Excluding trans women from women's single sex spaces is discriminatory - Human Rights Watch

[stumbledin]

Extract from letter to PM:

" ... We are particularly concerned by media reports suggesting that the government plans to exclude trans women from women-only spaces. This would be a seriously regressive and discriminatory step. The government’s own 2018 consultation on the GRA states clearly that “trans and non-binary people are members of our society and should be treated with respect.” However, this proposal would force trans women to use male facilities, despite strong evidence that this puts them at risk of violence. Conversely, there is no evidence that allowing trans women access to women-designated spaces, which has been the case for a number of years, puts other women at risk.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, an interdisciplinary professional association comprised of over 700 members worldwide, has found that medical and other barriers to gender recognition for transgender individuals, including diagnostic requirements, “may harm physical and mental health.”

In line with international human rights standards and medical best practice, Human Rights Watch recommends that the government reform the GRA to allow for a transparent, accessible administrative process for legal gender recognition based on self-identification. We urge you to reject any policies that would subject trans women to discrimination and expose them to harm, in particular by denying them access to safe spaces for women. ... "

www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/17/letter-uk-prime-minister-gender-recognition-reform

ie trans women have human rights - biological women dont, which seems to mean biological women dont have human rights or maybe dont even qualify as human!!

there is no evidence that allowing trans women access to women-designated spaces, which has been the case for a number of years, puts other women at risk.'

They keep just saying this over and over, as if endlessly repeating it will somehow make it true.

Jess Bradley (remember him?!) said it a couple of years ago on the telly. It turned out he was the evidence, as he was caught flashing his penis all over the place in public!

Does anyone find the language used by TRA to be quite...raped?

They demand entry. They don't want barriers. Their needs must be met.

If the language we use reflects at a deeper level our attitudes then they are not above using physical force in the way they use verbal force. Clearly not all but it is quite intimidating and make me all the more determined to fight them off.

Conversely, there is no evidence that allowing trans women access to women-designated spaces, which has been the case for a number of years, puts other women at risk.

They might have more luck with this, if transwomen hadn't already posted boasting selfies of themselves in women's toilets clutching swords, or with their cocks out, or photographing young girls to aid their period fetish.

Does anyone find the language used by TRA to be quite...raped?

They demand entry. They don't want barriers. Their needs must be met

Women and girls should always be alert to boundary violations by male people, to the refusal to respect a simple and clear, 'no!'

WhatCFeryIsThis - safe spaces isn't just about women's loos and whether men might try and trick their way in there.

For women seeking support services who are survivors of male violence having male presence in that space is enourmously triggering.

And yes I do know some "women's services" do allow trans women into their services, but as we know not just from research and reports, but from personal testimony on FWR that can have a really terrible impact on women needing a safe supportive environment.

And one of the things that is so disturbing as that a number of trans women seemed to target being part of these services. Whereas if they did genuinely feel like a woman they would know absolutely why they shouldn't do it.

IME verbal boundary violations from males are often a test to see whether or not a woman or girl is comfortable and confident defending her boundaries. If the answer is "no" then the male testing the boundaries will often escalate.

This is all so depressing. I feel very sorry for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, but I think that number of people is probably very small. All those teenage girls, often on the autism spectrum, trying to work out why they don't fit into this world of selfies and perfect beauty. Then picking up on gender dysphoria as potential diagnosis, for some it might be right, but so many make changes they regret leading to misery and suicide. Add to that some of these predatory men, taking advantage of liberal changes to the law to protect a tiny number of people genuinely affected by binary "facilities". What a sad mess.

Surely there is a way between the cruelty of previous generations to brilliant gay people like Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing and the uncontrolled liberalism from political correctness gone mad.

What a mess! We just have to hope that people like JK Rowling are successful in reining in excess.

This is all so depressing. I feel very sorry for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, but I think that number of people is probably very small

Absolutely this.

The rest , well just look at them. Look at what they do, what they say. It's a fucking nightmare.

This is all so depressing. I feel very sorry for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, but I think that number of people is probably very small.

Many people, especially girls and women, feel distress that their body is not what they desparately want it to be.

With regards those people who experience distress characterised as 'gender dysphoria' there needs to be the opportunity to unpick with support the causes / contributory factors. The range/nature of causes is different for females than males.

BMJ Published 29 October 2018
'Redesigning gender identity services: an opportunity to generate evidence'
authors: Richard Byng, general practitioner and professor in primary care research, Susan Bewley, emeritus professor of obstetrics and women’s health, Damian Clifford, consultant liaison psychiatrist, Margaret McCartney, general practitioner and freelance writer
(extracts)
"A recent feature in The BMJ implied that new services are all that’s needed to improve transgender healthcare. Providing timely, sensitive services for all, including those who decide to not pursue treatment or detransition, is important. But the article did not question the steep rise in referrals of mainly young women or the potential harms of medical overdiagnosis and overtreatment" (continues)

"Regulated medical practitioners should follow a framework of evidence, not simply respond to client expectations. Creating that evidence to inform quality standards is an ethical imperative. We need research to explore the interplays between gender identity, mental health and neurodevelopmental problems, sexual orientation, autogynephilia, and unpalatable gender roles" (continues)

www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4490
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3410257-BMJ-article-We-need-research-to-explore-the-interplays-between-gender-identity-mental-health-and-neurodevelopmental-problems-sexual-orientation-autogynephilia-and-unpalatable-gender-roles#82215722

I'm not debating this issue, but want to add in some figures.

