No evidence women at greater risk w/ transinclusion

[Lookingforastronauts]

www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2020/01/foi-202000011201/documents/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/govscot%3Adocument/FOI-202000011201%2BDocument%2B5%2B-%2BEarlier%2BVersion%2Bof%2BLiterature%2BReview.pdf

In this document it states that there is no evidence that women are at greater risk if transwomen are included in their spaces/facilities.

Is this so? Does anyone have any evidence or links to the contrary? I'm having a discussion and they've refered to this as evidence that I'm just a nasty hysterical bitch. Not their words to be fair. I'm sorry I know this is lazy to drop this and hope someone can assist, but if anyone can please do! Tia

Karen White is just the tip of the iceberg

I haven't read the report, but unless they can list the criteria used to define trans women in this study and confirm that this definiton of trans will be applied by the Scottish government, (who will therefore be abandoning self ID) the report is irrelevant.

Women are not concerned about trans women, they are concerned about men.

Is that the evidence that no-one is allowed to collect, look for or analyse?

Well, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If transwomen are women then women will, or will not, experience increased risk of something. All women. Everywhere. And if women want to hurt women then that is something for women to deal with. If women are becoming more aggressive in the 21st century then there will have to be some expensive research carried out, maybe it's cultural, maybe its 5G! Who knows? But women are women, as we all well know! Genes and gametes have fick all to do with it, unelss of course you are a Bio Essentialist or other form of science led nut job!

And no, it never happens. Not never, ever!

So pipe down!

Yes, isn't the normal Scottish government definition of trans "anyone who changes their gas bill to an ostensibly opposite sex name?"

"Between half and three-quarters of people in the UK are comfortable with a transgender person using a public toilet according to their gender identity"

Well, for a start, this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of what people think. Polls have found several times that people take a different view when it's spelled out that it is likely to mean a person of the opposite sex who has not had genital surgery.

There is no clear definition of trans though. It changes as often as the TA's agenda.
Even trans people have different views to each other about what it means.

The issue is that they are all adult males regardless of any chosen identity. If being trans is just on someone's say so and must be accepted immediately or else, there is no way of separating the predatory males who will take every advantage of this and keeping them out of female only spaces.

This is why the exemptions exist. We are legally allowed, in certain circumstances, to legally exclude all adult males. Hurt feelings should never be put above the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls, especially on places they are genuinely at their most vulnerable.

I skimmed it. It's clearly starting from a biased position. They reference Stonewall-produced research and some very questionable stats. It's very focused on highlighting 'cis' women being uncomfortable around trans people, rather than the actual issue: women not wanting biological males in their safe spaces.

I gave up after: This literature search did not identify any evidence supporting the claim that trans women are more likely than cisgender women to sexually assault other women in women-only spaces.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Well, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If transwomen are women then women will, or will not, experience increased risk of something. All women. Everywhere. And if women want to hurt women then that is something for women to deal with. If women are becoming more aggressive in the 21st century then there will have to be some expensive research carried out, maybe it's cultural, maybe its 5G! Who knows? But women are women, as we all well know! Genes and gametes have fick all to do with it, unelss of course you are a Bio Essentialist or other form of science led nut job!

And no, it never happens. Not never, ever!

So pipe down!

Wait a moment! That language...

Cisgender women

Trans women

There is evidence that trans women are no threat,... but there isn't enough dtaa to draw conclusions

They asked Google!!!!!!

I'm sure if we read through it we could challenge every bloody line of it. It is a tad facile, to say the least!

Yes I was just coming back to say that Twee. It dishonestly paints MTFs as simply "masculine" women and actually uses the word "triggered" to describe why women don't want to share their spaces with them Ideologically blinkered, bad faith propaganda to support an agenda.

They ought not to cherry pick their polling and use one from 2016 that supports their starting position, and not mention the others

I'm just getting there, Erish.

That's so very, very frustrating. What really has happened to the Scttish government? That will be an absolute shit storm in the not so distant future!

The report itself literally says there is minimal research? Also how are we supposed to know if they are recording them as 'female' crimes.

Once you get onto the ground of 'unless there's evidence' it's fine...

you're into:

how much evidence is necessary - ie how many incidents under what circumstances (also known as please state the acceptable collateral damage numbers, how many female people have to be harmed)- before it's regarded as enough of a problem to take action? Because women are used to the dismissive 'isolated incident' (or one bad apple/no true trans/ yada yada) when they do show incidents that have undoubtedly occurred.

