Transwoman in shared accommodation, take 2

[Shedbuilder]

I've been given permission by Mumsnet mods to start a new thread on this theme: apparently the last one was derailed overnight and has been wiped.

Earlier this year I went on a camping activity weekend organised by a bisexual woman who runs this as a side business. The group is specifically advertised as being for lesbian and bi women and inits early days was promoted only to 'known' lesbians and bi women. Since then it's grown and has advertised in Diva. At the camp I went to (we all took our own tents and camper vans) there were at least two transwomen. Other people tell me that there have been transwomen at previous events and it's clear from social media that there's been a lot of trans interest.

At the camp I attended the transwomen didn't do or say much, but there was quite a lot of posing and staring: so much so that women moved their tents/ vans to another area of the site.

I've now received notification of this group's autumn and winter events which are being held as weekend house parties in large lodges and bunkhouses. All the sleeping accommodation and bathrooms are shared: some shared bedrooms, some dorms.

Someone I know, a stunningly naive lesbian who's been in a LTR till fairly recently and has managed to avoid all the gender woo, has announced she is thinking of booking one of these winter weekends. I can see that one of the 'women' who's already signed up to the same event is actually a transwomen. It's not immediately apparent from their FB page, which includes a partial, filtered, face shot, but I've encountered this individual in a separate context and I know that they are male-bodied. This individual has already posted about looking forward to sharing the hot tub with new women.

I wouldn't want to wake up in a shared room with this person. My friend would be horrified to think that she would sharing a dining table with them on a lesbian and bisexual women's weekend —let alone a bedroom.

I've contacted the organiser and asked her for her policy on accommodating TWs in shared accommodation at an event promoted for lesbian and bisexual women. I've had no response so far and unfortunately I've also lost the legal advice referring to the Equality Act that was posted yesterday.

What do you think? What would you do? I have no intention of revealing the identity of the group here so please don't ask. Having attended one of this woman's events and met her I think she is operating in good faith and is in a difficult position. I'm fully aware of what coming out and saying 'no TWs' would mean to her and her business.

@futureghost

This evidence that I have referred to indicates that, at a population level, lesbians are at a higher risk of DVA from each other than straight women are from straight men And the evidence you have referred to does not show this AT ALL. For the reasons I have given. You really need to do some work to understand how to interpret research before making claims on what research says.

Can you walk me through where my statement is incorrect please.

You know DVA stands for domestic violence and abuse, right? I can imagine if you had a misunderstanding of what that referred to you might think my statement was incorrect.

Can you start a thread about your concerns re violence and lesbians and stop derailing this one please?

suggestionsplease. So no recent research then? Are we to take it that what you are actually talking about is the “ drama” you have encountered on these holidays? A bit different to the intimidating creepy behaviour we experience from men who we don’t want to be present..

Can you walk me through where my statement is incorrect please.

When somebody makes an assertion and then produces evidence to support it that does not match that which has been requested, there is no presumed duty of others to offer analysis beyond that which has already been presented.

There is commentary on this thread from people experienced in the design, analysis, and interpretation of trials, studies, and statistics.

Readers might decide for themselves which studies or surveys they find relevant or persuasive and how well grounded any interpretation is.

Shedbuilder - it's very public spirited of you to wish to help the organiser and your friend. If you choose to offer them further advice I would hope that it is received in the spirit in which you attend it.

it's very public spirited of you to wish to help the organiser and your friend. If you choose to offer them further advice I would hope that it is received in the spirit in which you attend it.

Thank you for your kind sentiment, but I think we both know that this is likely to end with the messenger being, if not shot, shunned by at least one side. My partner and I are actually wondering whether to set up in competition and offer similar events but to advertise as female only and cite the legal exception. I guess if someone wants to make a thing of it we could have another legal case and set another legal precedent. Sigh.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions OK. More obfuscation.

Let's take my statement and work through it.

"This evidence that I have referred to indicates that, at a population level, lesbians are at a higher risk of DVA from each other than straight women are from straight men"

This evidence that I have referred to (which, bear in mind, I was asked to provide by a poster on this thread):

"Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. When episodes of severe violence were considered, prevalence was similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbian women: 29.4%; homosexual men: 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013)"

So, in this evidence that I have referred to, a lifetime prevalence of experience of IPV for lesbian women at 43.8%, compared to 35% of heterosexual women. For episodes of severe violence, 29.4% for lesbian women, vs 23.6% for heterosexual women.

43.8% is higher than 35%, and 29.4% is higher than 23.6%. This is the evidence that I have referred to. This particular evidence indicates lesbians are at a higher risk of IPV compared to heterosexual women.

A definition from: .rcpsych.ac.uk

Although definitions vary,
in England and Wales
DVA is defined as any incident or pattern of
controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour,
violence, or abuse between current or former intimate
partners or family members aged 16 or above.9 Much
DVA comprises intimate partner violence (IPV),
perpetrated by partners and ex-partners. DVA
includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial,
and other abuse.

My statement is correct. I used the specific language I did in that statement intentionally. If you want to try to pull my statement apart go right ahead.

