"Survivors Must Fight For Trans Women Too" thoughts?

[Happy101]

Stumbled across this article, and was shocked to see some of the sentiments being displayed, primarily accusing domestic abuse survivors of weaponising their trauma to stop access for trans-women to their shelters. Quite a shocking read that places the protection of trans-women at the feet of already extremely vulnerable women? I've always been pro-trans, but this has just really rubbed me the wrong way for some reason and is making me question a lot of what this movement is seeking to achieve

Link: www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2020/07/9919890/transphobia-and-domestic-violence

I stayed until my DD was 3 because I was convinced it would be hell. I know some of the residents had shitty previous refuge experiences and there was one woman when I first moved in who terrified us all, she ended up in prison and another lady who was just not into sharing or being social was moved elsewhere to another refuge with self enclosed flatlet (if thats the word)
I know this is not everyones experience but there is a reason why I hold Refuge in such high regard, they're bloody good at supporting Women and kids in shitty circumstances.

I'm only mentioning it in case anyone is reading this who is considering it. There are good and bad and privacy is available if you're lucky, you can also leave at any time..

Seems like the title of this article has been changed once or twice.

The tab is labelled "We must Protect Trans Women from Domestic Violence Too" which is a much less inflammatory, offensive title.

Article's still shit no matter what it's titled but I think it's been re-titled for hate clicks. Some POS at refinery29 s telling domestic violence survivors in shelters that they need to do activism on behalf of males in order to mine extra clicks from this moronic, misleading, dangerous article.

So here's an archive.

archive.is/UqukR

"We must Protect Trans Women from Domestic Violence Too" which is a much less inflammatory, offensive title.

Quite. But begs the obvious responses:

Yes, of course. And men, gay men, and anyone else who suffers domestic violence. All of whom need access to refuges to meet their needs. These however should not be provided by taking existing resources away from female people and excluding all the ones who can't overcome their own needs for the sake of males from any provision at all*

• It is not ever the job of female people to put down their own needs and sort out males having the same needs as some kind of birth based responsibility. Because that's insanely fucking sexist.

• It is pointless trying to argue there is no such thing as a biological female/ genitals mean nothing/ sex is a spectrum while at the same time demonstrating wildly differing and entirely sex based standards that privilege those born with penises over those born without. Because however many times you change your article title it just makes you look like a twit.

HRFT, please ignore If this has been posted.

From: williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/

Only one study directly compared the lifetime prevalence of IPV among transgender and cisgender people. This study found that 31.1% of transgender people and 20.4% of cisgender people had ever experienced IPV or dating violence (Langenderfer-Magruder, 2014)

Here is that study: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260514556767

It compares IPV only in the LGBT community, ie. this study does not compare lifetime IPV between transgender people and women not L or B.
Specifically it does not compare trans women to natal women.

Perhaps someone with access and expertise in statistics could take a look?

I wouldn't think these findings could be generalized. If the study controls for IPV for LB before they come out and only focuses on IPV in female only relationships, is anyone surprised it's lower?

How many transmen are present in the data?

I realise it's a moot point. Higher rates of IPV doesn't bestow femaleness on transgender people.

Do please create your own shelters trans people, with trans peers to facilitate. It's best practice, will benefit everyone and has the added benefit of not harming women and children.

It's an appalling, deeply offensive article. I won't dissect it, as PP have already done so brilliantly. But I noticed the repeated use of the phrase "gender based violence".

They had to use this phrase because the more accurate "sex based violence" would have reminded the reader that TW are of the male sex and that most serious intimate partner violence and, afaik, all DV murders are committed by males and anyone with any knowledge of the subject knows that TW commit male pattern crime.

I find myself astonished by the idea that a transwidow's refusal to accept her DH's revised gender identity or her mockery could be classed as abuse. The boot, in my view, is very much on the other foot.

Ugh that article was gaslighting and creepy as fuck. Red flags up for anyone who says women can’t have boundaries.

@Fanthorpe @Collidascope

Thank you. Makes it a lot clearer.

The whole article is just insulting. I rarely use the term 'offended' because I think it's lost all meaning. But in this case, I actually really am offended by this crap. As well as everything mentioned already, this caught my eye:

"In the fight for bodily autonomy, for freedom from gender-based violence and crushing gender norms, trans people are not only our allies, sisters and siblings but have always been leading the way."

Leading the fucking way? In fighting for freedom from gender norms? Really?

newrubylane

The mind boggles how the authors came to the belief that transwomen are fighting gender norms. Their lack of imagination was apparent throughout most of the article so I guess they really believed that too. I always laugh at Alex Drummond telling the world they would fix their car ‘as a woman’. Yeah mate. I was doing that at 16, so technically still a ‘girl’ even and was wearing a dress while doing it. No biggie.

