When did this board become a "safe space"?

[OmiOmy]

Long time poster here, name changed.

I've recently seen this board as being described as a "space space"? This has happened a few

Wikipedia says The term safe space refers to places "intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations".

Well, going by that, it's hardly a safe space, is it? We have robust discussions here that are rarely seen on other parts of the internet.

I don't know, I feel cross and disheartened to hear the term "safe space" being ascribed to this board as if we're too fragile to cope. Ugh.

Instead I would describe this board as broadly supportive, wouldn't you?

I have had several people directing posts at me all day. I'm doing my best to reply to everyone so I can't be accused of flouncing or being chased off etc.

An impossible task, the internet will still be there in the morning

Thank you but that is from the USA. It also doesn’t have the data behind it

They hid the data on purpose. I think their sample size was 4 or something (of crimes committed against the TW they surveyed.) 95% confidence intervals for the statistic they’re discussing (ratio of crimes against women:crimes against TW) included 1.

It’s horseshit, in other words. And cherry picked horseshit to boot. I can only imagine what the statistics they didn’t use looked like if they ended up running with that one.

(It’s been discussed on MN before, and the data was linked from here, but I didn’t save it. I actually remember the specific issues off the top of my head because of how staggeringly stupid and dishonest the Williams Institute press release is. Hope you can find it!)!

It seems the only people you deem worthy of having rights and boundaries are male trans people @Mylittlesandwich .

Your arguments are that no-one else, particularly women and girls, should have the right to their own bodily autonomy, privacy or dignity, who should see them naked, who should touch them and who should provide them with intimate care.

How about men who request male hcps when having prostate examinations? Are they allowed boundaries in your Brave New World?

By the way sandwich I am sorry that you were a victim of assault. I hope you have good support.

However, while you are right that it would be racist for any safeguarding assessment to regard a particular race as being more prone to violence, your comparison is not relevant otherwise.

As I said upthread, all males over a certain age are considered a higher risk than a female for safeguarding. Because they are male.

If you have evidence otherwise, do please post it. Otherwise I am very happy to post the statistics that have been aggregated by women going through individual records that show that in the UK there is no evidence at all that males commit sexual crimes at a rate nearing females after they transition.

The statistics show that UK transitioned male prisoner records for sex crimes are at a higher % than general male prisoners.

So, why should a group of males be treated any differently to the rest of the male population for safeguarding risk assessment?

What can the males who won’t do ‘shorty’ things wear to tell females they are not the ones who will harm them? Otherwise, how do we tell them apart?

What is the real issue here - that bad people exist? Unfortunately the idea that all crimes are committed by 'a few bad apples' who will exist regardless of society's attempts to defeat them, is a complete fantasy. All human behaviour is learned. The purpose of legally defined single sex spaces is to enforce a supposed societal value. Its impossible to prevent all murder or violence, but by making something a punishable crime reinforces a universal value that some behaviour is unacceptable. Yes a predator can walk into a womens toilet - how to prove a predatory act in a courtroom, is something else entirely.

Men are already untouchable. Society is designed to protect them. Patriarchy learns, like capitalism, to fight feminism from the inside. No one gives up power willingly. Until women put aside their superficial differences and unite as simply women, they will never beat the system.

Only just seen this question.

It's not just this board, although I believe apart from AIBU and possibly relationships, it has the highest traffic. 'Came for the nappy advice, stayed for the feminism', as many women say. Poll after poll on Aibu agrees with and fully understands the gc position.

In fact Justine herself credits the site as helping to form the country's pushback against the erosion of women's rights.

The biggest gathering of women in history will do that.

According to Mumsnet's data, the site clocks up 8 million unique visitors each month and 1.2 billion page views each year. Nine in ten users are women.

Which, incidentally, is why it is targeted so relentlessly and why many try to minimise its influence.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2022/05/mumsnets-founder-justine-roberts-it-is-a-place-where-women-can-speak-the-truth

I will leave these studies here with you regarding your belief that “As far as trans women having a physical advantage over those who were born female hormone blockers and other hormone treatments should lessen these advantages.”

There are other studies too. One more recently from Brazil that tracked the performance of transitioned males over a longer period and found that those advantages are still very much there.

bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

You will notice both these review the same studies and they came to the same conclusion that male retained their advantages.

Harper does pose an ethical point that transitioned males may not have the fitness that the other male athletes have due to their desire for a feminine shape. They pose it as something to take into consideration.

I ask why? Why should ANY individual who wants a certain body shape be allowed to change to category that should exclude them? That Harper does this, is appalling.

Should a very short male compete against the under 12s because he is short? What about any adult male who chooses to not train and develop their muscle… should they get to compete as a child because they have chosen to maintain a body without muscle?

What about that male who identifies as disabled and uses only a wheelchair? Should that able bodied person compete against a person who has no choice in categories they can compete in and is disabled and can not walk or run like that male?

Let me also ask you a question about symmetry here regarding females in sport.

Can you explain why athletes such as Laurel Hubbard, Stephanie Barrett, both 40 something males competing for the first time at the Olympics, beat their younger fitter female competitors if it wasn’t that they retained their male advantages?

