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 think we can all agree that there is a lack of decent research in this area.

But the way I see it is this:

There are certain circumstances when we generally segregate by sex. Usually places where we get naked, or are vulnerable, or need sex specific services. I think if you asked anyone in the street whether changing rooms or prisons or hospital wards should be single sex they would say yes. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the dignity of both sexes, and the particular vulnerability of women, is the reason for this.

What is being demanded is that these places are no longer sex segregated. It is for those demanding that change to prove that sex segregation is not needed for dignity and safety.

The onus is not on women who resist this change. It is on those who demand this change to justify it. They are the ones who should be providing the evidence.

It seems to me that often the only justification offered is TWAW. So ultimately these discussions cannot take place without a sensible explanation of why this is. I know many of us have been waiting for a long time to hear such an explanation.

I think we can all agree that there is a lack of decent research in this area.

But the way I see it is this:

There are certain circumstances when we generally segregate by sex. Usually places where we get naked, or are vulnerable, or need sex specific services. I think if you asked anyone in the street whether changing rooms or prisons or hospital wards should be single sex they would say yes. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the dignity of both sexes, and the particular vulnerability of women, is the reason for this.

What is being demanded is that these places are no longer sex segregated. It is for those demanding that change to prove that sex segregation is not needed for dignity and safety.

The onus is not on women who resist this change. It is on those who demand this change to justify it. They are the ones who should be providing the evidence.

It seems to me that often the only justification offered is TWAW. So ultimately these discussions cannot take place without a sensible explanation of why this is. I know many of us have been waiting for a long time to hear such an explanation.

No it isnt a different concern. Self ID lets any man into a woman only space and you can't challenge them.

We can show that mixed sex spaces do not work for women.

Now you need to show that trans people do not offend at an increased rate to women, and are not a risk to women.

Some people who are male are a danger to people who are female. To counter this we have female only places which exclude all male people even the nice ones. Changing this would demand the consent of all those using these spaces. So why would female humans give such consent if there is no evidence that transwomen are less of a danger to women than other males?
Show us the evidence that these particular males are not like other males and at that point we might consider giving our consent.

Incidentally, there's at least ONE transwoman gangster -- Sythnia China Blast. His racist murder was a gang initiation. He had "helpers" on the outside threatening Gallus Mag when the trans community was trying to get him pardoned, or at least moved into women's prison.

@TheCuriousMonkey

"What is being demanded is that these places are no longer sex segregated. It is for those demanding that change to prove that sex segregation is not needed for dignity and safety.

The onus is not on women who resist this change. It is on those who demand this change to justify it. They are the ones who should be providing the evidence. "

This I think is heavily contested ground. I think most trans people feel they already have the right to access spaces inline with their gender identity, and they already do and have been doing for years, and that there is now a move to expel them. So I think a lot of trans people ate saying why, where's the evidence that this thing that's happened for years is causing harm.

I recognise there is another perspective, which is that trans people don't currently legally have acces to these spaces and have not been using them for years but if self ID is introduced this will grant them access.

I don't know how within the scope of this thread this is but I think this is the crux of the disagreement. Trans people that I know, who all use spaces inline with their gender identity and have done for years, feel scared that new laws might mean they will no longer be able to do this and a lot worry that will make them very vulnerable to violence. None of them think self id makes any difference to their rights other than being able to get a new birth certificate. So from the trans pespective the people calling for change are the gender critical movement.

The law is not 'another perspective'. It is the standard.
Trans people do not have the automatic right to enter a single sex space or service. The fact they have been doing so is not based on a legal right and its dishonest to present it as the norm.

Self ID removes all gatekeeping. You havent offered any evidence that it will be safe for women to have their single sex spaces made mixed sex and to allow any man in on his declaration that he feels like a woman.
I have posted a link to show that mixed sex changing rooms have a catastrophic increase in assaults on women.

You have offered no evidence that there is a difference in rates of offending between women and trans women despite demanding evidence of increased risk.

Transwomen have never had the legal right to be in female spaces. Ten years ago they would not have been in female prisons, refuges,rape crisis centres, female wards, female sports etc. They may have used female toilets but only because of women's goodwill. Now women are being given no choice and they are not best pleased.
So there is no contested ground. There is no rolling back of transwomen's rights. The only rights that have and are continuing to be rolled back are those of women.