Men were more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women (2.4% of males compared with 1.3% of females)

Stranger violence showed the largest difference in victimisation between men and women (1.4% and 0.4% respectively)

Women were more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than men (0.4% compared with 0.2%,)

43% of violent offences (563,000) were perpetrated by a stranger1, 36% (469,000) by an acquaintance, and the remaining 20% (261,000) were categorised as domestic violence across both men and women.

The majority of children and teen victims know the perpetrator.

Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93% of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator:
59% were acquaintances
34% were family members
7% were strangers to the victim

16% of women experience sexual violence during there lifetime.
21% of trans people experience sexual violence during their lifetime which is made up of 18% of transwomen and 4% of trans men.

37% of trans people are physically attacked a year on account of their gender identity by strangers

I actually couldn't find figures on random attacks on women by strangers.

The data suggests women are more at risk of violence from partners or people they know, whereas both men and trans men/women are significantly more at risk from strangers. But trans people are even at greater risk of stranger violence due to their gender identity compared to biological males who experience lower stranger violence then transwomen.

FuchsiaFox

Could you reference those stats please, I'm not disputing them but would like to know where they came from.

Also, I wonder how 'stranger' is defined. For example, would Karen Whites crimes against his female prisoner victims be classed as a 'stranger crime'? I wouldnt have thought so?

I'm not sure what you are saying with those statistics? Are you using them to argue that males should/shouldn't be allowed in female spaces according to how the male 'identifies'?

Please please everyone write to your MP, to Boris, to Liz Truss. They are - we need to counter.

The data suggests women are more at risk of violence from partners or people they know, whereas both men and trans men/women are significantly more at risk from strangers.

Breakdown for trans-identifying females and trans-identifying males, please.

I am sick of seeing 'transwomen blah blah other women'

Transwomen, being biologically male, are not a subset of women.

And

'... We are particularly concerned by media reports suggesting that the government plans to exclude trans women from women-only spaces.'

It's back to Barracker's 'pronouns are rohypnol'. I shall write to my MP pointing out that in reality that sentence is saying

'We are particularly concerned by media reports suggesting that the government planes to exclude adult males from single (female) SEX only spaces.

"We are particularly concerned by media reports suggesting that the government plans to return single sex spaces to being single sex, as they were until MRAs in pomo clothing came along and fucked everything up."

16% of women experience sexual violence during there lifetime.
21% of trans people experience sexual violence during their lifetime which is made up of 18% of transwomen and 4% of trans men.

Can you confirm the occupation of the women and men you list here? For example for the men: how many of the transwomen were involved in prostitution? I am also confused how you get to 21% when it is 18% of transwomen and 4% of transmen - if you summarised those numbers it must be nearer 11% for an equal sample of men and women?

Men were more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women (2.4% of males compared with 1.3% of females)

Yes is well known which is why it is so stark that even in Brazil which has sky high murder rates, the rate of murder of transwomen is not only less than that for other men but also less than that for women.

That's the thing though, isn't it?
I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it? What the TRAs have been campaigning for hasn't changed the GRA. So there is no loss of rights, but there is a pushback against non lawful demands. A loss of demands, if you like.

And for me it comes back to the unanswerable question 'What rights do trans people NOT currently have, which everyone else does?' And why should the demands of one group trump the rights of another?

I loathe this insistence that single sex exemptions include both this sexes by default already. It's just rubbish. And why do we continually have to justify all over again the single sex exemptions when they already exist.

Men can just fuck off.

Re the stats
Please can you share where they are from? So we can see which country/ies, how they collected the data etc etc

Assuming UK I have some comments:

Men were more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women (2.4% of males compared with 1.3% of females)

If the UK, sex crimes are not included in the violent crime category. A lot of crimes against women and girls are sex offences/ sexually motivated

Stranger violence showed the largest difference in victimisation between men and women (1.4% and 0.4% respectively)

As above, if this excludes sex offences it is an incomplete picture

Women were more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than men (0.4% compared with 0.2%,)

They didn't used to count offences over a certain number against the same woman. There is under reporting across the board. What definition of DV is being used?

43% of violent offences (563,000) were perpetrated by a stranger1, 36% (469,000) by an acquaintance, and the remaining 20% (261,000) were categorised as domestic violence across both men and women.

As above in UK sex offences are not counted in the violence category

The majority of children and teen victims know the perpetrator.

