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!

I'm not sure thats very fair. It's not how we manage risk in any other area of society

That's just it. In this one area - trans inclusion - risk is managed completely differently from all other areas in our society. Nowhere else do we disapply safeguarding rules on the basis of a claimed identity. Nowhere else do we remove safeguarding without first providing the evidence that this will not cause harm.

When I say even just one woman or child harmed is too many, I refer to this as a consequence of the removal of safeguarding rules that were put in place to manage risk.

Of course no single rule can provide complete protection. I think it might have been Barracker who said that the approach we use to safeguarding is like layering Swiss cheese slices. No single slice is without holes, but one atop the other we can cover if not all, then almost all of the holes.

And these new trans inclusion policies are peeling the layers away. One by one, leaving more and more holes for harm to reach those we sought to protect.

And Chesterton's Fence applies here - you do not remove safeguards until you can first show that the reasons they were put in place do not exist anymore. That's not happened here, because all of the reasons do still exist.

And yet, on this one issue - out the window goes all of our empirical data, our knowledge, all fairness. Gone.

I've said enough on this thread about my own experiences, and I am not yet ready to go further. However, I do know that both physical and sexual violence have been meted out to female victims, both women and girls, by males who identify as trans as a result of the new trans inclusion policies.

Additionally, these have also led to the exclusion of many women and girls from previously single-sex provisions.

None of that needed to happen. Males who identify as trans can be provided for in separate services and spaces that do not change female-only provisions into mixed-sex ones.

You keep ignoring this particular aspect of our arguments. I do not know why. Because of the extreme harassment suffered by organisations that provide female-only provisions that blanket exclude all males (however they identify) from the female-only part of their service, I cannot give you the examples I know of where providers do just that - offer an equal but separate service.

But your point blank refusal to consider such a compromise suggests that there is only one group whose wellbeing concerns you. And it's not women and girls.

The law says a member of the opposite sex class can be excluded from provision set up for members of the other sex class and gives examples such as hospital wards, changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc .
The government is not being asked to preempt anything. It is simply being asked to clarify the law and counter the misinformation trans groups have been spreading.

Thank you to the indefatigable and immensely patient posters (Charley, Kantastic) who are laying out so throughly and eloquently the clear evidence here. Chapeau.

@334bu

The law says a member of the opposite sex class can be excluded from provision set up for members of the other sex class and gives examples such as hospital wards, changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc . The government is not being asked to preempt anything. It is simply being asked to clarify the law and counter the misinformation trans groups have been spreading.

They can only exclude people if it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. And only the court can decide if that threshold has been met or not. It doesn't matter what Liz Truss says.

What Arabella said - thank you for taking on a massive and thankless task here.

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.

Why do you insist on twisting words?

I did not state that the government is going to tell providers single sex provisions which exclude trans people are always legal.

I am talking about the government advising companies that they can lawfully apply the sex-based exemptions as they are set out in - and limited by - the Equality Act. As opposed to some trans rights organisations that have advised companies that they cannot ever apply them.

As for the rest - it is not undemocratic if the government decides to change this law, as the way Acts of Parliament are changed in the UK are via another Act of Parliament which by definition are a democratic process. We would hope that the outcome is what we desire. Alas, democracy does not always work in our favour. But however flawed, that is how it's done.

@CharlieParley

I'm not sure thats very fair. It's not how we manage risk in any other area of society

That's just it. In this one area - trans inclusion - risk is managed completely differently from all other areas in our society. Nowhere else do we disapply safeguarding rules on the basis of a claimed identity. Nowhere else do we remove safeguarding without first providing the evidence that this will not cause harm.

When I say even just one woman or child harmed is too many, I refer to this as a consequence of the removal of safeguarding rules that were put in place to manage risk.

Of course no single rule can provide complete protection. I think it might have been Barracker who said that the approach we use to safeguarding is like layering Swiss cheese slices. No single slice is without holes, but one atop the other we can cover if not all, then almost all of the holes.

And these new trans inclusion policies are peeling the layers away. One by one, leaving more and more holes for harm to reach those we sought to protect.

And Chesterton's Fence applies here - you do not remove safeguards until you can first show that the reasons they were put in place do not exist anymore. That's not happened here, because all of the reasons do still exist.

And yet, on this one issue - out the window goes all of our empirical data, our knowledge, all fairness. Gone.

I've said enough on this thread about my own experiences, and I am not yet ready to go further. However, I do know that both physical and sexual violence have been meted out to female victims, both women and girls, by males who identify as trans as a result of the new trans inclusion policies.

Additionally, these have also led to the exclusion of many women and girls from previously single-sex provisions.

None of that needed to happen. Males who identify as trans can be provided for in separate services and spaces that do not change female-only provisions into mixed-sex ones.

