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!

It's like some people think that women simply exist for men's validation and to sort their shit out. Not that woman actually have their own autonomy, thoughts and feelings about stuff, that maybe they don't feel comfortable with acting as human shields, that maybe they have their own things that they are dealing with.

This is obviously news to some people - you can see it in people like Owen Jones's tweets - he just cannot get his head around the idea of women saying 'no'.

What the government certainly cannot do without further legislation is say that trans inclusion is illegal.

We would honestly get further if you would stop misrepresenting the issue.

It is trans rights organisations that have been saying that trans exclusion is illegal.

What the government has been asked to do is to refute that claim and to confirm the Equality Act as it stands.

No one has asked the government to state that trans inclusion is illegal. Not us, not the House of Commons Committee.

What we are asking and what the committee recommended is to advise organisations that trans exclusion is indeed legal in regard to the sex-based exemptions set out in the Equality Act.

For instance, we were told by an organisation funded to provide a single-sex service that trans exclusion is illegal and they could not deliver the service we need (and which the public believes they do indeed provide) for that reason. Not because they don't want to, but because they are not allowed.

As their service is the very example used in the text of the Equality Act that is demonstrably untrue.

P.S. we are not asking for a US style Bathroom Bill, which in any case is not enforceable in the UK.

Bathroom Bills aim to force those who identify as trans to use the toilet provided for their sex. Such a bill would not be enforceable under the Equality Act.

That is not what we are campaigning for.

We are campaigning to maintain female-only legal set asides for females only. What that means in practice is third spaces in some cases, alternative solutions in others. For instance, we are not campaigning for Women's Aid or Rape Crisis to stop supporting males who identify as trans. We are asking that these services provide support for such males separately from the support they provide to females. For some services that means male-only, mixed-sex and female-only, for others mixed-sex and female-only and for another service it may mean male-only and female-only. In addition to all of the above, yet another provider may also offer specialist services for those who identify as trans only. All of those options are acceptable to us.

The only one we reject is the abolition of female-only legal set asides via the inclusion of males, regardless of how these males identify.

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

I agree with that, and i understand the sentiment. I think the problem is that trans women have been using womens spaces since forever, and now a small group of people (both women and men) are now campaigning for that protection to be removed. And this is a change that is likely to place trans women at significant risk. So whilst on one level it is not the job of those calling for this change to solve the problem of male violence, on the other hand we want trans women out of women's toilets and tough shit if you get raped is not a great look imo.

On third spaces, I've discussed that a bit but it really depends what third spaces mean. Whilst I suspect unisex toilets would be less dangerous than men's toilets, and lets' be fair, assaults in toilets of any kind are quite rare, it would still mean trans women forced to share with men. I also expect the idea would be hugely unpopular were it to be somehow legally mandated, as it would likely result in many cases removing toilets altogether rather than spending money on third spaces.

I think third spaces become even less viable for other kinds of provision. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of trans women access the refuge system each year. Would a trans only refuge really be viable? Would it be acceptable to you that a trans refuge which was empty half the year was perceived to be diverting funding from desperately under resourced women's services? Given what is happening in the world should we realy be embarking on rebuilding hospitals to ensure a third space that is barely occupied? I just don't think it's practical, I don't think it would win public support and I certainly don't think it is likely to happen under a Tory government in the middle of a pandemic and upcoming global recession.

There is already some provision for male rape victims in the UK . So no need for any make victims in female spaces. If there is insufficient provision for male rape victims perhaps they should lobby for more.

There is already some provision for male rape victims in the UK . So no need for any make victims in female spaces. If there is insufficient provision for male rape victims perhaps they should lobby for more.

Yes, and we are always told that refuges risk assess all of their clients very carefully, so why can't trans women use male refuges - and as you say, if the service is not sufficient then lobby for more, like females had to.

There is already some provision for male rape victims in the UK . So no need for any make victims in female spaces. If there is insufficient provision for male rape victims perhaps they should lobby for more.

Do you really think that a trans women, who may be traumatised by male violence, is really going to go live in a refuge full of men?

Would you really be okay with funding being diverted to trans only services at a time when women's refuges are being starved of funds?

But you expect traumatised women to share accommodation with members of the opposite sex!!

Would a trans only refuge really be viable? Would it be acceptable to you that a trans refuge which was empty half the year was perceived to be diverting funding from desperately under resourced women's services? Given what is happening in the world should we realy be embarking on rebuilding hospitals to ensure a third space that is barely occupied?

Hmm, I'm not sure now that you are in the UK based on this. Every single thing here you raise as an impractical solution is entirely doable in the UK.

Indeed, the original trans inclusion policy by Scottish Women's Aid for instance had emminently sensible guidelines on providing a separate service to males who identify as trans. Every hospital here has single occupancy rooms assigned on the basis of an individual's specific circumstances which would obviously easily accommodate a male patient who identifies as trans.

When it comes to the strain on funding, that was created when the initial demand was made that the services originally built, funded and run by and for women accommodate males. It's nice of you to worry about it, but we've been dealing with the fallout of that demand for years already.

