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

This comes from the Equality Impact Assessment on the GRA from the Scottish Government. It is based on cherry picking 2 or 3 sentences fromthe Gottschalke Report which actually came to the conclusion that the inclusion of transwomen in female spaces did cause problems and a report from a gender studies specialist from Bristol who based his findings on a very dubious study from the USA. No other evidence was used. It ignored Fovas, crime reports and anything really which did not support the agenda. Women and Girls' response to the consultation question on the EQIA is very informative.
wgscotland.org.uk/question-5/

It's interesting that their search strategy only looked for search terms around trans (and actually they didn't use the term transwoman by the looks of it, although their reporting on the search strategy may not be complete), and not mixed-sex provision.

OK... who do we send that back to?

Look! Your own research gives the lie to your opinion piece!

It is bizarre. Surely the starting is point is to establish why single sex spaces exist and whether the experience of the women using those spaces will be compromised by the inclusion of males. If so, you can then work out to what extent the harms are mitigated if those males are transwomen (and for this you obviously need a definition of transwoman). Then, when you know what harms remain, you can decide whether it reasonable/acceptable to legislate for women (or those woman affected) to be compelled to accept those remaining harms/remove single sex provision by allowing in transwomen. You would then need to amend the Equality Act accordingly.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk

(Sorry, this is behind a paywall)

womansplaceuk.org/gender-neutral-toilets-dont-work-for-women-2/

In practice, because of self ID, the question is not about trans inclusion, but whether the law should continue to allow and protect provision of any single sex spaces and services.

What everyone else says about risk, but also even if that weren't an issue (which it is!) there's also:

• our privacy
• the plain truth about what trans women actually are
• our right to just say NO MALE BODIES in our spaces full stop. Not be forced to beg and narrate sexual assault after assault in the vain hope that someone might give a shit for a change. Because if a movement can use FGM as an example of a spectrum of genitals, they possess zero empathy to appeal to.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

To obtain evidence, you would need to look very carefully. Until very recently, most men using women’s spaces were “transsexual” and very rare.

So if there was an increase in attacks on women, it would be small and thus difficult to assess statistically.

Most women would not report negative experiences.

Many places may not record the sex of the assailant. The police certainly do not.

Their campaign has been deliberately set up so that it is nigh on impossible to obtain evidence.

Why would that be, do you think?

Imagine if there really was no increased risk to women, and trans campaigners truly believed it. They would want to prove to women there was no increased risk, wouldn’t they? So they would have asked for transparency.

If police had recorded sex and chosen gender for all cases, we would, by now, have reliable figures, giving us a comprehensive picture of rates of criminal offending.

They chose to do the exact opposite. It’s pretty obvious why.

Yes, and as various people have pointed out, they haven't been honest and transparent in any of the "evidence" they've gathered.

In practice, because of self ID, the question is not about trans inclusion, but whether the law should continue to allow and protect provision of any single sex spaces and services.

Beginning with an assessment of what was the purpose of creating those single sex spaces and services for people born female?

Has the need of females for them changed? Have those reasons for all female people gone away?

Those spaces should not be removed because males have decided that no longer want females to have them. That's just rank misogyny. Hence the frantic arguing that males really want and need to take them, and that females aren't affected enough (in the opinion of people who aren't female, who carefully aren't listening to anyone female) to justify standing up to males commandeering them to meet their own needs.

With no fucking care or interest whatsoever on the impact on female people. Because it doesn't affect male people, so doesn't matter.

*Sorry, carefully aren't listening to anyone female who is pointing out the problems for females.

They'll celebrate all day the voice of females who unconditionally prioritise the needs of males to remove single sex spaces from all females for their own benefit. Because, again, misogyny. Good girls.

Not sure how much use crime stats are as the majority of sexual harassment goes unreported and certainly I prosecuted.

Also so many reports of TW who want their trans status reported and recognised when they are the victim but want their woman status to be taken In to account when that are the victim.

Sorry typo they want woman status when they are the perpetrator.

Well, a rather large gaping chasm in that document is that there is no definition of 'trans'. So, are we talking a male who has had full GRS and has been living 'as a woman' for years, or are we talking a bloke who has simple declared 'I identify as female'?

Without a definition, the rest of that document is pointless.