I'm quite aware how people attempt to discredit studies because they don't say what they want to hear. I'm sure there are people out there doing the same with male domestic violence studies to try to underplay the extent of this too.

Is the organiser going to ask the women who sign up to confirm that they self identity as women? And if not, refuse their booking?

The trouble is , we just can’t get over the case of the lesbian couple and their son killed by a prominent TRA...

I'm sorry OP, this kind of thing is so infuriating.
Why the hell can't women have anything for ourselves anymore?

As one poster is determined to show on this thread, it's always 'won't somebody think of the menz'. So tiring.

It really takes a special kind of asshole to turn up to an event that is not aimed at them at all, and demand to be allowed access, even though they know that their presence makes everyone else uncomfortable.

What kind of person does that? A deluded narcissist.

Interestingly, there was a thread recently about an event aimed at gay men (in the US if I recall correctly), who made a statement on twitter unequivocally stating that transmen were not allowed because it was for biological same sex attracted men only. Good on them!

And you know what kind of pushback and abuse they got? Pretty much none. And yet lesbians would be absolutely hounded for doing the same thing. Because women always always have to pander to men.

[quote suggestionsplease1]@EmbarrassingAdmissions OK. More obfuscation.

Let's take my statement and work through it.

"This evidence that I have referred to indicates that, at a population level, lesbians are at a higher risk of DVA from each other than straight women are from straight men"

This evidence that I have referred to (which, bear in mind, I was asked to provide by a poster on this thread):

"Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. When episodes of severe violence were considered, prevalence was similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbian women: 29.4%; homosexual men: 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013)"

So, in this evidence that I have referred to, a lifetime prevalence of experience of IPV for lesbian women at 43.8%, compared to 35% of heterosexual women. For episodes of severe violence, 29.4% for lesbian women, vs 23.6% for heterosexual women.

43.8% is higher than 35%, and 29.4% is higher than 23.6%. This is the evidence that I have referred to. This particular evidence indicates lesbians are at a higher risk of IPV compared to heterosexual women.

A definition from: .rcpsych.ac.uk

Although definitions vary,
in England and Wales
DVA is defined as any incident or pattern of
controlling, coercive, or threatening behaviour,
violence, or abuse between current or former intimate
partners or family members aged 16 or above.9 Much
DVA comprises intimate partner violence (IPV),
perpetrated by partners and ex-partners. DVA
includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial,
and other abuse.

My statement is correct. I used the specific language I did in that statement intentionally. If you want to try to pull my statement apart go right ahead.

I'm quite aware how people attempt to discredit studies because they don't say what they want to hear. I'm sure there are people out there doing the same with male domestic violence studies to try to underplay the extent of this too.[/quote]
This is really fascinating @suggestionsplease1. Definitely worthy of its own thread and its a shame that it is being lumped in with this subject which is completely separate.

Why don't yu start a new separate thread to discuss it, I'm sure it will be a very interesting conversation

I'm a woman, but straight. I really enjoy woman-only events (looking forward to FiLIA, yay!) but would not attend a lesbian and bi-woman event, because - I'm not lesbian or bi-sexual.

It's simple, isn't it?

Me too, it really is that simple.

Its a shame but in my experince it does seem true that it is a certain type of person who inserts themself into spaces that aren't really for them.

I thought the DV stats, so often used by MRAs, misrepresented that the high % of lesbians being victims were from previous male partners, and whilst women do still abuse, it’s nothing like on the same scale as men.

Same here re women only/ wouldn't go as not for me.

Will be an interesting case if someone turns up, leaves in disgust and then sues for breach of contract. The organiser would probably settle sharpish.

@Shedbuilder

it's very public spirited of you to wish to help the organiser and your friend. If you choose to offer them further advice I would hope that it is received in the spirit in which you attend it.

Thank you for your kind sentiment, but I think we both know that this is likely to end with the messenger being, if not shot, shunned by at least one side. My partner and I are actually wondering whether to set up in competition and offer similar events but to advertise as female only and cite the legal exception. I guess if someone wants to make a thing of it we could have another legal case and set another legal precedent. Sigh.

Maybe you should - I'm not convinced the TRAs would actually sue you, and if they did the Legal Feminists would be queueing up to fight your case.

It isn't really a separate subject, well of course it can be, but this information is integral to this thread too.

The OP is writing from a position of concern regarding safety of women at these events, and the implication is that the presence of transwomen there will make lesbians and bisexual women more unsafe.

I don't think there is good cause to consider them at any more risk from transwomen attending than from other women who might be present / former partners.

If safety is not the issue, what are we looking at then?

People are asking about why trans lesbians would attend in the first place. The trans lesbians that I know are looking for friendships, to be part of a community, for support networks - just like everyone else of course, but they generally find these much harder to access than many other people.

They have been pushed away by family, former friends, colleagues. They are often shunned and isolated. If they are from less populated areas this is compounded further. There seems to be an attitude from people at times that 'Why don't they have their own support networks with just themselves, why don't trans lesbians exclusively look to date trans lesbians? Why should we care anyway?'

