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!

JJ1968- according to wiki Jerry Brudos has a “transgender period” so I would think Stonewall would expect us to respect that.

According to Scottish government a transwoman is a woman if they have a female name on a utility bill and she/ her on their social media. Don't even have to cross dress.
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/concerns-raised-over-scottish-governments-definition-word-woman-1411014

No harm to you jj, but if you can't even find a link to the study that you yourself brought into the conversation and have been defending as "valid evidence" (without reading it! or understanding the criticisms of it!) what on earth makes you think you are qualified to or capable of "addressing" the criticisms of it?

You aren't capable or qualified, and you aren't open to logic or reason either. Your "addressing" the points I've made is just going to generate a lot of tedious, meaningless, longwinded nonsense in the same way you've been doing when people explained to you the facts about the Djehne study, because you're not capable of assessing evidence fairly and changing your mind based on that. You're like a flat earther. I didn't write that analysis of the study for you.

You can respond to it if you want of course, it's a public discussion forum, but it's quite clear that it won't be a rational or intelligent response, it will waste the time of everyone who reads it and no, I'm absolutely not going to assist you in producing it. Find the link yourself.

@Deliriumoftheendless

JJ1968- according to wiki Jerry Brudos has a “transgender period” so I would think Stonewall would expect us to respect that.

I don't really care what Stonewall think.

So what is the definition of a transwomen in your opinion?

@TheCuriousMonkey

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.

I think most trans people think it is the legal status quo, and that it has been the custom for decades that people tend to use toilets and changing rooms inline with their gender presentation and identity. I feel it's a bit unfair to suggest that trans people have deliberately usurped the law, and women were kind and didn;t say anything until now when enough became enough. I think trans women used womens toilets and changing facilities because that was what was socially expected and it was safer. Worth remembering perhaps that EHRC say in their guidance trans people should be able to use changing rooms line with their expressed gender (based as you say on the idea that they had, were or were intending to transition). This has also been backed by the courts: www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

Given this it seems understandable to me why trans women might have thought they had the right to use these spaces (in most circumstances), and now feel concerned that right is being threatened with being taken away. I don't think anything underhand has gone on, it's just no-one really seemed to care about this until a 3/4 years ago. I think it's quite frigtening for trans people who are used to living one way to suddenly be told no that's all over, now they have to use mens spaces, no matter the risk. I hope at least some people on here can acknowledge that.

And this has applied to things like sports, refuges and prisons as well. There have been trans women in womens prisons for a pretty long time, and there is legal support for that as well: www.theguardian.com/society/2009/sep/04/transexual-prisoner-moved-womens-prison

There have certainly been trans inclusive refuges since the 90s, possibly before, whilst Renee Richards was playing womens tennis in the 70s, and the Olympics fist introduction formal trans inclusion (albeit dependent on surgery) in 2004. So there really is a perception I think that a lot of gender critical people are campaigning to roll back existing trans rights rather than prevent new ones. It does feel as if both camps feel they are being threatened with losing something and I can understand why a (theoretical) trans women, on being told she has to leave the womens football team shes played with for a decade, and she has to use suddenly start using toilets, and changing rooms, and she no longer has the protection of the VAWG system if shes raped or a victim of domestic violence, might feel a little aggreived and frightened and think who now, and as such maybe ask at least what evidence there is that her having these rights has caused harm (rights that for years she sincerely thought she had, even if its one day found in the courts she hadnt).

I'm not saying her feelings should trump everything else, or are more important than safety or anything like that, those are other arguments, but just trying to offer some perspective from the opposing side.

Given this it seems understandable to me why trans women might have thought they had the right to use these spaces and now feel concerned that right is being threatened with being taken away.

Unfortunately Stonewall, who you don't care about, have ruined things for the trans people who were just quietly getting on with their lives.

Maybe it's time for you to start caring about them and start caring about the massive influence they have (small charity my ARSE) and start understanding what kind of people women are being expected to allow into our spaces and what the costs to women are. You seem to have some very outdated ideas about the trans community and who they are and what kind of demands trans activists are making on women. Maybe you should just read threads on here for a bit so you can understand what's happening.

Both cases you have cited jj are first instance decisions, ie the lowest level courts. As such they are not capable of setting down what the law is. The case about the TW in a women's prison is absolutely hideous, particularly given the offending history.

The EHRC guidance is not the law. There is nothing in the Equality Act to support what they say about access of TW to women's spaces. They have had to backtrack and amended some of their guidance but have not, in my opinion, gone far enough.

Neither the cases you cite, nor the EHRC guidance, is evidence that women have ever consented to male bodied people in certain single sex spaces.

I am genuinely interested to hear the point of view you have expressed jj, and have no reason to doubt that some transexual women will have had a misunderstanding of the law. But I'm afraid women have had enough.

@TheCuriousMonkey I think the prison case was held in the High Court so it would potentially set a precedence over lower courts. I agree EHRC guidance is not law, although EHRC opinion does carry a lot of weight in the courts. I think the law is at least ambiguous, and it may well be that excluding trans people is currently unlawful in many circumstances, a blanket ban for example. That seems to reflect most of the legal opinion I've seen. So I think you could argue that any "tightening up" of the EA to protect women's spaces will impact on existing trans rights, or it least I don't think it would be fair to say someone who thought this was being unreasonable.