What sort of evidence will be regarded as acceptable - because women are used to being told it's from the wrong source, or the goalposts being immediately shifted to not enough proof that harm was truly caused or alarm actually happened (to a degree that male people should take notice of.)

What constitutes acceptable evidence? Does there have to be a police report? Filmed evidence? A conviction? Because even a conviction in the Karen White case did fuck all in changing things for women, and hello, rape reporting, prosecution and conviction rate in the UK right now?

And what constitutes risk? What has to happen to sufficient numbers of females, proven beyond all doubt, in order to have a re think on the truly stupid and anti female approach of throwing open the doors of spaces where females are undressed and vulnerable to any male who wishes to be there, and give some thought to the right of female people to feel safe and not be alarmed, harassed, embarrassed or physically and sexually harmed?

Anyone else just staggered we're having to consider negotiating with males about female spaces (which evidently they own and run for male benefit, because females aren't getting a voice in this) if they would please, pretty please, think about gate keeping them a little better for females if females can really really prove thoroughly that things aren't working? It just defies belief. I have never in my life felt so utterly worthless and unvalued as a female in the UK as I do at the moment. Which incidentally is based on my being born with female biology. And nothing else.

Aka how many female people are justifiable collateral damage?

Pish and Tosh! You're doing that 'logic' thing again! Stop it!

They ought not to cherry pick their polling and use one from 2016 that supports their starting position, and not mention the others.

Lies. It's all they've got. Tragic really.

There's no clear sex disaggreated data.
Also - what constitutes risk? Are you only counting sexualor physical assault? What about simply being totally creeped out - how is that recorded - and who, these days, would own up to that without fearing some form of repercussion.

We know:

1. the research is NOT ALLOWED because it's transphobic to even suggest researching the impact of trans people on society, because TWAW, TMAM so we don't need to do it.
2. Also, This Never Happens.
3. If it happens (which it never does of course), it's One Bad Apple, and Not True Trans.

^There's no clear sex disaggreated data.
Also - what constitutes risk? Are you only counting sexualor physical assault? What about simply being totally creeped out - how is that recorded - and who, these days, would own up to that without fearing some form of repercussion.^

Indeed. Being made to feel intimidated, humiliated or otherwise uncomfortable when you are undressed or stared at by a male in women's space is enabling sexual harassment. Women need a break from the male gaze.

3) If it happens (which it never does of course), it's One Bad Apple, and Not True Trans.

Activists: A woman is whoever says they are a woman, don't you ever dare question it you transphobes.

Activists: No, JY doesn't count, JY is not one of us, they're not really trans.

Haha. No, no, no, mate. You asked us to play by your rules, let's play by your rules.

The same as there being no evidence COVID is transmitted in schools... not worth the paper it’s (not) written on.

Surely it's common sense that allowing men into women's toilets/changing rooms will increase the risk. You may try and argue that the risk isn't actualised into assault or argue about whether the risk is a little or a lot, but introducing heterosexual men into women's changing rooms clearly introduces a new risk factor.

But regardless of risk or assaults, if women just feel uncomfortable with undressing in front of men having penises in the changing rooms, this should be enough to exclude transwomen, especially those who retain a male body.

The same as there being no evidence COVID is transmitted in schools... not worth the paper it’s (not) written on.

We seriously are in a political age where it has become not only acceptable but fashionable to present a personally advantageous selected reality, blatantly dismiss the discarded/unwanted facts that don't support your selected reality, and then get reproachful/angry with people who will not be kind and agree to pretend along with you, as if they have done something wrong. Mr Cummings and his eye sight for example.

What can you do in achieving fairness with someone who is just insisting your reality doesn't exist?

The focus is on males should be able to use female spaces unless it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt (insert a quick chorus of The Impossible Dream) that it harms females too much to be acceptable.

Instead of on whether females are comfortable, safe and female spaces are doing what they exist for, which is meeting the needs of all female humans, including the ones of faith, culture, disability, trauma, the ones who like privacy, the ones who need to be away from the male gaze...…

It's not female centred thinking, at all. It's not female led.

I really wonder if the males telling females what they may and may not have in their spaces and when they're allowed to mind will find time in their busy schedule for the white men to tell the BAME population what racism really is and what they're allowed to mind about, and for the able bodied ones to go and explain being disabled to disabled people. And I have a grandmother who would love to learn to suck eggs.