That means, in the US to date, trans inclusive policies have been shown not to correlate with an increased risk of assault in women's spaces.

No they haven't. I know you didn't understand what I said about that study, but at least admit that you don't understand, instead of doing this, it's pathetic and dishonest. It's a very basic logicalal/statistical error that was committed that wouldn't be acceptable in any other field. A non-finding in any study can be due to a non-effect, or it can be due to methodology that isn't up to the task of detecting an existing effect. In fact, the methodology of that study was bad, good methodology might have actually found something, and that would have been extremely inconvenient as the authors were funded by the trans lobby It shouldn't ever have been published, but academia is fucked.

Problems with that bathroom study:

1. They used sexual attacks, voyeurism and exhibitionism that were reported to the police (before and after passing the regulation) as their outcome variable. However the vast majority of such incidents are not reported to the police. And often more reports happen in more woman-friendly environments.

1. Specifically, they did not allow for the possibility that the regulation would have a chilling effect preventing women from reporting incidents concerning men/transwomen in women's spaces. But we know that this chilling effect from trans-friendly policies exists in real life and women have been banned from gyms and other spaces for reporting transwomen who were behaving inappropriately.

1. They compared matched pairs of neighbourhoods in Massachussets which were next to each other, not allowing for the possibility that implementing the pro-trans regulation in one neighbourhood might impact behaviour of organisations in the next door neighbourhood.

1. The matching procedure is a weird and unnecessary way to do this and looks like it would reduce statistical power. (It makes me wonder if they DID find something using a more sensible method of analysis and had to do statistical gymnastics to cover it up.) Furthermore, matching neighbourhoods by their adjoining boundaries constitutes the methodological error known as over-matching, for the reason mentioned in 3.

1. Given all this, even just the description of their methodology sounds like it would never work. It didn't work. And that was the result the researchers wanted. No one should be conducting a study where their incentives are aligned with having poor methodology! That's why reporting a non-result as a result is such a problem here and why it should never be done in general. You can always make your methodology worse if you really want to.

And that's why anyone with any intellectual honesty would not be using that "study" as evidence for anything.

@jj1968:
“And it does seen counter intuitive to me to claim trans women retain male pattern criminality, I mean where are the trans gangsters, football hooligans, terrorists or serial killers?”
Well, I can’t speak about gangsters or football hooligans, but I can say that there are number of serial killers who cross-dressed. Just off the top of my head:

Ed Gein
Jerry Brudos
Denis Rader
Hadden Clark
Russell Williams

Seeing as Stonewall regards cross-dressing as part of the “trans umbrella”, and how TRAs just love to posthumously declare historical female people as trans because they disguised themselves as men to live life on their own terms in a sexist world, I think it’s shocking that they aren’t loudly protesting About how these murderers’ true identity was consistently denied and that they were all incarcerated in men’s prisons.

Trans hooligans?
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/drunken-transgender-women-stamp-defenceless-13566104

jj

Equalities legislation is silent on gender identity. The protected characteristics are sex and gender reassignment.

Equalities legislation permits single sex spaces for reasons of dignity, safety and fairness.

What is being demanded is not the legal status quo. And if it has been the customary status quo because TW have "always" used women's toilets then (i) I don't think consent was ever obtained from women (ii) TW in prisons and women's refuges and in leading roles in women's mental health services has not been the status quo.

It's easy to get bogged down (sorry for pun) in discussions of toilets and changing rooms because all women will use these and because (without meaning to dismiss perfectly understandable objection to TW these spaces) TW may well have "always" used these spaces.

The real test however are places inhabited by a minority, marginalised, particularly vulnerable group of women such as prisons. Has anyone asked them whether they have "always" consented to male bodied people in their prisons?

Thought not.

*The onus is not on women who resist this change. It is on those who demand this change to justify it. They are the ones who should be providing the evidence.

It seems to me that often the only justification offered is TWAW. So ultimately these discussions cannot take place without a sensible explanation of why this is. I know many of us have been waiting for a long time to hear such an explanation.*

This. Entirely this.

What is the material difference between transwomen and men?