Holy fucking shit:

'It is claimed that the presence of trans women who are seen by other service users
as more masculine might inhibit some women from being as open in their dialogue
(see Gottschalk 2009, Manners 2019). Some of the literature also highlights
resistance from the providers of women-only services to having to use their
resources to provide a service tailored to meet the specific needs of trans women
(see Gottschalk 2009).
However, the literature identified did not offer an explanation for why the different
experiences of socialisation and oppression that trans women have experienced
compared to cis women justifies their exclusion, while the differences in experience
between women of different ethnicities, classes or sexualities does not. Many
sources note that women are very diverse, and that homogeneity of experience is
not a prerequisite for women to self-organise nor for them to provide a good service
to other women (Chamber 2007, Manners 2019). Manners also argues that while
‘survivors of trauma abuse by men can find being in the presence of men triggering
… a survivor who is triggered by men will be triggered by anyone she perceives as male regardless of how they identify … [and that] it is important to note that this kind
of policing of womanhood leads to the exclusion of cisgender lesbians and anyone
else who does not conform to societal perceptions of what a woman looks like.’
(2019).
Much of the literature suggests therefore that some cisgender women being
triggered by masculine appearances does not justify a blanket exclusion of trans
women from services or spaces (particularly given that they themselves are a very
vulnerable group), but rather highlights the need for individual assessments and
tailoring the service for each individual’s needs, which are also likely to encompass a
wide variety of things unrelated to gender identity (Dunne 2017, Manners 2019).
Dunne, for example, writes that ‘it is perhaps understandable that abuse victims will
… be sensitive to those who – voluntarily or involuntarily – have been masculinized
by society. This sensitivity which survivors experience is real, and it is important that
policy makers create appropriate structures to address the complex, individualised
needs of these persons. It may be that, while the law can generally open gender
segregated-spaces (toilets, locker rooms, fitting rooms, etc.) to all trans individuals,
there needs to be a small, sub-section of services where stricter polices, perhaps
based on legal gender, continue to apply.’ However, he also goes on to note that ‘It
may be possible to protect cisgender women’s sense of security without excluding
trans persons … justifications that centre on discomfort tend to be overstated, and
can indeed be accommodated within a more nuanced, non-discriminatory approach’
such as clear communication of policies and rules of conduct.
In terms of cisgender women’s potential discomfort with seeing transgender bodies,
Dunne argues that something being an established ‘social norm’ does not mean that
it is justifiable and that ‘Laws should only exclude trans persons from their preferred
accommodations and services if exclusion pursues a tangible social good or avoids
a potential harm’. (2017).'

Who is this Dunne bloke and why does he think he is any sort of authority on how comfortable or uncomfortable women should be around males?' Justifications that centre on discomfort tend to be overstated'? Says who?

I don't know if I have misunderstood or something?

It's proven that allowing unisex, aka "gender neutral" facilities, is open for abuse by men, either men pretending to be transsexual, or just men in genes who know females with be freely available in the same easily accessible space to them

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

www.stacyontheright.com/2018/04/catalogue-of-sexual-crimes-committed-at-target-stores/

www.christianpost.com/news/sexual-violence-reports-target-stores-spike-transgender-bathroom-policy-study.html

*men in general, not men in genes

" It would be unthinkable that general discomfort could prevent a cisgender woman from using segregated showering facilities after she had a double mastectomy. In reality, UK law tolerates a considerable amount of bodily diversity when cisgender and intersex persons use single-gender spaces. Why are trans persons treated differently? … If cisgender and intersex persons can use women-only and men-only services, even when they have non-normative bodies, concerns about bodily diversity do not justify the current legal position under the 2010"

The above quote is from Dr Peter Dunne's report. It caused a bit of protest as you can imagine.

Who is this Dunne bloke and why does he think he is any sort of authority on how comfortable or uncomfortable women should be around males?' Justifications that centre on discomfort tend to be overstated'? Says who?

I think it is Peter Dunne, a pro TRA legal academic who compared women not wanting to see penises in their changing rooms to them being repulsed by another woman's mastectomy scars. This "research" is a joke.

X post

'a survivor who is triggered by men will be triggered by anyone she perceives as male regardless of how they identify … [and that] it is important to note that this kind
of policing of womanhood leads to the exclusion of cisgender lesbians and anyone
else who does not conform to societal perceptions of what a woman looks like.'

Epic gaslighting

This study was an interesting read. It's also Scotland

www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2019.0284?journalCode=scot

@334bu

" It would be unthinkable that general discomfort could prevent a cisgender woman from using segregated showering facilities after she had a double mastectomy. In reality, UK law tolerates a considerable amount of bodily diversity when cisgender and intersex persons use single-gender spaces. Why are trans persons treated differently? … If cisgender and intersex persons can use women-only and men-only services, even when they have non-normative bodies, concerns about bodily diversity do not justify the current legal position under the 2010"

The above quote is from Dr Peter Dunne's report. It caused a bit of protest as you can imagine.

Gross. Just fucking... I'd probably be immediately banned if I said what I think to that.

