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.

@ManifestDestinee

*in essence, those who do not believe in binary sex are going to need to respect that some people do, and need services accordingly

No, people who do not believe in binary sex are going to have to realise that they are wrong. It's not a matter of belief, but fact. Binary sex is a fact, not an opinion, its not something you believe in or not.

Are you suggesting that the women and any trans women who book this event could well not have a bog standard sex?

What are the names for the other sexes?

I hope you're not going to raise DSD as that's a medical issue. Not proof of lots of different sexes.

'Unfortunately, and I wish this wasn't this wasn't the case as it is my own community that I am talking about, you are wrong.

Women can and do assault and abuse other women, emotionally, psychologically, physically and sexually.

You can look up the research on this, and unfortunately there are some studies showing higher rates of intimate partner violence in lesbian relationships compared to opposite sex relationships.'

What does this have to do with a trip that is aimed at female people who fancy other female people to get away as a group?

Nothing is what.

'24suggestionsplease1

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?'

I just looked through OP posts and I can't see anywhere that she has safety concerns.

Have I missed one? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

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

I've stated several times on this thread why some female people are excluded from mixed sex provisions even if the male people concerned have all been checked out personally by Layla Moran and declared to all be absolutely lovely and no risk at all.

Some women cannot access mixed sex situations. They have sex based needs.

Well the answers are in some of OPs posts and some other posts as well.

Maybe have a more careful look?

Are you suggesting that the women and any trans women who book this event could well not have a bog standard sex?

It's me you're quoting there rather than Manifest so I'll answer: as you'll see if you read my reply in the thread: I personally do not believe there are more than two sexes.

I understand that there are people who do not believe this and have a belief that people can change sex.

I do not need to agree with them. What I want is that other than the current situation of women being considered to be a mixed sex group, and this is right and good and 'inclusive' at all times of male people which excludes female people, that female people who need female only spaces are also extended equal courtesy and inclusion.

Hence the clear provision of mixed sex women only groups and provisions (W and TW, and yes many women will feel strongly about calling this a women only group and have every right) and female single sex women's groups and provisions.

Currently there are female people who are excluded from mixed sex women's provisions (weird kind of inclusion that), and situations such as the OP is describing involve female people thinking something will be female only and turning up to find it isn't.

So I'm talking about the right of female people to have women's services clearly labelled as mixed sex or single sex, and to have equal amounts of accessible provision if they cannot access male-inclusive women's provision.

In the name of many female people not just being forced to shut up, give up and accept exclusion in the name of improving life for male people, I think this is probably a faster and more realistic way forward than insisting on an all or nothing one side must lose approach. Because so far, in that approach, it's rather predictably, a case of male people's needs getting met and females having to give up and give ground.

Apologies artichoke had to catch up a lot earlier and got wrong end of stick

I have noticed that a while back it went

Sex is male female.
Gender is woman man boy girl and it's gender id and a social role and has never meant sex.

Increasingly the terms male female are being pushed for redefinition. To gender identity as well.

And it seems to be gaining ground.

allmywhat thank fuck you showed up with the numbers. It was getting infuriating.

@suggestionsplease1

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.

Men (whether they claim they are women or otherwise) can look for community and friendships, and all the other stuff you mention, in mixed sex spaces. You are implying that if they are excluded from women only events, that will be the end of all possibilities for this group you are trying to portray as tragically isolated.

It’s very similar to Hampstead Ponds, where there were three ponds, one male, one mixed sex and one female. Now, because of people like you pushing this rhetoric, there is one msle pond, and two mixed sex ponds. I imagine the fact that the previously female pond is now mixed sex will make it inaccessible for a number of women and spoil it for another subset of women.

But instead of having empathy for those women, who’ve lost out on something they valued, you are touting this line that if we exclude all men from women’s spaces, it’s terribly unfair, because a few of those men that you know are so vulnerable that women should just get over it.

The problem is not women saying no. The problem is the aggressiveness of the current trans lobby, who target every single women only space or event and kick up a huge fuss. Who have lobbied for laws that allow them to do this, and show zero empathy for the women whose spaces they are invading. So you may know some lovely men who claim they are women, and they may find they are now experiencing push-back where they didn’t before as women reclaim their rights because they’re being pushed way too far.

To coin a phrase, perhaps they are just going to have to get over it.

Oh look, suggestionsplease believes it is women's job to sort out males' problems.

You meanies. Why can't you just Be Kind?

Same old same old.

Are you suggesting that the women and any trans women who book this event could well not have a bog standard sex?What are the names for the other sexes?I hope you're not going to raise DSD as that's a medical issue. Not proof of lots of different sexes

I have no clue why you quoted my post and said this. Like I said, binary sex is a fact, there are only two, and they are not changeable. No idea what your deal is on that.

Can you suggest that she promotes an event that provides a safe space for women of faith, women of colour, women survivors of dv and sexual abuse so that will be open to natal women only. This will then be followed by a second event that centres trans lesbians? Or the trans event first. Everyone then knows the score, the natal women event is in line with legislation and people can decide which event they can attend.

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.

It's not up to lesbians - actual lesbians - to provide communities for these men. It's not up to them to make the lives of male people easy. Women are not support humans to men.

What even is a trans lesbian? A male who presents as female who is interested in other females?

What even is a trans lesbian? A male who presents as female who is interested in other females?
Yes, basically.

@allmywhat

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.

So, assuming your calculations are correct there is what, a 3% difference in the 2 populations? So 32% of lesbians have experienced IPV from women, and 35% of heterosexual women have experienced IPV from men (and of course according to that study a small percentage of the heterosexual women also appear to have had female abusers).

