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!

What is legislative change is trans group trying to have the single sex exemptions removed!

Yes that would be legislative change. I don't happen to agree with it, and it's not something I've seen heavily pushed by either trans individuals or trans organisations.

[quote jj1968]@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.[/quote]
Is there actual evidence that no harm has resulted? Or is that an assertion backed up by an absence of data?

Are all forms of harm included in that statement or is it just focussed on sexual assault?

I guess the only way to fully understand the harm done to women would involve large scale surveys to check that women have not changed behaviours, to see how many women report increased mental health effects as a result of the changes. Could you provide a reference to the survey and it's results?

Incorrect; submissions were made to Westminster by all the transgroups to have this safeguard for women removed

Moreover, making sure legislation is clear, unambiguous and fully implemented is not legislative change.

[quote jj1968]@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.[/quote]
No. As all of us have articulated, including the official House of Commons report, "strengthening the law" refers not to legislative change but to strengthening the existing law, making sure it is used where appropriate and those using it enabled and supported in doing so.

As for your claim that WPUK wants legislative change, please refer to the actual words used.

This is WPUK's second demand:

2. The law must work for women.

The demand explained:

The law must be strengthened to ensure that all women who want or need single sex spaces (including toilets, health provision accommodation, prisons, sports, sexual and domestic violence services) are able to access them without resorting to extraordinary measures. Service providers should be supported in offering such services through legal and financial means and clear guidance must be issued on the exercising of such rights.

There is no demand here for legislative change, no matter how you twist it.

And WPUK says not that Lucy was articulating their demand but that she was "speaking on" it, ie she's giving a speech that is relevant to this demand and not, say, no 3 "An end to violence against women".

speak on
v.
speaking about a topic

HTH

P.S. Believe me if we ever ask for legislative change, you will not have to insinuate that we do. You won't have to assume or accuse us. We will state it outright. As you know fine well however, we are not asking for legislative change. We are seeking to uphold and defend our existing rights in law.

@midgebabe I posted upthread a study specifically about whether trans inclusion has caused a risk of physical harm. There is no published evidence showing that trans inclusion has led to increased risk.

As to the much broader picture no I'm not sure if any work has been done on that although I'm sure women's orgs like Women's Aid would be aware if women were no longer using their services because they are trans inclusive. From what I hear sadly demand is higher than ever.

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.

I was not referring to the funding crisis, and I did not with a single word blame the funding crisis on trans inclusive policies. I was referring to the fact that requiring women's services to provide services to males naturally reduced the amount an organisation has at their disposal to spend on the service provided to women.

"There is no published evidence that shows that trans inclusion increases risk"

Difficult when incidents are not recorded or recorded incorrectly as women causing problems or committing crimes.

What there definitely is no evidence of is evidence that a particular subset of the male sex are less likely to cause problems in female only spaces than the rest of the male sex.

@CharlieParley

Believe me if we ever ask for legislative change, you will not have to insinuate that we do. You won't have to assume or accuse us. We will state it outright. As you know fine well however, we are not asking for legislative change. We are seeking to uphold and defend our existing rights in law.

Quite, I believe there was a meeting of GC activists quite recently calling for the GRA to be scrapped?

But I'm slightly confused now. If all Truss does is confirm what it says in the EA act then nothing will change will it? It will be possible, as now, to discriminate against trans people in some circumstances, and in others, toilets, changing rooms etc it is likely to be illegal

Organisations like NIA will be able to carry on excluding trans women and Women's Aid and so on will carry on including them. Shops and other service providers will keep toilets and changing rooms as they are, either because they support trans inclusion, or because they don't want to risk getting sued. Truss gets a moment in the sun and then nothing at all changes.

@334bu

"There is no published evidence that shows that trans inclusion increases risk"

Difficult when incidents are not recorded or recorded incorrectly as women causing problems or committing crimes.

What there definitely is no evidence of is evidence that a particular subset of the male sex are less likely to cause problems in female only spaces than the rest of the male sex.

Well that particular subset of the male sex have been using women's spaces for decades without causing problems, so that is evidence of a sort.

Why would it be illegal to exclude transwomen from female changing rooms?
Time for the Staniland question.
"Should a person who is male and has a penis have the right to share a communal changing room and shower with teenage girls if that person says they are a woman?"

@334bu Well ECHR seem to think it could be illegal. I expect it would come down to circumstances, such as whether the changing rooms had enclosed cubicals if it came to court but in many/most circumstances a blanket no trans policy in women's changing rooms is very likely to be illegal (or at least likely enough that organisations adjust their policies accordingly) and nothing Truss says can change that unless she changes the law.

[quote jj1968]@midgebabe I posted upthread a study specifically about whether trans inclusion has caused a risk of physical harm. There is no published evidence showing that trans inclusion has led to increased risk.