We know that all of the things we're suggesting can be accommodated easily, and without putting males who identify as trans in danger, because that's how they were initially organised. What our solutions do not provide for is affirmation of a male person as a woman.

But as the problems you have mentioned throughout don't seem to be about the usual demand that women affirm a male as a fellow woman, you should be relieved to hear that we can solve those problems without denying women their rights.

@CharlieParley In a lot of cases trans exclusion is illegal. However if all you want Truss to do is re-affirm what it already says in the Equalities Act, then that's great, I have no problem with that. In fact I don't really see how it will change anything.

But the fact remains there are many in the GC movement who seek much more than that.

" .. who seek much more than that."

Examples??

@334bu

Here's Woman's Place calling for businesses and organisations to be fined for not protecting female only spaces: womansplaceuk.org/the-law-must-work-for-women/

In a lot of cases trans exclusion is illegal.

Not when it comes to the sex-based exemptions. Please provide an example of an illegal case so that we may see whether we are discussing the same issue.

Here is an example from me:

An employer (let's say an advertising agency) asks all senior colleagues to present their departments' most recent campaigns to showcase the agency's versatile portfolio to a prospective new client.

One such senior colleague is Iris B who has recently come out as trans, entirely complies with all workwear rules set by the employer and is most importantly not only a senior colleague, but an experienced and charismatic presenter who prior to transitioning was instrumental in winning several new accounts.

However, the agency's CEO asks a more junior department colleague to make the presentation instead of Iris. It's obvious that he is either himself embarrassed about having an employee who identifies as trans and doesn't want this to become public knowledge or he worries that the prospective client won't accept it.

In either case, he has unlawfully discriminated against Iris by treating other colleagues more favourably.

Iris could bring a claim for unlawful discrimination at work.

@CharlieParley

When it comes to the strain on funding, that was created when the initial demand was made that the services originally built, funded and run by and for women accommodate males. It's nice of you to worry about it, but we've been dealing with the fallout of that demand for years already.

I'm sorry but this is ahistorical nonsense. The funding crisis in the refuge sector (and it has never been adequately funded) has nothing to do with including trans women as anyone who has any familiarity with the sector knows, but years of ideologically driven austerity.

Asking for sanctions against companies who are not abiding by the law as it stands doesn't really strike me as seeking "much more than that"

Maya Forstater has produced some thoughtful work unpicking the Kirklees case.
Well worth a read if you haven't seen it already.

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/#respond

I would highlight that it really didn't help that the EHRC misrepresented the Equality Act's position with regard to single sex spaces at the time and has since had to row back on its position.

Still no empathy, I note, for the lived experience of women and girls plus no answer as to how many women and girls can be harmed by predatory people exploiting Safeguarding loopholes caused by Self-ID as acceptable 'collateral damage'.

Just a 'what about the males'. Who have been potentially making females feel uncomfortable in their own spaces for decades 'as trans women have been using womens spaces since forever'.

Got you.

[quote jj1968]@334bu

Here's Woman's Place calling for businesses and organisations to be fined for not protecting female only spaces: womansplaceuk.org/the-law-must-work-for-women/[/quote]
Again, please stop misrepresenting the truth.

1. This is not a demand from Woman's Place UK, but a speaker invited to one of their meetings gave a speech asking that

Business and organisations should face fines or legal action if they knowingly, and deliberately flout the law.

1. This was Lucy Massoud, a female firefighter who went on to explain that the Fire and Rescue Service, which is legally obliged - as an employer - to provide female-only showers, changing rooms and toilets to female employees refused to do so until Lucy and her female colleagues forced them to comply with the law.

Her employer did not originally want to do this as it cost money.

But because trans rights organisations are advising employers that anyone who identifies as trans must be allowed access to opposite-sex spaces on their say-so, her employer then declared that they will abolish all single-sex provisions and turned all spaces mixed-sex.

Because her union agreed, she cannot get support in asserting her legal rights.

That is who Lucy wants to see fined: an employer who breaks the law. A union that refuses to help employees with a protected characteristic under the EqA to assert their rights.

(Some organisations can choose whether to use a sex-based exemption on a voluntary basis. Some are obliged to do so by law. Just FYI.)

Apologies, Lucy Masoud

So, how is a transwoman different from a man?

What even IS a transwoman?

I think this thread has the most amount of words I've ever seen to basically say fuck women and girls, men are more important.

Yes indeed DialSquare

@334bu Trans inclusive organisations are not breaking the law, they have either chosen not to invoke the exemptions, or they do not feel their services meets the threshold for being able to legally invoke them.

@CharlieParley That quotes comes from a speech which Woman's Place describe as articulating one of their five demands. She begins the speech by calling for the law to be strengthened. That would mean legislative change.

@ANewCreation Sorry I thought I'd been clear, I don't think that there is a risk of harm to women due to trans inclusion. As was much discussed upthread, there is no evidence that where trans inclusive policies have been pursued they have caused harm to women.

"The law needs to be tightened up and enforced"
Hardly legislative change .

How do you strengthen a law without changing it?