You all are so much nicer and more articulate than me. The article really upset me. It felt like that was deliberate.

Are the authors of this article the so-called handmaidens I have seen talked about? They actually remind me of the class of Aunts in Atwood's Handmaid's Tale who had the job to indoctrinate all women into the correct beliefs.

Reading that piece was an unpleasant experience. I wrote them a very angry complaint. Polite, but fuming.

And then I felt a bit better, but now I am back fuming.

When did it become just fine to treat the majority of women with contempt (a 'herd of Karens') on social media? It wasn't like that, outside the misogyny circles, ten years ago.

And when did it become customary to openly boss women the way that article does, and to simply assign guilt and blame to all survivors without any attempt to see who is doing what gate-keeping, and then to tell all survivors off for being abusers themselves.

The whole thing is outrageously nasty. And yes, SetYourselfOnFire, I think it is deliberately nasty and fueled by contempt towards the group that would be us.

@Winesalot

newrubylane

The mind boggles how the authors came to the belief that transwomen are fighting gender norms. Their lack of imagination was apparent throughout most of the article so I guess they really believed that too. I always laugh at Alex Drummond telling the world they would fix their car ‘as a woman’. Yeah mate. I was doing that at 16, so technically still a ‘girl’ even and was wearing a dress while doing it. No biggie.

Trans women need rigid gender stereotypes to exist so that they can pass by copying them, I have read at some uni website. Because this is about trans rights, we (=those whom these stereotypes harm) must accept them. Supporting retrogressive gender stereotypes is now progressive policy, at least on some campuses.

Nepeta it completely boggles and scares me how these institutions (nit just universities) must be in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance. Yet they tend to double down if challenged, and not on the side of women.

ChattyLion yes. I never realized how enormous the changes have been. Somewhere along the route women's issues were just set aside and women reappeared as possibly quite problematic oppressors.

And when did it become customary to openly boss women the way that article does

Men instructing women on how to women properly, and demanding to control them, their spaces, their language, their thoughts and perceptions....

In fact demonstrating exactly why female people need single sex spaces that exclude all males without exception. Because this is how they behave.

LesNot

I've had a look. The study does not differentiate between males who identify as trans and females who identify as trans in its reporting on lifetime experience of DV. But it emphasizes that it did not find that males who identify as trans suffer higher levels of abuse than females who identify as trans (that's the usual claim and they point out that their result is markedly different from other studies).

It's not a bad study, properly explains the shortcomings and issues in collecting the data. Analyses previous studies, explains why much of the data is not as reliable as it ought to be. Draws a number of reasonable conclusions, too, about the need to be aware that DV also happens in LGBT relationships and makes suggestions to do so.

Main issue is that they did not specify what they meant by "Intimate partner/dating violence".

Also does not distinguish between males who identify as trans and who are in relationships with males and those in relationships with females (i.e. it lumps homosexual and heterosexual relationships together). This is especially curious as they explain that internalized homophobia in either or both victim and perpetrator may be an important factor in DV in LGB relationships, which surely would also matter for homosexual T ones.

Refinery are terrible for these types of pieces. There’s often quickly a lot of reasonable objections in the comments but clearly they don’t listen to women- despite their premise.

I seem to remember even decades back when I was a kid there were adverts about how 1 in 4 women experience dv at some point in our lives. If that wasn’t a questioned stat then (and if it should be it’s too low, at least one) it’s clearly cherrypicked stats the writers use. They also overlook the reality that women fleeing are likely to have children to protect and pay for, males are rarely in that position, trans or otherwise.

The piece is garbage rhetoric, but that’s what seems to pass as righteous argument. My ‘victimhood’ does make me hyper vigilant to sniffing out predators and having boundaries isn’t a form of abusing others. When survivors of abuse are pressured to prosecute with the argument that if they don’t other kids or women might be harmed the counter is always that it’s only ever the abuser who is responsible for abuse and it’s not the survivors job to feel guilty for that because that’s just more gaslight bs. Even if (and it doesn’t) women having boundaries for their safety meant tw were left at greater risk of dv the same applies- it’s only ever the abusers responsibility for the violence he commits, never other victims. Their argument is basic victim blaming weaponised and the (mostly younger I’d expect) readers won’t see that through the garbled sentences and fake facts.

nepeta
Somewhere along the route women's issues were just set aside and women reappeared as possibly quite problematic oppressors.

You just made me wonder how much of the lecturing is a result of cognitive dissonance resulting in hostility being redirected towards those of us who will not comply.
If only we would sit down and shut up they wouldn't feel so uncomfortable.

Did anyone who complained get a response? They have just ignored my email.