Well imagine if you were told that, out of a few hundred thousand people you were only allowed to consider 20 other people as potential friends or dating partners. 8 of them you don't particularly like, 4 of them don't really like you, 4 are in relationships and don't have the time to socialise, 2 have mental health difficulties including social anxiety and aren't keen to meet up...well what are you left with, maybe 1 or 2 people to try to forge some some of support network with?

There are trans lesbians in relationships with other lesbians. I know some, it does happen. So a militant 'no trans lesbians allowed' policy in social settings would have prevented those lesbians from meeting their partners and those good relationships that exist.

When you set a policy like that you are making decisions beyond yourself. You are saying 'Not only do I not want to be in a social setting with trans lesbians, but no other lesbians should want to have them present either.'

When self ID is allowed you give scope for individual decisions and judgements to be made. There will be plenty of lesbians that perhaps don't want to develop friendships or relationships with trans lesbians. In which case, they simply don't So they speak to other people, they go out with other people. Believe me, trans lesbians are not interested in developing friendships or relationships with people that want to shun them!

But there will be other lesbians present in these social settings who might be interested and that self ID allows those friendships and potential relationships to develop. And that's a win for those lesbians and those trans lesbians. I have told a trans lesbian who asked me for a date that I wasn't interested in her that way - that was no problem and she's now a friend I see most weeks in a larger social setting.

we just can’t get over the case of the lesbian couple and their son killed by a prominent TRA

Worth repeating this. The TRA who was central in getting MichFest cancelled.

When you set a policy like that you are making decisions beyond yourself. You are saying 'Not only do I not want to be in a social setting with trans lesbians, but no other lesbians should want to have them present either.'

Nope. A lesbian only event does not prevent other people from running their own mixed sex events.

The trans lesbians that I know are looking for friendships, to be part of a community, for support networks - just like everyone else of course, but they generally find these much harder to access than many other people.

Maybe it's because the trans"lesbians" ignore the fact that lesbians are same sexattracted and are therefore not interested in male-bodied people, however those male-bodied people wish others to perceive them?

Maybe it's because lesbians are not interested in male-bodied people either as friends or lovers?

I've tried to imagine whether I could be attracted to a transman. As a straight woman, what I like about men, and male bodies is the difference - the roughness of skin & hair, the smell of mine, their size and breadth and of course their penises There are also aspects of masculinity I quite like. Even a feminine man has these attributes; but a transman really doesn't.

A pp quoted a study that cited a survey that said that lesbians were more likely to have been victims of IPV than heterosexual women. This is the survey that the study the derailer cited cited.

www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

One third of the lesbians who reported IPV were abused by male perpetrators (and importantly, 89% of the bisexual women who reported IPV were abused by male perpetrators.) Two thirds of 43% is less than 35% (the percentage of heterosexual women who experienced IPV.)

Wait, but what if some of them were abused by women as well as by men? 79% of lesbians who reported IPV reported only one perpetrator. Let's make an assumption that bends things the derailers' way and assume that 21% of lesbians who experienced IPV from men also experienced it from women.

That would make it 32% of lesbians who experienced IPV from women, still less than the % of heterosexual women who've experienced IPV from men.

And obviously, IPV statistics have NOTHING to do with the risks that strangers present, anyway. The I stands for intimate. And the P stands for partner. Think this might end the homophobic derail? Me neither, but thought it perhaps worth a shot.

Anyway I'm very surprised that a poster who I think is claiming a lesbian identity doesn't realise there are reasons other than safety for a woman not to want to share sleeping quarters with a strange male.
It's unusual for a woman not to be aware that men very commonly behave in predatory ways that make women uncomfortable, without escalating to violence. Some women on this thread have even described such behaviours in the exact context of a nominally woman-only holiday. But instead of engaging with that, we have a single-minded focus on repeatedly pushing this MRA myth about lesbians being abusers.

Anyway, women have the right to free association! OP, I think you should set up that rival business if you are even remotely inclined to do so. There's bound to be a gap in the market soon.

What you're missing @suggestionsplease1 is that many women - not just lesbians - want a single sex event, and a space free of masculinist socialised people - talking about meeting new people in hot tubs (I mean, how blokey male can you get?).

Women are surveilled by the male gaze everywhere and our physical freedom in space is similarly confined & limited by male entitlement.

Perhaps you've not experienced the liberation of a female-only event?

I do think its a separate subject though.

OP is talking about a mixed sex event that is being advertised as a single sex event.

There are many reasons why a woman would want to attend a single sex event that have nothing to do with violence and that should be respected.

There's nothing stopping the organisers advertising this correctly as mixed sex and I'm sure plenty of people would attend, but there should also be a space for single sex events too.

I am sure some lesbians would be happy with a fully transwomen-inclusive approach, and therefore the organisation should make very clear upfront that this is what they are doing. I am equally sure that some lesbians would much prefer a weekend purely with other lesbian/bi natal women. Hence why the organisation should be open about this and take a decision one way or the other.