It's easy to get bogged down (sorry for pun) in discussions of toilets and changing rooms because all women will use these and because (without meaning to dismiss perfectly understandable objection to TW these spaces) TW may well have "always" used these spaces

I agree it's not about lavatories.

It's about a tiny tiny group of mostly men demanding a change to the fundamental definition of "woman" and female" . And then abusing * women who question or protest against this.

• doxxing, attacking physically, trying to get them sacked, stopping them getting jobs (see other thread), trying to shout them down, taking legal action against them.

Hey OP @Bb2019 you’ve not posted since the 14th and more info., stats., etc have been added.

I know you said you’d found the convo / debate ‘helpful’ just wondering how you were going re “an informed opinion on the use of women only places by trans women.”

Be good to know how this debate and stats have informed you.

Sorry just realised I posted too soon...

Be good to know how this debate and stats have informed you, as I believe you’re based in France.

Cheers

@ItsLateHumpty I'm not sure posting how which country I may or may not be in is relevant?!

I have thanked everyone who contributed so far with what peered reviewed or other non anecdotal analysis there is, and concluded the evidence on the risks or lack of risks of trans inclusivity isn't conclusive. I have already stated what my personal views are on the subject.

Not sure I can add much more that's of value here - just grateful for everyone's contributions.

Oh and my last reply @ItsLateHumpty was yesterday!!

Me - Hey OP @Bb2019 you’ve not posted since the 14th
OP - Oh and my last reply @ItsLateHumpty was yesterday!!

Im not sure why you’re grumpy, I’m just asking for a follow up as a ton more data / info has been posted since you lasted commented, and you’re apparently based in France (I’m in Oz) so I was curious as to how you were going with all the work other OPs had put in.

Just a question.

For me, I see historic use of women's toilets, changing rooms etc as akin to permissive footpaths. Landowners may allow walkers access to their land because they recognise it is a good thing to do. But it is on the strict understanding that it does not constitute a legal right of way, it comes with expectations of acceptable use, and the land owner retains the right to change their mind if they so choose. If walkers started demanding that they should have a legal right of way or abused the land in any way then the landowner would be perfectly within their rights to tell them to fuck off, permanently.

@ItsLateHumpty Ah ok that's because you're in a different time zone so it's stamped 14th. Mine isn't. I guess I reacted negatively because I got spooked re you mentioning where I might be based and why it was in any way relevant. For the record I'm a UK resident.

@LangClegTheBeardedVulture None of those people are trans women though which is what I thought we were discussing.

"Seeing as Stonewall regards cross-dressing as part of the “trans umbrella”, and how TRAs just love to posthumously declare historical female people as trans because they disguised themselves as men to live life on their own terms in a sexist world, I think it’s shocking that they aren’t loudly protesting About how these murderers’ true identity was consistently denied and that they were all incarcerated in men’s prisons."

Okay, here's a thing. To the vast majority of trans people, including trans activists, Stonewall aren't particularly important and neither is what they say or think. The vast majority of trans people are probably barely aware they exist. They are one pretty small UK based charity, who were somewhat late to the party but who have recently campaigned for trans rights, but they don't create ideology or set doctrine.

I don't know a single trans person, whether an activist or not, who believes occassional cross dressers are trans women that should be given access to women's spaces, even if they would accept crossdressers under a wider trans umbrella, whereby trans means anyone who expresses some kind of gender variance. Non binary people fall under that umbrella as well, as do trans men, neither group would be happy about being called trans women though.

So of course trans people aren't protesting that these infamous serial killers who may have crssdressed a bit no-one really sure in some cases should be treated as trans women. They aren't trans women, and even in the crudest stereotype of 'trans activism' nobody would think of them as trans women or people who should have access to womens spaces or be in womens prisons. I sometimes think there's a tendency to make assumptions about what trans people want, which are often based on speculation or misunderstandings, or which are very extreme and minority views which do not reflect in any way what the majority think.

@Kantastic Did you find a link to the study, I can't really address those points without rereading it and I couldnt find it.

If crossdresser a aren't transwomen why are organisations told by trans activists that they should be allowed to use women only spaces

www.heraldscotland.com/news/17588777.cross-dress-males-to-be-allowed-in-women-only-gym-sessions-in-glasgow/