Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

[Bb2019]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking on this board and generally following the mainstream uk press about trans issues including the JK Rowling debate etc.

I've been shocked with the likes of Mermaids and the Tavistock centre prescribing under 18s life changing treatments.

I'm still trying to understand the implications and form an informed opinion on the use of women only places by trans women. I understand it would make many women uncomfortable if it were obvious.

Do we have any statistics or research done on how often women or girls have been attacked in their own spaces by men passing as trans women and or by trans women? I know it happens anecdotally but how much more likely is it to happen? Is it isolated incidents or is the risk much heightened? Perhaps it's not possible to do this type of research though due to a paucity of data?

Thanks!

Current protection for transwomen doesn't include automatic entrance into female spaces. This is not discriminatory under the Equality Act because transwomen are male humans and therefore have no more right to these spaces than other human males.

Boy George using women’s toilets doesn’t mean women were ok with it.

He’s a big bloke and back in the 80s would have looked very strange to some women- many simply would not feel happy saying get out.

Women don’t always square up to blokes, it’s very very dangerous.

It was all about reasonable allowances and budging up and being kind, and then women were told they weren't allowed to call themselves women or have any spaces to themselves without invasions, or meet in public to discuss any concerns they might have, or speak on social media without campaigns to have them doxxed, fired, cancelled and hounded.

If you're not aware of what lots of women have gone through in the past few years with this issue, then that in itself is quite evident of the fact that women's experiences, safety, wishes and autonomy are not being respected, not seen, not heard, nor cared about.

An inability to see or envision any problems because they don't directly affect you - or not accepting it when women tell you they are affected, have been affected, does not mean these things don't happen or aren't issues.

I don't find autogynephilia theory very persuasive and don't think it is well evidenced (and also contains some highly reactionary assumptions)

Flat earthers don't find Galileo's heliocentrism persuasive and creationists reject the theory of evolution. And yet disbelief does nothing to rebut scientific research. Only evidence to the contrary does.

Autogynephilia is the most researched paraphilia in the world and researchers have collected empirical data from many thousands of affected males. Many of whom fully agree with the diagnosis.

You might want to do a bit more reading. I mean you don't know what's been happening in the UK even though trans inclusive policies are in schools and hospitals and prisons that explicitly include part-time crossdressers and those who make no changes as trans; you haven't taken any notice of the harms reported on worldwide (self-id and trans inclusion policies based on self-id have been abused in every single country where they have been introduced, including Ireland and the US); you don't seem to have any idea about today's trans community or the trans rights movement.

In any event 1 in 4 is significantly higher than 1%,

OK, I'll do this again. A maximum of 20% of those who identify as trans seek help from the health service. This help consists for the most part of counselling and hormonal treatments, a smaller part involves cosmetic surgeries not involving genitals and a tiny part involves genital surgery.

Both the numbers of annual surgeries and the numbers of actual patients from various studies suggest that no more than 1% transition all the way to full penectomy and neo-vagina. I was being generous by saying 5% do. For every 1 homosexual transsexual (HSTS) there are estimated to be 4 non-homosexual transsexuals, as per the research I referred you to. That gives you 1% of the total male trans cohort being fully post-op HSTS.

And nor will it be solved by the removal of current protections for trans women.

That's not being planned. Neither the GRA nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are being removed.

Assumed rights are not law. Women acquiescing to the presence of males who may seem less dangerous or remaining silent out of fear with males who do seem dangerous does not give these males nor all others like them the legal right to be there. Misrepresentations of the law by trans rights organisations do not change the law. Even the EHRC had to correct their guidance after misrepresenting the Equality Act from the beginning. Statutory powers or not, they cannot supersede the actual law. And that law is being undermined by the policies you support and we oppose.

Mind you, much more telling than your science denial or false claims about the law is that you have throughout this entire thread point blank refused to acknowledge any of the harms happening to real women and girls as being unacceptable enough to rethink these policies you support. Anecdotal you say. Not really trans. Not happening.