Ok no comments on that

Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93% of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator:
59% were acquaintances
34% were family members
7% were strangers to the victim

Ok no comments on that

16% of women experience sexual violence during there lifetime.
21% of trans people experience sexual violence during their lifetime which is made up of 18% of transwomen and 4% of trans men.

What is the definition of sexual violence? Depending on the definition, the figure for women feels low, possibly very low

37% of trans people are physically attacked a year on account of their gender identity by strangers

This is very strangely worded. Again I'd like to see the source please for definitions, data collection method etc

Thanks

I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it?

It won't be. And in fact, reforming the GRA would actually give trans people more rights that other people have ie. The legal right to create a total falsehood about who you are just on the basis of you saying so.

I was born in England. I have one Irish parent, I grew up in a fairly tight Irish community in England, I can do a pretty good Cork accent, I learnt tin whistle and accordion at my local Irish centre, my brother played GAA, I still go to Ireland fairly regularly. I quite strongly 'identify as Irish' despite being born in England. Does that mean I should have the right to change my birth certificate so that it says that I was born in Ireland? If I proved my dad had been born there, gave a little tune on the tin whistle, did the accent to the relevant person. I could also maybe show that I could hold my drink, or fulfil another stereotype about Irish people to prove I was 'living as an Irish person'. I mean, it would be great to be able to do that, it would mean that my own children could also automatically be irish citizens, making the Irish passport thing cheaper and easier? No, of course I shouldn't be able to do this.

How about if both of my parents were English, I had never actually been to Ireland and had never met an Irish person until my teens, but I 'self identified' as Irish? I was Irish because I say so? Should I be able to claim I was born in Ireland on my birth certificate? No, I definitely shouldn't be able to do this!

Because it is a total falsehood. A lie. An untruth. Bollocks. Bullshit. Crap. I was born in England.

At the moment trans people do actually have the right to legally create an untruth on their birth certificate, if they go through a certain process. To me, that is already a right that no one else has. To suggest that they should be able to do this on this basis of 'self-id' is laughable to be honest. Or it would be laughable if it wasn't such a threat to women's rights.

Thanks

I wouldn't hold your breath!

I keep reading that NOT changing the GRA will take rights away from trans people. But how can it?

Some assumed or had been led to believe by Stonewall et al they had 'rights' which they did not. If GRA self-id had come in these would have been secured.

I hadn't really thought about the GRA already giving transpeople who go through the full process additional rights over and above what the general population have.

So really upholding the current GRA terms is the equivalent of reiterating existing boundaries rather than drawing new ones? And all the kicking off is because demands have been made which it appears are not going to be fulfilled and that is seen as a taking away of rights (which were never there in the first place!)

It's like if I said "I have the right to come into your house, eat your food, and sleep in your bed" and the government came along and said "just to clarify, we have no intention of changing the law to give her those rights", and then I went "see, they're taking away my rights that I'm entitled to!"

And all the kicking off is because demands have been made which it appears are not going to be fulfilled and that is seen as a taking away of rights (which were never there in the first place!)

TRAs have been availing themselves of 'rights' based on their interpretation of the rights they think they should have.

The almost immediate re-writing/interpreting of part of the Equality Act 2010 by Sarah Brown (former LibDem Cambridge councillor & Stonewall Trans Advisory Group) is a good example.

Cambridgeshire Live 26 SEP 2018
'Transgender toilet row - claims city has gone 'a step backwards'
(extract)
"Cambridge has been accused of “taking a step backwards” as the city revises its policy on transgender people’s access to public toilets.

In 2010, Sarah Brown, then a Cambridge city councillor, proposed an amendment to the council’s equality policy in which it committed to non-discrimination against transgender people. Since then, self-identifying trans women have been allowed to access women-only facilities including toilets and changing rooms.

In July, Ann Sinnott, who represented Petersfield at Cambridge City Council, stood down from the council saying their policy allowing self-identifying trans-women to access women’s facilities was in breach the Equality Act 2010.

The city council has now responded and proposed amendments to the policy including replacing references to “gender” with “sex” and replacing references to “transgender” with “gender reassignment” or “transsexual people”. The council says these changes would mean the policy is consistent with the law.

Amendments to the policy also make explicit that the council has discretion to apply the “single sex exemption” in the Equality Act 2010 in very exceptional circumstances.

This exemption enables public bodies to exclude transsexual people from single sex spaces, facilities and jobs where this is a “proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim” and where there is “clear evidence” this is necessary." (continues)

Sarah Brown, who is transgender herself, said she was “disappointed” the council had re-worded its policy, and said she was worried this meant the council would be able to “discriminate” against trans people. (continues)
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/transgender-toilet-row-claims-city-15199314.amp

threads
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376567-anne-sinnott-vindicated-she-was-right

original thread (includes the minutes detailing Cllr Sarah Brown's role in the change to Equality Act policies in Cambridge) :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

Ann Sinnott in discussion with Venice Allen:
www.youtube.com/embed/wgHOgO5HX1o

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327625-venice-allen-speaks-to-anne-sinnott