I do kind of see your point about consent by the way, but I'm not sure how you could really establish that consent or where the boundaries of that should be. We live in a (flawed imo) parliamentary democracy and laws such as the GRA and EA were brought into being under that framework. I understand the idea that if just one women doesn't give consent then consent is breached, but should that override the democratic process? And that's of course in bearing in mind there are laws against any kind of sexual assault, I'm not sure I'm convinced that sexual consent, and consent to share a space of safety, are necessarily on the same level.

I feel it's a bit unfair to suggest that trans people have deliberately usurped the law,

This is exactly what happened. You know nothing about the behind the scenes negotiating that has gone on a women here do know however.

and women were kind and didn;t say anything until now when enough became enough.

It really is not a now thing. This push back has been going on for a very long time. It's reached a wider audience since the outrageous demands from trans organisations including Stonewall during the trans initiated review of the GRA to eliminate any sex exemptions.

Whoever is informing you is being very selective. You are missing out large chunks of activism.

If in your opinion excluding transwomen might be unlawful why are trans activist groups lobbying to have single sex exemptions removed from the Equality Act?

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

For the record. There are of course plenty of people willing to provide a legal opinion that the law should only be interpreted for the benefit of trans people and their gender identity. There are also a plenty of people who can point to the opposite.

If as PP mentioned rights are already there why was there so much focus on removing any legal exclusion. You might want to claim Stonewall is irrelevant however they're on the front line as we can all see.

To be tediously pedantic, the High Court is a court of first instance in judicial review cases such as the prison case, so does not set precedent. That case also predates the Equality Act.

The Equality Act, imperfect though it is, reflects the limits on consent, which is why it permits single sex services, sports and recruitment. Some campaigners want to remove these exceptions, and all too often they are not utilised in the situations they were intended for.

womansplaceuk.org/2020/07/20/making-policies-equality-act-compliant/

Here's Audrey Ludwig running through the trans biased approch taken to Equality Impact Assessment of single sex policy at South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.

This hasn't happened by accident.

I think trans women used womens toilets and changing facilities because that was what was socially expected and it was safer.

What you think and what has actually been happening are polar opposites.

@Escapeplanning I'm aware there were small groups opposing the GRA etc, and there have been small groups lobbying government on trans rights for some time. But you're right, most people, and certainly most trans people, know very little if anything about the ins and outs of that. Most trans women used women's spaces because that's what had always happened, and both the EHRC guidance and the courts so far have appeared to back up that right. So there has been no duplicity on trans people as a whole, no conspiracy, no attemprt to get one over on people, just people getting on with there lives and living in a way that until 3/4 years ago was not generally seen as uncontroversial and certainly was thought to be within the law. And they are the people terrified now, because to be frank, what's being discussed is going to trash people's lives, from the trans women who may be part of a womans sports team, and have her social life revolve around that, to trans women in the workplace, to just being able to go shopping or go to the loo. I really think that should be acknowledged, even if you feel it is necessary, the demands of many in the GC movement if met will cause real damage to tens of thousands of peoples lives.

To be fair there are posters on here who have been saying that for some time, that this aggressive push from people who probably wouldn’t have been thought of as trans in the past will have a very negative impact on other trans people.

I do think that is acknowledged.

You lack any information about how this issue affects women, and you are not open to new information.

The fact is we are acting within the law. We are entitled to single sex spaces, services and sports. We have them because we need them in order to be able to participate fully in society and you just demanded 51% of the population give up those rights to satisfy an unknown number of people.

In the UK, there have been fewer assaults on trans people in men's spaces than there have been assaults by trans people in women's spaces.

and there have been small groups lobbying government on trans rights for some time.

This is laughable. You are genuinely sounding like a propagandist here.

I'm sorry, but the argument that natal females should give up their right to fair completion in sports because it might disrupt a trans woman's social life gets a hard Fuck Right Off from me.

competition in sports

" Small groups lobbying" Hardly small and definitely well funded.
Also "tens of thousands?" What was your definition of a transwomen again?

@Deliriumoftheendless

I'm not sure if it has really been acknowledged. I'm sure if Truss announced she was going to announce laws to keep trans women out of womens spaces and she intended to table it and have it signed and sealed by xmas then you'd all be cheering. But that leaves no time to campaign for third spaces, or anything else. It means trans girls and teenagers, who may pass perfectly suddenly forced to use mens toilets and changing rooms and risk sexual assault, it means someone sat at home dealing with a violent partner will no longer have the life saving services on the end of a phone, it might even mean trans women being kicked out of refuges and ending up back with a violent partner. It probably means people being raped, beaten up, having to leave work, having no support if they are sexually assaulted, and yes it means people having their social lives smashed up and being stripped of dignity and placed at risk every time they use a toilet on top of that. It's not abstract for trans women, this is the future staring trans people in the face potentially, these are things that will happen and trans people are told must happen to protect women from something thats been happening decades and which has not yet been shown to be causing problems.

@Thelnebriati

In the UK, there have been fewer assaults on trans people in men's spaces than there have been assaults by trans people in women's spaces.

Trans women don;t use men's spaces. But even so I'd be sceptical of that, as far as I'm aware there's only been two trans women found guilty af assaulting someone in a womens space in the UK, although I suppose it is technically possible that only one trans women has ever been assaulted in a men's space. I'd like to see the evidence you have though.