How many of us being harmed by these policies would cause you to rethink?

Has anyone mentioned Dolatowski yet?

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/866968/sex-offender-who-targeted-young-children-in-fife-supermarket-toilets-given-jail-warning-for-breaching-strict-community-order/

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/819644/mum-of-supermarket-toilet-sex-assault-victim-warns-freed-attacker-could-strike-again/

Wanna bet Dolatowski "not really trans?"

If you had your way, jj, and self-ID was to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc, then (bearing in mind that predatory people - trans status immaterial - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would you consider to be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

Charlie parley

jj1968

”... just that it happened, and I'm not aware of that causing any harm to women.”

”... reaching for absolutes is futile.”

”... it's an observation of what seems to happen where trans inclusion has taken place. It hasn't seemed to have caused harm,...”

”... and I don't think this solution will be solved by statute, clear definitions...”

These are your statements, despite the many, many posts and links given to you here, you still are looking out your eye sideways. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And who needs absolutes like ‘law’? Resistance is futile huh.

Or as CharlieParley posted
Mind you, much more telling than your science denial or false claims about the law is that you have throughout this entire thread point blank refused to acknowledge any of the harms happening to real women and girls as being unacceptable enough to rethink these policies you support. Anecdotal you say. Not really trans. Not happening.

How many of us being harmed by these policies would cause you to rethink?

Wanna bet Dolatowski "not really trans?"

It doesn't matter though does it? No-one can know except Dolatowski. Fact is, trans policies allowed Dolatowski to enter spaces where D could offend more easily. So it doesn't matter.

I wonder how long it will take until Dads start to do a Pip Bunce and id as a woman long enough to accompany their daughters to the loo.

@IloveJKRowling

Wanna bet Dolatowski "not really trans?"

It doesn't matter though does it? No-one can know except Dolatowski. Fact is, trans policies allowed Dolatowski to enter spaces where D could offend more easily. So it doesn't matter.

I wonder how long it will take until Dads start to do a Pip Bunce and id as a woman long enough to accompany their daughters to the loo.

I very much doubt a ban on trans women entering women's toilets would have prevented that offence. Someone determined to carry out an attack as horrible as that is not going to be stopped by either a law or social convention aimed at preventing trans women from entering women's toilets.

Ah, we're back to the eternal pivot between "that never happens" and "well, it's going to happen anyway so what's a few more cases?"

Been there, done that, watched it go down too many times.

Still a hard no to biological males in women's spaces from me.

@CharlieParley There is considerable published evidence challenging autogynephilia theory as I'm sure you know. It doesn't make me stupid, on ignorant, or unresearched simply because I have come to a different conclusion to you, it is very far from settled science.

"That's not being planned. Neither the GRA nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are being removed."

If that is the case we are in agreement. I feel confident the law protects trans inclusion, so if there is to be no strengthening of the exemptions in the EA then personally I'd be quite happy for the law to stay as it is, although I would support moves to make it easier to change birth certificates without having to apply to a government panel.

But there are many in the GC movement who are calling for the law to be strengthened or some kind of bathroom bill to be introduced.

I very much doubt a ban on trans women entering women's toilets would have prevented that offence.

Now that's where you are wrong. Dolatowski was accompanied by a youth worker who would not have let his charge use the Ladies otherwise.

I feel confident the law protects trans inclusion, so if there is to be no strengthening of the exemptions in the EA then personally I'd be quite happy for the law to stay as it is

That law protects trans inclusion unless the protected characteristic of sex takes precedence.

The recommendation from the House of Commons report on strengthening the sex-based exemptions is not about changing the law, but making sure that the law we have is enforced. So yes, it will stay as it is.

What they are referring to is that the government is to advise anyone offering or providing any female-only legal set aside* that they have the right to do so and that it is perfectly legal to exclude ALL biological males who identify as trans and who are still legally male from ALL female-only legal set asides that exclude ALL other biological males. And to advise them that once they have made a case for a female-only legal set aside that only allows access to biological females that they can also lawfully exclude all biological males who identify as trans and who are legally female (ie have a GRC).

