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!

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

Perhaps this should have been thought about before campaigning for self ID, while simultaneously chanting TWAW.

Only if the poll doesn't ask specific questions.
Totally different results when questions are specific. Any person would agree that anyone has the right to identify as they wish but same people don't think people with penises should have the right to share communal changing rooms, showers and accommodation with women.

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

I genuinely and seriously question that. Most women still have no clue about modern trans ideology and all it implies.

[quote KingFredsTache]@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?[/quote]
I'd be happy with the definition in the Equality Act I think.

Transwoman is not defined in the Equality Act.

I'd be happy with the definition in the Equality Act I think.

What is that definition? (genuine question!)

So you dont agree with self ID or a change to the GRA then?

I am genuinely trying to get an idea of where people are at with this, because 'transgender' has such a wide meaning and is such a huge spectrum, that I never know what people actually really mean by 'transwoman' (which is part of the problem with getting the general public to understand the issues I think, because a lot of the public still hear transgender and assume you are talking about an old school 'transsexual' who has had full GRS.

Transwoman is not defined in the Equality Act.

Yes, I was thinking that, that's why I asked for the definition because I thought I had never seen it before?

They should be used sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, otherwise the entire act becomes meaningless.

That is your interpretation not supported by the law. The Equality Act places no such limitations on the use of exemptions. It's entirely illogical to claim it does. How would you quantify sparingly in a country with 33 million female residents? Which of them are not entitled to single-sex provisions? Everyone outside of London? Urban dwellers?

Neither "exceptional circumstances" nor "sparingly applied" are words used in the text of the Equality Act or the Explanatory Notes (in fact, "sparingly" does not appear at all in either, while "exceptional" is only used in regard to schooling).

The Equality Act places precise limitations on the use of measures designed to lawfully discriminate against someone on the basis of a protected characteristic. Quantity of application or unique and uncommon circumstances of application are not limits imposed by the law.

On the contrary, the use cases specified are those commonly expected to be single-sex for all 33 million of us.

For the protected characteristic of sex, the actual limitations are:

1. Excluding someone on the basis of sex must be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim

and

1. It can only be done if one of six distinct conditions is met

So no, a misogynist cannot simply discriminate against women by not employing them as he pleases. But if he only offers services to males (which would meet one of the six conditions I mention above), an employer can specify that only male candidates qualify under Schedule 9.

Where your case satisfies one of the six conditions, you only need to show exclusion is justified.

If every store in the country, however many tens of thousands that may be, provided changing rooms on a strictly male-only and female-only basis with alternatives provided to those who identify as trans, that would be entirely in both the letter and the spirit of the law. And this exact example - of changing rooms - is used in the Explanatory Notes as legitimate and proportionate.

In practice, not every store has the space, not everywhere is sex segregation strictly enforced or even necessary. And the choice how to provide changing rooms is up to each store. Of course, how its clientele reacts will also play a role. If a place like my local Debenhams for instance, suddenly turns the female only waiting room into a mixed-sex one, then even loyal customers like me may choose to stay away.

But what each store should know is that if they wish to do so, providing single-sex changing rooms is legal. When they do so, they must consider how to meet the needs of customers who identify as trans. If a store offers male-only and female-only changing rooms and also offers a unisex cubicle, this would satisfy the legal requirements.

In some circumstances, like here, the exemptions are applied on a voluntary basis. In other circumstances, the provider is legally obliged to. Such as with separate sex facilities in schools once children are 8 years old.

However, if you do not accept that women and girls are entitled to single-sex provisions where privacy, dignity and safety are an issue, I do understand that this is hard to accept.

@CharlieParley The reason I used the terms "exceptional circumstances" and "sparingly applied" was not because they are the terms used in the act but because I would hope most people reading this would agree that discrimination of any kind should be avoided where possible. To take an example you might be familiar with, if Maya Forstater wins her appeal then her former employer may well argue in court that her contract wasn't renewed as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - that aim being maintaining a trans inclusive public image, or a welcoming environment for trans people. I'm not saying they'd win on those grounds, and I'm not trying to get into the specifics of that case, but just using it as an example of how the exemptions in the act could be used in ways you might not like, and so calling for them to be tightened up may well prove detrimental to women (and People of Colour, Disabled People, LGB people etc).

Here's an example of how the exemptions have been used against a woman making a discrimination claim (and how the appeal courts then reversed the decision). There is a large amount of case law on this which the courts could not ignore in a case relating to trans inclusion.

*Freelancers providing training services were asked to come to work at 8.45am so they could start teaching at 9am on the dot. One found this difficult as she was a single parent who had to drop her child off at school before coming to work. She came within the definition of an employee for discrimination purposes so she claimed indirect discrimination on grounds of sex.

It is indirect discrimination if an employer operates a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) such as a work policy which puts a group of employees who share a protected characteristic - such as sex - (including the person who is complaining about it) at a disadvantage compared with people who do not share that characteristic.

However, a PCP will not be unlawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. An employer who can show there were legitimate reasons for the requirement, which could not be achieved through less discriminatory means, and the requirement does not go further than is reasonably necessary, will not therefore be acting unlawfully.

