxi services to reduce the risk of getting assaulted. According to some posters here it seems that transpeople want trans taxis to avoid getting called sir if they're a ma'am. I thought I was joking when I said what they were scared of is GC women.

Is it actually more a taxi and validation service? Log your pronouns when you order your taxi and driver will duly call you sir/ma'am/?. That makes more sense to me as it is a simple and concrete difference in offering that anyone could choose to provide or use. Whereas trying to define the group of who is trans to use a service or who is safe to deliver it seems impossible within the realm of identity politics where you are whatever you say you are.

It's just a variant of NAMALT, isn't it.

Yep. So tedious. Especially on a FWR board.

It's the tarring with a brush that SOME have on here that if you're in possession of a penis (weapon) that automatically means you're a threat that I take umbrage with.

Go and read Schrodinger's Rapist and don't post on this thread again until you have done. Not all men are rapists, but any man could be a rapist, so I am prudent to treat all men as though they might be rapists. And the chance of a woman being a rapist is zero because women don't have penises and English law defines rape as a crime committed using a penis.

You can "take umbrage" until the sun turns nova but I am not changing how I risk-assess people to spare male feelings. The man who expects me to prioritise his feelings over my safety flags himself as an immediate rape threat with that attitude.

I'm never going to feel unsafe in an enclosed space with my dad, brother or either of my sons.

The father of your sons is a noticeable exception to this list. That makes sense: 50% of rapes are committed by the victim's current or former intimate partner.

Most women feel safe with male immediate blood relatives, because the incest taboo is reasonably good (although not perfect) at preventing rape by that particular set of males. That doesn't mean I expect other women to feel safe around my immediate male blood relatives.

Roses you misunderstand me.

I feel perfectly safe in enclosed spaces with my Dad, brothers, son and the TW I know.

Many other women would not feel safe in an enclosed space alone with any of these individuals who I know as lovely people.

Why not? Because they are bad people? Because they are predatory? No, not at all. Because they are male.

Again - if you don’t want or need a single sex service, don’t use it

As long as you support others’ right to a female-only service, we are in complete agreement.

As I understand it, you do support the existence of female only taxi services for those who want them.

Don’t you?

Just like everyone else supports the trans-only taxi service.

To be perfectly clear:

I know many other women (not me) will unsafe sound my male relatives and friends (not their own).

Because they don’t know them like I do.

I don;t take lightly to be being told how I must be or think or do as a woman, and I doubt men do too.

Didn't clock this on first reading. Treating all men as possible rapists isn't telling them how they "must be or think or do". That's a logical fallacy called "straw man", where you misrepresent a woman's reasoned wariness of men as her imposing behavioural constraints upon them. (As if women have the power to impose behavioural constraints upon men, hahaha I wish: if we did, rape and warfare would be consigned to the history books and murder would be exceptionally rare.)

(Sorry I might have got a bit carried away with all my bolding Trying to emphasise that not all males are predatory (of course) but unless you personally know them, you have to assume they are)

Yikes, a discussion re sexual assault prompts this from Google Ads?

.

It's the tarring with a brush that SOME have on here that if you're in possession of a penis (weapon) that automatically means you're a threat that I take umbrage with

You seem to think that men don't rape or murder women. They do.

Saying 4 words does not change the fact that men as a class are a threat to women as a class.

You seem to be positing being trans as some sort of 'get out of jail card'; which enables trans women to opt out of being 'tarred witb the same brush'.

All men have to do, as a class, is ro stop assaulting, raping and murdering women, and the we will stop having to class them as a threat to women.

To pretend some men are safer, and to automatically allow them whatever they want, because they say some words, is utterly insane.

When she was being counselled by the author of the book he helped her realise why she knew he was going to kill her. He had shut the windows. To mask the sound. She hadn't even made a conscious decision about it - but she listened to her instinct and survived by escaping down the hall and out the front door.

We all have those instincts. We should use them. If that means occasionally a man feels slightly insulted, fine. If it means you don't understand my concerns, also fine. But you don't get to decide for me what is reasonable and what isn't.

This. It's one of the things which makes me most angry about this whole males in female spaces nonsense. We need to worry a lot less about politeness and hurting male feelings when we feel uncomfortable. Predators know how to use it against us and they target women this way. One extreme example: Ted Bundy killed many women by pretending to be injured and asking women to come to his car and help him. Doubtless some of them felt uncomfortable. But they were too polite to say no, go and find a man.

Women who deny that men as a class are a threat are indulging in a version of the "just world fallacy". "It happened to you because reasons, it won't happen to me". This is comforting, but it's wrong.

2. A female-only service is fine (this does not exclude trans people as trans guys are included. It excludes only male people, both men and TW

Roses:
Dafuq. See the utter splice you did there? (If you did, fair enough, if you didn't that's why I'm pointing it out,)
You see you're excluding trans people there with your sentence, right?
You might not agree they'll ever be women but you're still saying no as always men. Although you're happy with transmen as they have the foofs (presumably, in your general world?)
So you're (general your) not happy with transpeople. Unless it's the right type of transpeople that is)

<span class="italic">How can anyone oppose a female-only service?</span>

Also <strong>Roses</strong>:
<span class="italic">I don't, I've even said that I can see why some people want one.</span>

These two opinions seem contradictory to me.

You understand that transwomen are not female, as you've said so before, so I'm confused by these statements.

How many people would be using this service if it is purely for trans women (trans men don’t seem to be in the story here)? Can’t see it being a viable business plan.

Maybe in NYC or London it is, but I can't see it catching on in provincial areas.

Like the Virgin trans staff flights?