Those are the sex-based exemptions that currently exist in the law, but that certain trans rights organisations and campaigners have been advising providers of female-only legal set asides are not lawful to enforce against males who identify as trans.

*This includes scholarships, clubs, programs, shortlists and awards designed to redress the inequalities that only impact on female people, single-sex services like rape crisis counselling and spaces like a mammogram waiting room or prison ward. It includes the right to political organisations and assembly outwith the presence of males, and to sports and single-sex sessions in gyms or swimming pools etc.

As I recall it was reported that she broke away from her support worker and went into the toilets. I very much doubt a bathroom bill would have prevented this assault.

@CharlieParley It is the government's job to introduce laws and the courts jobs to interpret them. So without further legislation or amendments to the EA all they can really do is state the law as it stands, which is that trans exclusion may be permitted as a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. It is for the courts, not Liz Truss, to decide where that threshold lies, and in the only case so far on the question of trans women in women's spaces they have found in favour of trans inclusion.

What the government certainly cannot do without further legislation is say that trans inclusion is illegal. It will remain as it is now, and as all service providers are aware, an option to exclude trans people in some cases but not a requirement. So without further legislaton then I expect things will stay pretty much the same.

jj
"in the only case so far on the question of trans women in women's spaces they have found in favour of trans inclusion"

I am aware of Croft vs Royal Mail which came to the opposite conclusion. What is this case?

And while you are here, jj, you haven't yet answered CharlieParley's and my question:

If self-ID is to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc (and bearing in mind that predatory people - regardless of their trans status - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

Thoughts?

If that is the case can we expect all trans groups to state publicly that single sex exemptions should remain part of the EA and that henceforth they will not actively lobby for their removal.Will they also accept publicly that the legal definition of women remains a female of any age as laid down in the Act.

@Bb2019

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking on this board and generally following the mainstream uk press about trans issues including the JK Rowling debate etc.

I've been shocked with the likes of Mermaids and the Tavistock centre prescribing under 18s life changing treatments.

I'm still trying to understand the implications and form an informed opinion on the use of women only places by trans women. I understand it would make many women uncomfortable if it were obvious.

Do we have any statistics or research done on how often women or girls have been attacked in their own spaces by men passing as trans women and or by trans women? I know it happens anecdotally but how much more likely is it to happen? Is it isolated incidents or is the risk much heightened? Perhaps it's not possible to do this type of research though due to a paucity of data?

Thanks!

Mermaids is a support group ffs. They don't prescribe anyone for anything.

Though I guess given the nature of this post, all you want to do is spread hysteria and misinformation.

@ANewCreation That case predated the Equality Act 2010, this is the only case so far I think under the act regarding trans inclusion in women's spaces: www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

If self-ID is to be rolled out across the board, in hospital wards, prisons, refuges, changing rooms etc (and bearing in mind that predatory people - regardless of their trans status - will always exploit Safeguarding loopholes) what would be an acceptable number of women and girls who can be harmed as 'collateral damage'?

What would be an acceptable number of trans women raped or beaten up in men's toilets if laws protecting trans inclusion were revoked?

And all of those places with the exception of prisons already work on the principle of self ID.

Ah good to see the old 'look ladies, men are gonna rape you anyway, so we might as well just remove current safeguarding and make female spaces mixed sex because that is what males want' chestnut is still alive and well

What would be an acceptable number of trans women raped or beaten up in men's toilets if laws protecting trans inclusion were revoked?

But why is that women's problem to solve? Why do women have to act as human shields? Why do women have to be made to move over and feel uncomfortable because some males can't cope with other males not conforming to their idea of masculinity?

Sorry to break it to you, but it's not women's job to sort out everyone's problems.

What about third spaces?

Gay men are also raped and assaulted in toilets and prisons by other male people. So should we just open up female only spaces to all vulnerable men or should men take responsibility and sort out their own propensity for violence. Women are not human shields.