You keep ignoring this particular aspect of our arguments. I do not know why. Because of the extreme harassment suffered by organisations that provide female-only provisions that blanket exclude all males (however they identify) from the female-only part of their service, I cannot give you the examples I know of where providers do just that - offer an equal but separate service.

But your point blank refusal to consider such a compromise suggests that there is only one group whose wellbeing concerns you. And it's not women and girls.

@CharlieParley Perhaps this is the essence of this debate. whilst I'm not sure most adults need to be safeguarded in the same way, by removing trans rights of access to women's spaces then you create a safeguarding risk for vulnerable trans adults and trans girls. The situation as it stands now is that a trans girl could legally use womens toilets and changing. You seem to be happy with that trans girl being expected to go and share with the men. That is a major safe guarding risk. This isn't all one way, and since trans inclusion, for decades has not been demonstrated to be a safeguarding risk, then to create a safeguarding risk by dismantling it is dangerous and unnecessary. Anyway thats me done for the night.

That is a major safe guarding risk.

Really? Why on earth would it be? Do you have any evidence of the risk?

So the actual examples given in the act as appropriate cases where discrimination is legal have to be challenged first in the court? Why on earth would that be necessary? Members of the male sex can be excluded per the act from these female spaces, transwomen are also members of the male sex ergo they are also excluded.

You seem to be happy with that trans girl being expected to go and share with the men.

You don't mitigate that risk by opening up women's spaces. What you do is you work out a solution that does not remove women's rights to single sex spaces.
Women will support trans people who campaign for their own spaces. We will resist any attempt to take ours away.

Like a certain President of the US who uses this same tactic, continually repeating that " trans inclusion.. has not been demonstrated to be a safeguarding risk" does not make it true.

So the actual examples given in the act as appropriate cases where discrimination is legal have to be challenged first in the court?

Yes, this is the new spiel.

That's what we (the group I mentioned) were told by the service directors we met.

Unless the law has first been tested in the court, it cannot legally be applied. Even though literally - in the truest sense of the word - the particular situation we talked about is explicitly defined as legal in the fucking text of the fucking law.

And obviously no law works like that. We'd be in serious trouble if it did.

I cannot adequately express my reaction to that brazen lie. There just are not enough hours in the day and swear words in the English language. Or any other.

Imagine saying that to the very women your service is funded to support and not dying from shame inside.

by removing trans rights of access to women's spaces then you create a safeguarding risk for vulnerable trans adults and trans girls.

Once again, assumed rights of access are not legal rights. The only males who identify as trans who have to be considered when deciding the access rights of males to female-only spaces, services and provisions are those with a GRC. All others are blanket excluded if males are blanket excluded.

Correcting the by now common misconception that a right exists when it doesn't does not constitute the removal of rights.

The situation as it stands now is that a trans girl could legally use womens toilets and changing.

A male juvenile who identifies as trans cannot legally acquire a GRC in the UK. That right is reserved to adults. No such juvenile male therefore has a legal right to use female-only spaces.

You seem to be happy with that trans girl being expected to go and share with the men.

Since I have each and every time suggested an alternative solution to this problem, this is a bad tempered and above all unwarranted attack on my character.

That is a major safe guarding risk.

So was sending my petite boy into the gents after he was too old for the ladies. I mitigated that risk by sending him in the company of older males whenever possible and standing very obviously outside the toilets when it wasn't. But the responsibility for any harm caused to him would have been the perpetrator's, not mine. As the responsibility for any harm that befalls gender-non-conforming males in the gents lies with the males attacking them. Not the women and girls saying no to males in female spaces.

It was the equally fabulous HaXXor who was so good at tirelessly explaining the Swiss Cheese model

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3271463-The-Simple-Problem-with-Those-Anti-Trans-Protesters-Big-Stunts?pg=3

Thanks so much to everyone (and particularly to CharlieParley ) for persevering in centering the needs of women and girls over this thread.

We sadly have ample evidence that predatory people, regardless of how they identify, will always seek to exploit weaknesses in Safeguarding frameworks.

Toilets, changing rooms, sport, refuges etc all require single-sex provision as part of existing safeguarding frameworks.

Relaxing the social conventions around who gets to go into a particular female single-sex space (and the confidence with which a male can potentially be asked to leave by the rightful inhabitants of that space without fear of being called transphobic) removes a vital layer of the Swiss Cheese protection.

And thank you ANewCreation for linking to that thread and for reminding me about HaXXor. I'd forgotten all about it, but that thread turned into an excellent explanation and exploration of how and why our existing safeguarding works as well as it does (albeit not perfectly).

