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!

@MoreListeningLessChatting

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.

Sorry are you saying these figures are inaccurate? Which Ministers have revealed other assaults?

How many of those assaults were committed by trans men or non binary (afab) people?

[quote jj1968]**@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.[/quote]
Once again, jj1968 the EHRC cannot override the Equality Act, which makes clear in Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraphs 26 to 28 not only that single-sex provisions are legal, but also that those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can be excluded from opposite-sex provisions.

The Equality Act is a complicated piece of legislation. It brought together a number of different previous equality rights laws. Conflicts between the interests of different protected characteristics are common. Navigating these conflicts can be very difficult. That's why over a thousand explanatory notes were published as an official part of the legislation. But that still wasn't enough, so the UK Government set up a regulator to help explain the law and support people whose rights under the EqA have been breached. That's the purpose of the EHRC, its whole reason for being.
Nothing the EHRC says can ever take precedence over the Equality Act itself. If what the Equality Act says and what the EHRC says the Equality Act means are not in alignment, the Equality Act takes precedence.

It's the actual law that says that, not Liz Truss btw. And a regulator created to implement a law has no power to override the law. They can of course - as happened here - misrepresent the law, but once that was pointed out to them, they changed their position. Which is as follows:

This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

The EHRC produced the guidance you quote in 2011, while taking advice from trans rights organisations (and only from them), consequently and consistently misrepresented the law in this guidance but in 2018, after their false interpretation of the Equality Act was pointed out to them, published a statement confirming that only those people who identify as trans and who have a GRC have to be considered when access rights are decided.

Because the protected characteristic of sex and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment exist alongside one another. The latter cannot override the former in situations where provisions are created for people sharing the protected characteristic of sex.

All of the limitations set out in the Equality Act continue to apply. You cannot just arbitrarily decide to exclude people on any basis, but where it is a legitimate aim (for instance, giving females dignity, privacy and safety in single-sex spaces, fairness and safety in sports or allowing female victims to recover from the trauma caused by male violence in a female-only therapeutic environment meet this threshold) and where the option chosen is a proportionate means of achieving this aim, excluding all people who identify as trans, including GRC-holders, is lawful.

That the EHRC states that they should be included does not mean they cannot be excluded. And your quote goes on to say just that.

And again, please stop misrepresenting what we say.

I've already explained that a Bathroom Bill cannot be passed in the UK because it is impossible under the Equality Act. I have also stated - every single time - that I reject the concept behind such bills. So I'll do it again, now: a person who identifies as trans must not be forced to use the facilities provided for their own sex. Alternative facilities should be provided.

And alternative solutions should be provided because single-sex facilities must not be turned into mixed-sex ones by admitting people of the opposite sex who identify as trans.

There are very many different ways of achieving this solution. It is therefore possible to simultaneously protect people who identify as trans and maintain female-only provisions.

As for the third spaces I suggest as a solution, I would have used them very happily when my boys were small and I felt they were too young to go to male facilities without me.

Nobody is denying the exclusions exist. That does not mean they could be applied in any and every situation relating to single sex spaces. If they could the provision would be largely pointless, as would every other provision in the Equality Act. What would stop a religious person refusing to employ a gay person because they considered not upsetting their religious customers to be a legitimate aim? What you are arguing for is the de facto destruction of the Equality Act, for everyone.

EHRC have nt changed their position incidentally. They are quite clear in that statement a GRC is not required to bring a claim 8Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. There are some exceptions permitting different treatment on the basis of gender reassignment, for example the exceptions related to single-sex services and associations. These exceptions do not hinge on whether or not an individual has a GRC. Any use of the exceptions permitting different treatment must be objectively justified, meaning that it must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and will therefore depend on the particular circumstances. While an individual’s possession, or not, of a GRC may be part of the evidence a court would consider in a gender reassignment discrimination case, it is unlikely to be a determining factor. *

A trans person could not make a claim for sex discrimination unless they had a GRC, they could still make a claim of the basis of gender reassignment.

@CharlieParley

And again, please stop misrepresenting what we say.

I've already explained that a Bathroom Bill cannot be passed in the UK because it is impossible under the Equality Act. I have also stated - every single time - that I reject the concept behind such bills. So I'll do it again, now: a person who identifies as trans must not be forced to use the facilities provided for their own sex. Alternative facilities should be provided.

And alternative solutions should be provided because single-sex facilities must not be turned into mixed-sex ones by admitting people of the opposite sex who identify as trans.

There are very many different ways of achieving this solution. It is therefore possible to simultaneously protect people who identify as trans and maintain female-only provisions.

As for the third spaces I suggest as a solution, I would have used them very happily when my boys were small and I felt they were too young to go to male facilities without me.

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people?

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people?