The PCP in this case was defined as "all staff are to arrive early for a 9am class at 8.45am". The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that this put women (including this particular freelancer) at a particular disadvantage compared to men because many more women than men are primarily responsible for child care, and their ability to work certain hours is restricted significantly.

However, the ET went on to find that the proposed arrival and starting times were legitimate aims, and the way the employer had dealt with them was a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The claim therefore failed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. It said proportionality required an assessment of the effect of the PCP on the relevant people compared to the importance of the legitimate aim to the employer. The ET had failed to apply this approach and the case was therefore referred back to be reconsidered.*

www.marsdenrawsthorn.com/law-news/case-law-court-clarifies-when-employers-discriminatory-practice-is-lawful-because-it-is-a-proportionate-means-of-achieving-a-legitimate-aim.html

This is a straight up sex discrimination case and has nothing to do with single sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

@334bu

This is a straight up sex discrimination case and has nothing to do with single sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

But it does, the employers defence was that their actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, exactly the same legal justification that would be required to exclude trans women from women's spaces.

I would hope most people reading this would agree that discrimination of any kind should be avoided where possible

I don’t agree with this. There are many circumstances in which it is entirely advisable to discriminate between groups of people - in which doing so is a way of achieving a public good. I think you’re getting confused between two meanings of “to discriminate”. For example:

1. discriminating between adults and children in terms of sexual, or legal, consent.

2. discriminating between different weight, or age classes in Assigning To fair competition in sport

3. discriminating between people with different levels of wealth or income in terms of their eligibility for need-based scholarships

4. discriminating between people of different religions when deciding who should minister to people if a particular faith

5. discriminating between people with different skill sets in terms of who gets a job

Etc

The point is discrimination is a GOOD when the characteristic in question is directly relevant. Discrimination is UNJUST when the character in question is irrelevant.

The disagreement Between us isn’t whether discrimination is Always bad (it quite obviously is not), it is whether Discrimination based on sex is ever just. We say it is, in Those Broad circumstances In which women And girls (and men and boys as well) have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But the rebuttal was that women as primary carers were being discriminated against because they were being discriminated against because they were not men. Sex discrimination law violation.

Sorry Sex Equality law.

@FWRLurker Obviously I was referring to discrimination against people with a protected characteristic in terms of providing employment or goods and services as it applies in the Equality Act.

do you not believe that women are entitled to single sex spaces anywhere then?

I'd really like to hear the answer to this.

The difference in risk between a transwoman and a woman, is, of course, the risk of pregnancy. This may seem trifling if you have never lived with the possibility of pregnancy, the consequences of pregnancy, birth, child-raising, etc.

You said “discrimination of any kind”

The relevant type of discrimination here is sex-based. When is It appropriate to discriminate based on sex?

In employment, for example, it is appropriate to discriminate based on sex for hires where women would reasonably expect A female provider for reasons of privacy and dignity. For example, in a woman’s refuge it is acceptable to discriminate against men applying.

" hundreds and millions to one"

Constantly saying that transwomen would never ever be bad to women in female only spaces doesn't make it true. Evidence of numerous assaults, voyeurism and exposure if genitalia have been given upthread. You ignore it all because it doesn't fit your portrayal of transwomen as poor vulnerable women who would never ever behave like other males.

The thing is, not allowing a very small group of people access to a very small amount of spaces, in order to preserve the privacy, dignity and safety of half the population is absolutely a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Particularly when the majority of those spaces have alternatives. They're not lacking access to any toilet or changing room, just access to the one they'd prefer. There are refuges and rape crisis centres they can access (some male only, some mixed sex). In prisons they can be kept out of the general population if they're at risk. Hospitals, granted, are a trickier prospect, but private rooms do exist. If they feel that the current provision is lacking, they can campaign and lobby for additional services and facilities. If they don't want to do that, then yes, they'll have to put up with using what is currently available to them. Because shoving their way into women's legal and physical spaces is not, and should never be, an option.

@jj1968 I'll ask you again for your definition of transwomen, seeing as, as another poster pointed out, there isn't a definition in the Equality Act (I believe it just says 'gender reassignment' is the protected characteristic but it doesn't say what that means?)

Are you saying that transwomen who 'pass' should be allowed in women's spaces? Is that your criteria?

Can you also please state at what point a 'transwoman' comes out of the high risk sex class of male and into the low risk sex class of female? At what point does that change happen? Full GRS, top surgery, hormones, makeup, a dress, the ability to 'pass' or is it just a male's declaration that he 'feels like a woman'?

To take an example you might be familiar with, if Maya Forstater wins her appeal then her former employer may well argue in court that her contract wasn't renewed as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - that aim being maintaining a trans inclusive public image, or a welcoming environment for trans people.

The merits of your example aside (MF's employer cannot argue on those lines because they already submitted a detailed brief on why she was dismissed), this is not how lawful discrimination as per the Equality Act works.

It describes very precisely when lawful discrimination can be applied. So, for instance, if MF's employer was a charity supporting people who identify as trans, it could specify that all employees should identify as trans too.

For the purposes of our debate, which is about

The legality of excluding ALL males from female-only legal set asides

The only lawful discrimination rules are those allowing and restricting lawful discrimination on the basis of sex.