Shameful, incoherent, poorly referenced, completely biased piece of 'journalism' from the Guardian

[JustcameoutGC]

So, we are all right wing anti-trans nuts.
The WiSpa incident didn't happen
Or if it did then that would be no problem
(make up your mind people)
The violence was all directed towards the TRAs.

If you needed an excuse to cancel your subscription, this would be it.

Hmm, I’m struggling to parse the part where you answer my questions, as your post goes on several tangents to it, but the idea of effectively conducting background checks on every spa user is unworkable out of the gate.

I’m quite masculine for a woman, and get misgendered a fair bit, and I don’t worry at all that safeguards to prevent males from accessing women’s spaces will result in difficulties for me, or other “unfeminine” women. These fleeting misunderstandings are quickly cleared up whenever I open my mouth, or walk, when it’s clear I’m a woman, but thanks for the concern.

I’ve also just posted this on another thread, and it seems like it fits here, too.

—————————————-
I’ve been musing again over the ways in which the push towards making single sex spaces into single gender ones leaves women at greater risk of sex offenders, and if that increased risk can be quantified.

We’re assured by transactivists that non trans sex offenders will not seek to take advantage of these societal changes to predate on, flash, or spy on women, but I’m wondering what percentage of them, in reality, will.

Even if it’s 1%, that is millions, globally.

And that’s assuming no overlap at all between trans identity and sex offending, which does seem optimistic, given that another line taken in parallel with this stance is that women are also likely to commit sexual offences.

It’s really not a realistic assessment.

If something like that was in place it doesn't matter if the individual is trans, male or female , it is their prior sexual offences that are relevant.

So we make everything mixed sex, and then bar some people after they commit a crime? You don't see any benefit at all for single-sex spaces, in particular for women and girls, where all males are excluded?

So we make everything mixed sex, and then bar some people after they commit a crime?

Yes, I want to see an argument for why men should be excluded from women's spaces, if it's deemed acceptable to let transwomen in.

If they're not a risk, then neither are men, so there is no justification for the separate space.

If you're going to try to claim transwomen are less of a risk than men, then I find that extremely bigoted, as there's no evidence for that.

suggestionsplease1 butch lesbians and any other female wouldn't have a problem if facilities were understood to be for the sex class of female and the sex class of male if they are marked as such (sex not gender), unless they are marked otherwise (e.g. unisex, disabled etc.) If the trans lobby would like their own facilities I am sure they would have a lot of support, including from many gender critical women.

We don't live in a completely risk-free world; we can't pre-empt every scenario without causing other related harms and compromising other values that are important.

Would you address those words to a very vulnerable young female in prison who had experienced serious abuse from males throughout her life and was facing sharing a cell, shower etc. with a male offender?

That is where your words, your values take you. Are you good with that?

Further thought: how will the requirement to disclose sexual offences before using a service marry up with the reasonable expectation of privacy that everyone, even a sex offender, has?

Who is checking these and how?

Who is paying for the administrative burden?

If you can’t ask to see a GRC, how is it any less awkward to ask to see someone’s criminal record, or lack of one?

What would be the time limitations- lifetime? A set period of time that you’re considered “Not Safe In Spas”?

The more I think about it, the more bonkers it is.

Let’s just stick to having single sex spaces, and mixed sex spaces where those can be offered in addition.

This predatory flasher would not have had an sexual offending history in the first place (unless and until he escalated to physical offences) if self ID had been in place when he committed the first offence, since non contact attacks such as indecent exposure in a changing rooms (when you are apparently legitimately there) is near Impossible to prove.

Sarah Everard's killer had previous as a flasher if I recall. It is known to be a gateway sex offence that often escalates.

It reminds me of that person a few years ago in Canada parading around a women's shelter boasting about the shock value of his cob on. The point is it breaches people boundaries without consent. It is about power.

why do some people struggle so much with the idea that there is a sizeable subset of men who get their jollies by exposing their genitals to women?

and that they will seize opportunities to do so?

and that women find it threatening and should be protected from it as much as possible?

Is it item 3 on my list that people don't like or don't care about? I suspect so.

Who is going to stand on the door and check whether the woman entering is a TW, and if they have a conviction of harm to women that prevents them entering women's spaces?

How often have women been told, gleefully and really rather sadistically, there is nothing you can do about who chooses to enter, you cannot stop them.

If by letting male people use female spaces (and this is against the consent of many females who do not want this) it has to be accepted that some of those male people will do this intending to access victims for crime- then are we really saying that the loss of privacy, dignity, consent, and the inevitable experience of sexual assault and worse that will happen to some is a lesser harm than not being allowed to access spaces alongside women in a state of undress?

Seriously?

Particularly when the needs of those male people can be met by the provision of third spaces but the needs of the female people can only be met by retaining female only spaces.

This is unarguable unless you come from a point of male supremacism: that the needs and wishes of male people must always outweigh those of female people.

• to add: not just entering intending to access victims for crime; it may be more simply to pursue a sexual experience, in which the female people present are unwilling and forced participators.

Is this really an acceptable thing to require of female people in order to meet the needs of less than 1% of male people?

A further point - if we said that the only males to be restricted access to female spaces were those who are registered sex offenders, this only remotely begins to protect women and girls if the majority of sexual offences result in conviction. We know this doesn't happen. There are a massive number of sexual assaults that never even get reported or prosecuted, let alone lead to conviction. Restricting the activities of convicted sexual offenders isn't sufficient protection.

@Sophoclesthefox

Fair enough, suggestions.

Do you think this person is genuinely trans and therefore no offence was committed, or do you think that this is a predatory male with a history of sex offending- you were clear upthread that that makes a difference to you with regard to “intent”?

How would the women at the spa know which case applied, and do you see any issues with the focus being solely on the intent of the perpetrator, and not on the women’s perception of what happened?

Be great if you could share your thoughts on that.

This is the nub of the issue. And I find it almost comical that Laurie Penny, for example, has said that the guy was clearly a wrong un and obviously shouldn't have been there. But how does this square with her former statement that women and girls shouldn't be staring at a stranger's genitals? How are you supposed to know whether someone is a bona fide trans woman or a sexual predator getting kicks from being in a women's changing room? The truth is you can't. The two situations are identical.

What's Penny actually said? "Shouldn't have been there" - go on then, what specific policy or mechanism would stop this happening?

Someone needs to sit Penny down and explain, gently, that the jolly good chap principle is lovely - in principle.

Perhaps Penny could do with a visit to a local police station or prison to talk about the average morals and respect for others held by a sex offender.

Is anybody concerned that the wispa antagonist is going to get away with it in court by maintaining their position that they are a transgender female. Where will we be then? Open season for men to commit these offences then claim female identity in mitigation.

This is I think where it will have to go Ninja

It is going to have to be laid out, the bottom line here:

• male people may enter female spaces at will, for any agenda, and offend up to the point of finally making a conviction stick in court (less than 1% of evidenced rapes remember) because of the freedoms granted on the basis of a trans identity.

• female people have absolutely no choice, consent or regard in this. If they use single sex spaces they must accept this.

• this is on a basis that male born people's rights are at all times superior to and prioritised over female born people's rights. (And yet this access to female people's spaces is supposed to be to do with the idea that biological sex classes aren't really a thing).

Come on western world. Nail it down. Are people born female equally human and equal under law or not?

Is anybody concerned that the wispa antagonist is going to get away with it in court by maintaining their position that they are a transgender female. Where will we be then?

NinjaExodus I think at this point we actually NEED this to happen to peak everyone who hasn't been peaked yet... then we might have more support to prevent laws protecting Self ID going through, and hopefully can take them down where they have already been passed.