And that makes you happy to say that it is a MRA myth about lesbians being abusers. Right, ok!

I think it is a safer conclusion to come to that there is not a huge difference between women experiencing IPV from female partners and women experiencing IPV from male partners, myself.

Plenty of other studies to look at as well, as I'm sure you know.

There's also a lot of work being done showing that lesbians and gay men under-report abuse relative to the heterosexual population as they find it harder to define their experiences as abusive (believe abuse to be a M/F issue) and they are afraid of further stigmatising the community - maybe it's worth taking that into consideration?

And perhaps also reading about the research showing that lesbians experience more difficulty accessing support that would help them get out of abusive relationships because of the culture of silence that has existed and has been encouraged by some.

the culture of silence that has existed and has been encouraged by some
Have you got any sources on this?

I would be interested to read them

Yes, it’s an MRA myth that lesbian relationships are more likely to be abusive than heterosexual relationships. I wonder why you’re so very attached to it. Not that I care why, I just want you to stop spreading homophobic lies!

Anyway, anything to say on the subject of women having a right to privacy, dignity and free association? Any acknowledgment that safety isn’t the only reason that women don’t want to share rooms with men? Any chance of an acknowledgment that IPV stats have nothing to do with this thread anyway and you were and are derailing?

@allmywhat

Yes, it’s an MRA myth that lesbian relationships are more likely to be abusive than heterosexual relationships. I wonder why you’re so very attached to it. Not that I care why, I just want you to stop spreading homophobic lies!

Anyway, anything to say on the subject of women having a right to privacy, dignity and free association? Any acknowledgment that safety isn’t the only reason that women don’t want to share rooms with men? Any chance of an acknowledgment that IPV stats have nothing to do with this thread anyway and you were and are derailing?

No I don't consider it derailing - I have been on these trips, and I have seen IPV live in action unfortunately.

As I have said before these are not usually trips attended by complete strangers. There are lots of existing relationships, sometimes exes present (domestic violence and abuse refers to incidents between ex partners as well as current partners of course), and there are lots of hopes and intentions to start up new flings or relationships. Alcohol is normally the issue behind problems and when groups attending drink less heavily there are fewer difficulties.

@FlyingOink

the culture of silence that has existed and has been encouraged by some Have you got any sources on this?

I would be interested to read them

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506/full#B28

" Silence Around Violence
Understanding LGB IPV prevalence and related factors may be difficult because of the silence that has historically existed around violence in the LGB community. Research has revealed that in the LGB community, several common fears became an obstacle for a public discussion on the phenomenon. For example, an aspect frequently claimed was that recognizing IPV in the LGB community may be used to stigmatize the community itself, thereby contributing to building additional oppression and social marginalization (Kaschak, 2001; Ristock, 2003). Similarly, the feminist community was averse to discussing the phenomenon, particularly when it involved lesbian couples: a public discussion on lesbian IPV may increase negative reactions to feminism and female homosexuality; on the other hand, it may minimize the concern regarding male violence against women (McLaughlin and Rozee, 2001; Ristock, 2001, 2003).

Furthermore, culturally created ideologies regarding masculinity and femininity may discourage IPV victims from openly discussing their experience. This happens when the perceived stigma reinforces their own stereotype that homosexual men are less masculine than heterosexual men, or the one that lesbian IPV is harmless (because women are not physically strong and dangerous) (Ristock and Timbang, 2005). Buttell and Cannon (2015) stated that IPV was not about genders, but more about power and control dynamics; thus, to assess and treat IPV, particularly LGB IPV, it is pointless to take into account gender-related stereotypes (Brown, 2008; Little and Terrance, 2010). However, the main resistance from the feminist community came from the risk that discussing lesbian IPV may threaten a feminist belief regarding women’s abuse, usually perpetrated by men who are influenced by misogyny and patriarchy. Gender and power were the main factors in this theory; therefore, lesbian victimization was considered both impossible (because of the inconsistency due to the absence of a man in the equation) or explained by the assimilation among lesbian women of misogyny and homophobia, which is subsequently projected on to their partners as women and homosexuals (Ristock and Timbang, 2005). "

suggestionsplease1
Thanks, that's interesting.
So in summary you are saying that there is no logical reason for women to not want a man at their residential retreat because ex-girlfriends are just as likely to beat each other up and that those lesbians who have suffered violence tend to keep quiet about it for the good of the wider community?
Have I got that right?

Would you suggest that lesbians are segregated from straight women as in your view we are higher risk? Or is that risk only to other lesbians?

Oh those disgusting women drinking you say? Have "relations'? And with each other? Not even with men? Ew so unbecoming, I'm clutching my pearls so tightly.

It makes sense now why you're so deeply offended at these types of events. If they could just have some nice men there to show the women how to behave properly.

It's also worth asking if transwomen are at greater risk from violent, perhaps drunken, lesbians too? Should transwomen perhaps seek out spaces that are for straight women instead? Or would a "trans lesbian" be invalidated by that?
What is the safest scenario?

Women here have suggested that single-sex is a safer environment, and stats would bear that out. Have any studies been done on the tipping point wrt percentage of lesbians that makes an environment as potentially dangerous as a mixed-sex one?

Perhaps transwomen would be safer in male public toilets than in female ones, if the percentage of lesbians using the female toilets was too high and presented too much risk. Seeing as apparently lesbians are more violent than straight men.
And how do we account for closeted lesbians? Are they more or less likely to be violent? How could a transwoman know whether a female facility was safer than the male one?