Incidentally, and for all the lurkers afraid to join in, those were the days when I would at most put a tiny comment up and then stand back as others shared their knowledge. And watched them argue their points patiently. I was just awed at how brilliant they were.

I learned so much from the women on that thread. I hadn't realised how much I miss those who are no longer on MN.

I'd like to echo Arabella in my admiration of the indefatigable and immensely patient posters who laid out so throughly and eloquently the clear evidence here.

I RTWT last night, so late to the party. I don't think I'd have had the patience you wims displayed with such good grace.

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?

Well surely, for starters, it depends on how one defines 'transwoman'? Traditionally the type of transwoman who would use female toilets was the old school 'transsexual', who had had full SRS and tended not to spend the time they weren't in the loo on Twitter abusing women. Women accepted these people as a courtesy.

Now 'tranwoman' and indeed 'woman' is literally any male who says he feels like a woman, which would be further cemented by a change in the GRA. This means that basically any male, very obvious males, would be able to saunter into female spaces and it would be difficult to challenge him without risking entering a bloody minefield. And it does seems weird that since the 'bandwidth of woman' has started to open up, so have all these so called 'female' attacks in toilets, prisons etc.

So what is your definition of 'transwoman'?At what point does a male stop being male and in the high risk class of male, and become a woman and go into the low risk class of female?

And even putting the risk thing aside. What if women just don't want to share the spaces that they fought for with males, with people who are very obviously male? Why should a woman's level of comfort or anxiety, what she is allowed to feel, be entirely dependent on how a man happens to feel at that time? That's just misogyny to me. Men have always told women what they can and can't do, and how they are and aren't allowed to feel, this is just the same - men dictating to women what they should feel. Not only is a woman not allowed to feel anxious when in a vulnerable position in close proximity to a male, she may actually be a bigot for feeling that way, entirely depending on how the man feels. Progress eh?

Like a PP said, this thread feels like a lot of words for basically saying 'women accept it, men's feelings first, your feelings way down the list'.

Thanks a fucking lot.

Most domestic abuse accommodation is now self contained units with private bathrooms so TW inclusion is not seen as problematic for the majority of the sector.

Any man including cross dressers can claim trans status in prison. The numbers don’t really tell us anything which is what the BBC article concluded but this part seems to be glossed over here:

That means that it's unlikely that as many as half of all transgender prisoners have been convicted of a sexual offence - once you take into account those trans prisoners who weren't surveyed.

Do people seriously think society is going to want to stop trans people from using the toilets that are appropriate to their transition? It’s not a view compatible with human dignity and civilisation.

Sports yes I agree if there is an unfair advantage or safety risk and it seems reasonable to think there is and this is mentioned in the GRA.

Changing rooms I think most people are going to go by the genitalia, or surgically altered version, and the situation. No woman should have to see penis in a changing room. Pre op will have to have alternative arrangements.

Hospitals will have to make a decision based on what will cause least issues. A very female looking post op trans woman on a male ward will likely cause more problems than if she was accommodated on a female ward.

In that Swedish study an increase in crime amongst trans men was also observed. Both cohorts were for transitions over 30 years ago. It doesn’t tell us much. For today, if you’re going to include every cross dresser and part time late ‘transitioner’ etc. then yes not a surprise there will be a higher level of sex crimes compared to natal women. Because most of them are men.

Sensible decisions will have to be made about prisons. Clearly someone like Karen White should never have been housed in the female estate in the first place, it doesn’t take a genius to work that out.

There are a (comparatively) small number of male and female transitioners that as a society we do them the courtesy of treating them for most purposes as their transitioned sex in line with the GRA, human rights and medical opinion. I don’t think most people have a problem with this.

@KnowingYou

Most domestic abuse accommodation is now self contained units with private bathrooms so TW inclusion is not seen as problematic for the majority of the sector.

Any man including cross dressers can claim trans status in prison. The numbers don’t really tell us anything which is what the BBC article concluded but this part seems to be glossed over here:

That means that it's unlikely that as many as half of all transgender prisoners have been convicted of a sexual offence - once you take into account those trans prisoners who weren't surveyed.

Do people seriously think society is going to want to stop trans people from using the toilets that are appropriate to their transition? It’s not a view compatible with human dignity and civilisation.

Sports yes I agree if there is an unfair advantage or safety risk and it seems reasonable to think there is and this is mentioned in the GRA.

Changing rooms I think most people are going to go by the genitalia, or surgically altered version, and the situation. No woman should have to see penis in a changing room. Pre op will have to have alternative arrangements.

Hospitals will have to make a decision based on what will cause least issues. A very female looking post op trans woman on a male ward will likely cause more problems than if she was accommodated on a female ward.