My activism focuses on the need of female people for female-only legal set asides. Third spaces, which are by definition mixed-sex, do not meet the needs of female people who need female-only spaces. That I would have used them had they existed, does not oblige me to campaign for them.

[quote jj1968]@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.[/quote]
Here's an idea, a little radical, but bear with me.

How about people like Travis Alabanza stop and think to themselves - 'hmmm, Im a rather strapping adult male bodied person. I wonder if the teenage girls shopping in Topshop are actually comfortable with me in the same changing room as them? I know that male violence is a thing, I know that women are, often for good reason, uncomfortable with males in their vulnerable spaces and I am very obviously male. I would hate to make anyone feel uncomfortable, so I think that I am going to stick with the changing rooms that are meant for my sex, like other males are expected to do'.

Ya know, instead of thinking 'me me me me, what about me, what about what suits me, what about what I want to do on any given day, I'm a male and I'm going to tantrum on Twitter if I can't enter the ladies changing rooms because I should be able to go wherever the fuck I feel like'.

Just a thought, like.....

By the way, I think people 'picked on' Travis because he was the one who went crying to Twitter that he was denied access to changing rooms not meant for his sex.

Also, do you think M and S 'focus tested' their customer base before making their changing rooms mixed sex (whilst still labeled male and female)? If oldies who shop in there are such a bunch of bigots and young'uns who shop in Topshop are so forward thinking?

'Young people don't care about this stuff'... Yeah I mean we are in a climate where young girls are now being made to think that discomfort around male bodies when in a vulnerable place is 'bigotry' so I'm not really surprised.

jj1968 Just to be clear, do you not believe that women are entitled to single sex spaces anywhere then?

the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people

Exclusion from single-sex provisions happens on the basis of sex. It is not gender reassignment discrimination to exclude a person who has that protected characteristic from a single-sex space on the basis of their legal sex or on the basis of their biological sex.

As for the example you described of a religious employer not employing a gay person, I refer you to Part 9, Schedule 1, Paragraph 2 of the Equality Act which sets out under which circumstances this is lawful.

" possession or not of a GRC.......is unlikely to be a deciding factor"

The deciding factor will be the fact that they are male and therefore cannot claim discrimination when excluded from a female only space, as all other males are similarly excluded.

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people?

The bigger question is why aren't the TRAs? Instead of demanding access to women's spaces, why aren't they campaigning for their own?

ASatisfyingThump

Exactly!!

Young people don't seem to care about all this stuff. Times are changing.

The 4 young people currently living in my house certainly do. They range in age from 9yrs - 20yrs old.

My daughters care very much about not having males in what should be single-sex spaces. The 9yr-old is of an age where the boys and girls in her class are segregated by sex when they get changed for PE and swimming.

My sons also believe that that there should be no males in spaces designed for females. Despite being classed as "vulnerable" themselves, neither would want to use any facilities that are designated for women-only. They also have enough empathy to understand that girls and women would be uncomfortable or even afraid if they (my sons) entered such a space. If they (as young men with autism) can understand this, I'm not sure why other males find this concept so difficult.

@CharlieParley

the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people

Exclusion from single-sex provisions happens on the basis of sex. It is not gender reassignment discrimination to exclude a person who has that protected characteristic from a single-sex space on the basis of their legal sex or on the basis of their biological sex.

As for the example you described of a religious employer not employing a gay person, I refer you to Part 9, Schedule 1, Paragraph 2 of the Equality Act which sets out under which circumstances this is lawful.

Well quite, all discrimination is legal under the EA if it can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But it was never these intention of the act that these excemptions should override the duty of equality. They should be used sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, otherwise the entire act becomes meaningless. To elevate these exemptions to rights, if applied across the act (which they would be because the EA is about ensuring equality, not providing special rights for women), would be devastating. Can you imagine what a misogynist business owning man who wanted to keep women out of their workplace would decide is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim?

@ASatisfyingThump

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people?

The bigger question is why aren't the TRAs? Instead of demanding access to women's spaces, why aren't they campaigning for their own?

I've addressed this. It's an unwinnable campaign even if that's what trans people wanted. It would be hugely expensive, and may even be impossible for some businesses particularly if the demand is that these spaces must not come at the expense of any space for women. The idea that the retail and hospitality sectors should all have to spend a fortune re-designing their toilet provision (and then policing it) in the middle of a pandemic with a global recession looming so trans people can have their own toilets would only lead to further hostility towards trans people.

Why don't you campaign for this thing you have no chance of acheiving and which will only increase hatred towards you (and you don't particularly want anyway) isn't really the gotcha you think it is. And the idea that the only choice trans people should be given is to campaign for and win third spaces and if that doesn't work tough shit you have to use the mens with all the risk that entails doesn't seem very reasonable..

campaign for this thing you have no chance of acheiving and which will only increase hatred towards you

Funny, I'm pretty sure that is exactly the sort of thing that women who wanted the vote were told...it didn't stop them.