As to the much broader picture no I'm not sure if any work has been done on that although I'm sure women's orgs like Women's Aid would be aware if women were no longer using their services because they are trans inclusive. From what I hear sadly demand is higher than ever.[/quote]
I have told you, as a woman directly harmed by trans inclusive services, and a member of a group of such women, that this is exactly what happened. Ours is not the only group of survivors to try to bring this to light. We're not the first one either.

Do we not register with you? Is the damage done to us not worthy of your attention? I mean I get it that the newspaper reports of people you've had zero interaction with are easy to ignore, but we've been debating here for days. As far as I'm concerned, one woman or child harmed is too many. And I have, unfortunately, now met lots of them. Unsurprisingly, given that I'm talking about these issues publicly.

_

And you posted one deeply flawed paper examining whether nine different sets of obscure bylaws in Massachusetts had an effect.

One.

But you dismissed the UK-based research on police records showing that 90% of reported sexual crime happened in mixed-sex facilities even though they constituted less than half of all facilities. Coz you didn't see the records yourself.

And that study btw is not worth the paper it was written on. In addition to Kantastic's fantastic critique, let me just add that any paper seeking to demonstrate the effect of a law must provide the following information:

• the precise text of the law (here a number of different bylaws, none of which were identical).

• how the new law was communicated to those it affected (I lived in Massachusetts for a year and a half and I know how they communicate bylaws means that 99% of the people haven't got a clue until someone gets in trouble for falling afoul of them.)

• whether those it affected were aware of the new bylaw's existence (see above)

• how the new law was understood

For instance, ensuring "equal access and opportunity" does not equate to the automatic right to access opposite sex facilities. That requirement may be met through alternative facilities.

Not discriminating on the basis of gender identity also does not equate to the automatic right to access opposite sex facilities. That may be achieved (as it is here in the UK) by making it unlawful to exclude someone who identifies as trans from spaces provided for their own sex. The researchers very unhelpfully do not provide any of this information on the bylaws. They just reference their title (non-descriptive).

So, for your perusal here is one of them:

It is the policy of the City of Salem to uphold the human rights of all persons in Salem and the free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by the Constitutions, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations of the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Salem. As such, actions that may deny or tend to deny to an individual equal access or opportunity in matters of housing, employment, education, municipal services, contracts, purchasing or public accommodations on the basis of: age, ancestry, color, disability, family status, gender identity or expression, military status, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, are hereby prohibited.

Where anyone would get the idea that this signals to people that a man can now legally claim a trans identity and have the automatic right to access a female-only space without making any changes to appearance I honestly do not know. Let alone a predator. (That is what they were measuring after all: a rise in crime through abuse of the bylaws by predators.)

And the data collection was not only flawed, but the assumption that an effect of obscure bylaws - which can after all mean many different things to many different people - would be measurable - and on crime that is barely ever reported - and for bylaws introduced within the last few years is ludicrous.

Furthermore, four of the nine localities chosen had these bylaws in place for less than a year when the researchers requested the data (two had them for 6 or 7 full months, one for 7 or 8 and one for 8 or 9 months); a further one had them for 16 months and one for 13). So in 6 of nine localities far too little time had passed for any effect to appear.

The data collection itself was a smörgåsboard of methodological issues. No checks were carried out on the quality of the searches, even though some forces searched manually and others by automatic keywords. Two forces refused in the end saying they could not spare the staff. And that was despite the fact that where the police handed over their crime report records to the researchers themselves, their own search identified far more incidents than in localities where the police force carried out their own checks.

Plus all of the issues pointed out by Kantastic.

Evidence. I'd love to see some, but this doesn't qualify.

Well that particular subset of the male sex have been using women's spaces for decades without causing problems, so that is evidence of a sort.

But is this ^ true?

In my understanding, the specific subset of male bodied people identifying as women is changing over time. As a larger proportion of the male population identifies this way, the nature of the subset changes.

Cross post".. so that is evidence of a sort"

Only if you ignore all the evidence presented upthread.
Moreover, I am sure that many men if included in female places would not use that opportunity to harm women . However, not all male people are like that and that is why all male people are excluded from female only spaces. Transwomen are all members of the male sex class. So unless it can be proved that this subset of the male sex is significantly different why should they be treated differently

@CharlieParley I don't have a link to that paper so I can't really comment on it except that as I recall from when I did read it the Massuchusetts comparison was just one part of the study, they also looked for evidence of harm elsewhere, hence the conclusion in the abstract: "Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded."

Regarding your other points. Of course I care if any women are harmed and I include trans women in that. I also have a huge amount of respect for the VAWG, having both worked in and been dependent on similar sectors myself, and I think they are doing a very good job of faciliating trans inclusion without it causing harm to other service users. And certainly people I've known who've lived and worked in the refuge network tell me that trans inclusion isn't a problem, and believe me they do have a lot of very pressing problems facing the sector.