In that Swedish study an increase in crime amongst trans men was also observed. Both cohorts were for transitions over 30 years ago. It doesn’t tell us much. For today, if you’re going to include every cross dresser and part time late ‘transitioner’ etc. then yes not a surprise there will be a higher level of sex crimes compared to natal women. Because most of them are men.

Sensible decisions will have to be made about prisons. Clearly someone like Karen White should never have been housed in the female estate in the first place, it doesn’t take a genius to work that out.

There are a (comparatively) small number of male and female transitioners that as a society we do them the courtesy of treating them for most purposes as their transitioned sex in line with the GRA, human rights and medical opinion. I don’t think most people have a problem with this.

Can you define what you mean by 'trans' for the purposes of this discussion? At what point does someone become 'trans'? Is it literally just that a man can declare that he identifies as a woman and he has 'trans' status? Because that is what 'self id' means and under a change to the GRA would give him trans status? I have become increasingly confused by what people actually mean when they are talking about trans people?

Also, thinking about non-binary people, such as Travis Alabanza. Travis is a very obvious male who essentially appears to have an eccentric dress sense, but believe that he should be able to use female changing rooms if he wants to, because if his trans status. Where does he stand?

We are not talking about Hayley Cropper types here, that ship seems to have sailed a long time ago.

On the original topic, I just came across this collection if OP is interested. Not stats but incident reports about unisex spaces or men dressed as women in women's spaces. Also a section on voyeurism/cameras.

womanmeanssomething.com/violencedatabase/

No not self ID. People who are going through some sort of medically/ socially supervised transition. There are about 120,000 in the U.K. I believe. According to the research.

Travis is a gender non conforming male. They can campaign for their own spaces if they feel it necessary. Hayley Cropper was always a bit of a diversion anyway being played by a female actress, not really what anyone saw as a ‘transsexual’.

I think Caroline Cossey, April Whatshername, Jan Morris, India Willoughby, Stephen Whittle and Rebekah Shelton are more what are thought of as genuine accepted cases that people are more sympathetic towards.

@CharlieParley Once again, assumed rights of access are not legal rights. The only males who identify as trans who have to be considered when deciding the access rights of males to female-only spaces, services and provisions are those with a GRC. All others are blanket excluded if males are blanket excluded.

The right of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use services inline with their aquired gender except in some very limited cases are clearly laid out in the statutory guidance from EHRC.

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.

Any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances.

How on earth can you read that and think that definitely doesn't give trans people any rights, or that trans people have somehow deceptively pretended this gives them the right to be treated according to their presenting gender when it doesn't. It's spelled out in guidance which is used to inform tribunal opinion. That's why whatever Truss says will make no difference, organisations will not risk litigation even if they want to exclude trans women, which most don't. I really don't understand why you aren't calling for the law to be changed, and the only conclusion I can think of is that you know that a bathroom bill is unlikely to go down well so you are attempting to misrepresent the law as it stands with the hope of creating a culture of trans exclusion that defies the law.

@KingFredsTache
Also, thinking about non-binary people, such as Travis Alabanza. Travis is a very obvious male who essentially appears to have an eccentric dress sense, but believe that he should be able to use female changing rooms if he wants to, because if his trans status. Where does he stand?

Travis believed that they were entitled to use the changing room of their choice because that was Topshop's stated policy at the time. It's really unfair to blame individual trans people who are simply following the law as they understand it or asking why a business isn;t upholding their policies. If you don't like the law, or don't like what Topshop have done with their changing rooms you should blame the Government or Topshop, not pick on individuals. It was disgraceful the way some people treated Travis.

But also an interesting case to bring up because I remember seeing it discussed on here, along with horrifying portents of doom that Topshop changing rooms would now be full of predatory men, that the shops would become defacto no go zones for women, that huge numbers of girls were going to be assaulted and that customers would abandon the stores in droves.

None of those things happened did they.

And I suspect the reason Topshop adopted that policy is because they focus tested their customers, found a growing trend for more diverse gender expressions and didn't want to alienate the trans, non binary and gender nonconforming customers and their friends who make up a large part of their customer base, Young people don't seem to care about all this stuff. Times are changing.

The Ministry of Justice said: 'Since 2010, out of the 124 sexual assaults that occurred in the female estate a total of seven of those were sexual assaults against females in custody perpetrated by transgender individuals.'

Bearing in mind that anyone can say that they are now a transwomen with male body parts or not. Therefore all the kit to go but identifying as a woman. Karen White did that - a male prisoner decided to become a woman and prior to any surgery etc was transferred to a woman's prison and assaulting several women -it's am often quoted case.

Oh that stat was -

In response to a Parliamentary question from former Labour Party General Secretary Baroness McDonagh, Ministers have revealed there have been several other sexual assaults by trans prisoners.