And the idea that the only choice trans people should be given is to campaign for and win third spaces and if that doesn't work tough shit you have to use the mens with all the risk that entails doesn't seem very reasonable..

But a total end to women's single sex spaces is reasonable to you then?

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people

Third spaces are the obvious solution, and there is already a campaign by trans people for them ( See MirandaYardley & Fionne Orlander): www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-a-plea-for-third-spaces-for-transgender-men-and-women?recruiter=33562312&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

It really should not be up to one group to campaign for services and spaces that would be designated for another group; unless that group happens to be below the age ( outside the range) of adult responsibility.

[quote SetYourselfOnFire]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/[/quote]
I just looked through this. Only three people who were convicted of an offence on that list are trans women, despite it covering a period of ten years and being an attempt at logging all reported incidents in women's spaces in the US, UK and Canada, a population representing over 200 million women. The chance of ever being assaulted by a trans women in a women's spaces is microscopically low. Ten times more people are killed by lightening each year in the US alone then the number of people whove been assaulted by a trans women in a woman's space over a decade. Given the epidemic of male violence women are facing across the globe, is this really an area that merits such attention. How many male medical staff have sexually assaulted someone in that time, or male prison officers, or cops, or teachers? Or male toilet or changing room attendants?

I fully appreciate (although may not agree) there are other arguments about comfort, safety, policing the boundaries of women etc, but to claim that trans women in women's spaces represents a threat when the chance of ever being assaulted by a trans women in a womens space is probably something like a few hundred million to one just doesn't seem proportionate to me. And when this debate was had in public, and the evidence fully laid out, the American public didn't buy it either which is why campaigns to exclude trans women from women's spaces on safety grounds failed in every state they were attempted.

Why don't you campaign for this thing you have no chance of acheiving and which will only increase hatred towards you (and you don't particularly want anyway) isn't really the gotcha you think it is

So you openly admit to hatred of women who want to retain their own sex based integrity and needs for comfort and dignity that go with that; and yet you also think that you should be welcome in women only spaces with this kind of attitude: one that displays total disdain and disregard. Yeh, right!

Single sex exemptions are in the EA primarily because male humans have always presented a danger to females of the species. Transwomen are male so they should be excluded from spaces where women might be in danger in the presence of any male. To posit that these exemptions could be used to exclude women from work is total nonsense as these exemptions can only be used to protect the safety, dignity of privacy of an individual .

The chance of ever being assaulted by a trans women in a women's spaces is microscopically low

No,Ii really don't thin k the risks of a lightning strike are comparable...and besides it is not just , or even primarily, about 'physical attacks', but about the instinctive and felt need for privacy, comfort and dignity...which the vast majority of women recognise; and which was the original basis for single sex spaces in the first instance.

How anyone could claim to be a woman and not recognise this is beyond me.

@Justhadathought

If you want third spaces then why aren't you lobbying businesses and other institutions to provide them instead of blaming trans people

Third spaces are the obvious solution, and there is already a campaign by trans people for them ( See MirandaYardley & Fionne Orlander): www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-a-plea-for-third-spaces-for-transgender-men-and-women?recruiter=33562312&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

It really should not be up to one group to campaign for services and spaces that would be designated for another group; unless that group happens to be below the age ( outside the range) of adult responsibility.

But trans people currently have the legal rights in most cases to use spaces inline with their aquired gender, and most polling shows people, including women, are broadly supportive of that. If you want to force trans people into third spaces by all means campaign for it, but I think most trans people are pretty happy with the Equality Act the way things are.

@jj1968 what do you class as a 'transwoman' for the purposes of this discussion please? Do you think there are criteria that someone should meet to gain 'trans status'? Or is it just their declaration that they are a woman?

Given the epidemic of male violence women are facing across the globe, is this really an area that merits such attention. How many male medical staff have sexually assaulted someone in that time, or male prison officers, or cops, or teachers? Or male toilet or changing room attendants

Whilst true, the solution is not to just to admit even more males into women's and girls spaces. There a good number of transwomen for whom passing as a woman is a sexual thrill, or for whom there are fetishes around female spaces and icons. Women do not need or want this thank you. Make your own arrangements, and campaign for them

@334bu Single sex exemptions are in the EA primarily because male humans have always presented a danger to females of the species.

No they really aren't. The exemptions apply across all protected characteristics in recognition of the fact that in very limited circumstances discrimination can be a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. The exemptions apply to men just as much as they apply to women. Any strengthening of the exemptions would make it easier for men to discriminate against women.