It's very difficult to comment on unspecified harms, I'm sorry thats not a very satisfactory answer, but this thread has largely been about physical harm, as in risk of assault. If there a risk of people avoiding services then that is a problem, I'd like to see some evidence from the VAWG sector that is happening. But the answer to that seems to me to be a sector that is funded to meet everyone's needs, so that if someone really feels they cant stay somewhere with a trans woman there is alternative accommodation available. I don;t think removing all protections for trans women is a proportionate response. I don't think refuge workers want to be in a position where they have to send a trans woman back to a violent partner, or be required to force people to prove their physical sex, so the sector I think has to work through this with caution and compassion, and the rest of us should be out there campaigning for better funding.

"Trans inclusion is no problem"
Only if you ignore the female victims of abuse.
fovas.wordpress.com/
Letter from female rape/ domestic violence victims.

also just on this

As far as I'm concerned, one woman or child harmed is too many.

I'm not sure thats very fair. It's not how we manage risk in any other area of society, if it was we'd never let violent offenders out of prison or let men work in schools. Refuge's work with all kinds of women, often including ex offenders or people with substance misuse problems and regualrlyhave to deal with problems, fights, arguments etc. It is impossible to completely eliminate risk in those circumstances, so the question surely should be whether a trans woman is more of a risk than other woman they might house. That's why all potential residents are risk assessed.

Of course they are more of a risk, just as any other member of the male sex would be.

so the question surely should be whether a trans woman is more of a risk than other woman they might house.

Yes the trans woman in more of a risk than the other woman, they are in the sex class of male, which is a higher risk class.

Same as my lovely DH, who has never harmed anyone in his life, is more of a risk than a woman, because he is in the sex class of male. Or should my DH be allowed into female spaces?

Well ECHR seem to think it could be illegal.

The EHRC (the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights) published a statement in 2018 confirming that there is a difference in how a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is treated when it comes to the sex-based exemptions. If that person does not have a GRC, that person has no right to access opposite sex facilities.

Unfortunately, while the EHRC has quietly changed some of its guidance that conflicted with this fact, it continues to misrepresent the Equality Act on some of its other pages despite this unequivocal statement.

However, the EHRC exists solely to interpret the Equality Act and advise on its implementation. It cannot overrule the Equality Act. And that allows excluding even transsexuals where a member of one sex may object to the presence of a member of the other sex. Such as in toilets and changing rooms.

So, whether the EHRC thinks something is illegal may or may not matter, depending on what they base this on. For instance they have introduced phrases like "exceptional circumstances" and a passage about people who are "indistinguishable from members of the other sex" which do not appear in the EqA at all and also contradict their own, more recent statement from 2018. They are unlikely to stand up in court.

This is one of the areas where the law is expected to be strengthened - through issuing new guidance that accurately interprets the Equality Act and removing the guidance that doesn't.

but in many/most circumstances a blanket no trans policy in women's changing rooms is very likely to be illegal

Nonsense. Changing rooms are one of the examples given in the Equality Act texts itself.

And EHRC statutory code on services states

Gender reassignment discrimination and separate and single-sex services

13.57

If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate. [sic](they missed out the aim)

What organisations and providers do have to do however, is to offer alternative accommodation in that case.

You are right that many companies are scared now because they have been ill-advised on the legality of providing female-only provisions, but a public information campaign by the government that tells them that they can indeed lawfully exclude all males from female-only spaces could undo the damage caused by those who have spread disinformation. That's another way the law could be strengthened.

I don't have a link to that paper so I can't really comment on it except that as I recall from when I did read it the Massuchusetts comparison was just one part of the study,

Well I have a copy. They only look at Massachusetts. Thats the study. What you quote is entitely unsupported by its findings.

@CharlieParley You are right that many companies are scared now because they have been ill-advised on the legality of providing female-only provisions, but a public information campaign by the government that tells them that they can indeed lawfully exclude all males from female-only spaces could undo the damage caused by those who have spread disinformation. That's another way the law could be strengthened.

There is no way the government can tell providers single sex provisions which exclude trans people are always legal because only the courts can decide that. It would be wholly irresponsible, and undemocratic, for the government to pre-empt any possible legal action brought under the EA. The only way you can get what you want I'm afraid is legislative change. And given Truss is an ardent freemarket zealot who would probably scrap the EA completely if she thought she could get away with it it's probably best to be careful what you ask for.

@KingFredsTache

so the question surely should be whether a trans woman is more of a risk than other woman they might house.

Yes the trans woman in more of a risk than the other woman, they are in the sex class of male, which is a higher risk class.

Same as my lovely DH, who has never harmed anyone in his life, is more of a risk than a woman, because he is in the sex class of male. Or should my DH be allowed into female spaces?

If this is true, and given trans inclusion stretches back decades and is pretty much the norm in most parts of the world then why haven't there been more incidents in women's spaces? Let's guess on the lowerside and say there's probably around 50,000 trans women using women's spaces every single day just in the UK, and hundreds of thousands more elsewhere. If trans women represented the same threat as men then why hasn't this caused any problems?