They really haven't got a clue, have they? Who the fuck do they think they are, speaking for women who have been through the things he mentions?

Why don't they let women speak for themselves? Well, we already know why, because this whole shit show would be over before it began.

With reference to the report from Massachusetts which Dr Dunne uses to "prove" his point that transwomen are no danger to women, Charley parley provided a devastating critique of the said report on this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3994546-stats-on-attack-on-women-by-men-self-identifying-as-women?msgid=99299061#99299061

" CharlieParley

jj1968

@midgebabe I posted upthread a study specifically about whether trans inclusion has caused a risk of physical harm. There is no published evidence showing that trans inclusion has led to increased risk.

As to the much broader picture no I'm not sure if any work has been done on that although I'm sure women's orgs like Women's Aid would be aware if women were no longer using their services because they are trans inclusive. From what I hear sadly demand is higher than ever.

I have told you, as a woman directly harmed by trans inclusive services, and a member of a group of such women, that this is exactly what happened. Ours is not the only group of survivors to try to bring this to light. We're not the first one either.

Do we not register with you? Is the damage done to us not worthy of your attention? I mean I get it that the newspaper reports of people you've had zero interaction with are easy to ignore, but we've been debating here for days. As far as I'm concerned, one woman or child harmed is too many. And I have, unfortunately, now met lots of them. Unsurprisingly, given that I'm talking about these issues publicly.

___

And you posted one deeply flawed paper examining whether nine different sets of obscure bylaws in Massachusetts had an effect.

One.

But you dismissed the UK-based research on police records showing that 90% of reported sexual crime happened in mixed-sex facilities even though they constituted less than half of all facilities. Coz you didn't see the records yourself.

And that study btw is not worth the paper it was written on. In addition to Kantastic's fantastic critique, let me just add that any paper seeking to demonstrate the effect of a law must provide the following information:

• the precise text of the law (here a number of different bylaws, none of which were identical).

• how the new law was communicated to those it affected (I lived in Massachusetts for a year and a half and I know how they communicate bylaws means that 99% of the people haven't got a clue until someone gets in trouble for falling afoul of them.)

• whether those it affected were aware of the new bylaw's existence (see above)

• how the new law was understood

For instance, ensuring "equal access and opportunity" does not equate to the automatic right to access opposite sex facilities. That requirement may be met through alternative facilities.

Not discriminating on the basis of gender identity also does not equate to the automatic right to access opposite sex facilities. That may be achieved (as it is here in the UK) by making it unlawful to exclude someone who identifies as trans from spaces provided for their own sex. The researchers very unhelpfully do not provide any of this information on the bylaws. They just reference their title (non-descriptive).

So, for your perusal here is one of them:

It is the policy of the City of Salem to uphold the human rights of all persons in Salem and the free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by the Constitutions, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations of the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Salem. As such, actions that may deny or tend to deny to an individual equal access or opportunity in matters of housing, employment, education, municipal services, contracts, purchasing or public accommodations on the basis of: age, ancestry, color, disability, family status, gender identity or expression, military status, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, are hereby prohibited.

Where anyone would get the idea that this signals to people that a man can now legally claim a trans identity and have the automatic right to access a female-only space without making any changes to appearance I honestly do not know. Let alone a predator. (That is what they were measuring after all: a rise in crime through abuse of the bylaws by predators.)

And the data collection was not only flawed, but the assumption that an effect of obscure bylaws - which can after all mean many different things to many different people - would be measurable - and on crime that is barely ever reported - and for bylaws introduced within the last few years is ludicrous.

Furthermore, four of the nine localities chosen had these bylaws in place for less than a year when the researchers requested the data (two had them for 6 or 7 full months, one for 7 or 8 and one for 8 or 9 months); a further one had them for 16 months and one for 13). So in 6 of nine localities far too little time had passed for any effect to appear.

The data collection itself was a smörgåsboard of methodological issues. No checks were carried out on the quality of the searches, even though some forces searched manually and others by automatic keywords. Two forces refused in the end saying they could not spare the staff. And that was despite the fact that where the police handed over their crime report records to the researchers themselves, their own search identified far more incidents than in localities where the police force carried out their own checks.

Plus all of the issues pointed out by Kantastic.

Evidence. I'd love to see some, but this doesn't qualify."

Check wgscotland.org.uk, on the home page the link to ‘Question 5’ deals with the Govt’s ‘evidence base’ assertions quite thoroughly. Should be very useful:)

Who is this Dunne bloke and why does he think he is any sort of authority on how comfortable or uncomfortable women should be around males?' Justifications that centre on discomfort tend to be overstated'? Says who?

He's a Bristol academic who gets paid to write this stuff. He has zero interest in being impartial.