Can you also explain how there are at least 3 males in their mid to late 40s and 50s still playing in female rugby teams despite the rarity of females of similar ages playing ? Do you know many women in their late 40s and 50s who can keep up with the women who are in their teens to 30s week after week after week of injury? Or who even with peri-menopause symptoms have the energy to compete at that level?

Why do you believe that males can do this? What makes transitioned males magically able to compete as 40 or 50 year olds and beat females who are in their peak fitness years?

And them not experiencing the disadvantages females have with regards to menstrual cycles and menopause is just the tip of that iceberg.

Is this another ‘point’ you have only superficially thought about and maybe taken solace in the narratives pushed by heavily invested individuals that declared that the studies are flawed because ‘actual transitioned male athletes weren’t studied’?

What changes to the above studies do you think will be found if ‘actual transitioned male athletes’ are studied?

And what incentive is there for any transitioned male athlete in any study to perform and train at a level to maintain their competitiveness in the male categories when they want to compete in the female category?

I post this because you have admitted there were points posted yesterday that you had not thought deeply about.

Maybe sport is another.

For clarity, both studies compared transitioned males with females. Despite the twitter narrative that they were not transitioned males, which is just misinformation that has been spread and accepted by those who choose not to think deeply about this issue and the implications or have other motivations.

If this was a safe space, we'd all be using our real names and wouldn't be name changing as much as many of us are.

Having been on the list that was a list of names of frequent posters to fwr, I never feel safe here.

The minute we could speak freely and this was a "safe space" we wouldnt need to post here.

The minute we could speak freely and this was a "safe space" we wouldnt need to post here.

My brain is fuzzy this morning. Can you explain please.

We wouldn't need to post here if it was be accepted as completely reasonable to say that men cannot be women. And innumerable other things (that I'll get deleted for.)

If it was acceptable to say these things widely, these things that are scientifically and factually correct, we wouldn't need any "safe" space.

We post here because other users of the site moan so much and call us transphobic. It's a gulag, not a safe space.

It's useful though, as people new to the cause come here all the time, and a great deal of this movement (that shouldn't have had to happen in the first place) has come from this space.

Thank you for posting the link to support your claim.

I believe this document discusses those crime statistics.

escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg.pdf?t=qqfomk&v=lg

It refers to 369 trans people vs 435 061 in a study.

I might have forgotten most of what I learned from my Statistics module at uni but 0.0008 is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison.

Think about this from the point of view that women around the world admit they don’t bother to report their sexual assaults and rapes. Because they have no confidence that they will get justice AND not be vilified in the process.

What % of females actively reporting their attacks vs current trend of not bothering to report would decimate that 369 figure?

And that number cannot be accurately depicted in this point either;

”About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police.”

Eerrr? No. I believe the huge number of women telling us they don’t report.

This article is misrepresenting the reality.

I also bring to you attention this:

”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

Including! Notice it says ‘including’!

Not ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.”

What was NOT included was a handy breakdown of what constituted the crimes against trans people were. What was the bar for a hate crime being committed for instance? Misogyny? Does that fit the definition that holds for transphobic hate crimes?

And based on 369 people, I am not going to delve into that national dataset to look for it. I don’t have the will. Maybe if you wish to prove your point, you could link to that data with the breakdown of the actual crimes reported for those 369 people.

Now, one of the findings in your article was:

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”

How many females being taught how to accurately assess the motivation against them as to whether it constituted a hate crime, or indeed using the very same frames of reference as trans people do but based on sexism, and then reanswering that same survey would again make that point meaningless? Is misogyny a ‘hate crime’ for instance?

Do you understand the significance of what centuries of oppression of females has done on being able to accurately assess the motivation of crimes against our sex?

I am beginning to. The trans lobby groups are informing my learnings. Because of what they classify as ‘transphobic hate crimes’ when I look at what I have experienced as a female… wow! I sure have overlooked a huge amount of what I just waved away as crap from males.

And that the group who are trans could include many of those reporting abuse that includes misgendering and perceived micro-aggressions. Gosh, imagine if women reported all the hateful things said and done to them on a daily basis.

Crimes that cause harm and pain to anyone should be fully investigated and justice served.

But if a claim such as ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.” is going to be made by any institution or poster, it needs to be based on some very robust data.
Plus it should not be able to be argued against using other knowledge such as the prevalence of females who don’t report their rapes and attacks.

Because it then fails to show integrity by making any reference to those other studies and statistics. It may not even need to make adjustments for that information, but it should make the reader aware of the limitations of the study and its conclusions.

Thank you for posting the link. I have seen it before but needed to go and re find where the data came from.

By the way, I post this for the reader’s benefit. Because sandwich I am sure you already looked further than the article to verify what it reported. I am very happy to discuss the numbers and the findings based on your interpretation now that I have started to scratch the surface of the article’s findings.

Maybe though we should move our discussions off this thread so it is not derailed. autie started their own threads yesterday after discussions here on this thread. Perhaps you could start one too.

Trans women are at risk from predatory men too. Why shouldn't they be safe too?

Mylittlesandwich

A) why should women be human shields to protect transwomen

B) how does opening up female only spaces to any male keep transwomen safe?

Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1000 persons, respectively) than did cisgender women (23.7 per 1000 persons;OR= 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55) and cisgender men (19.8 per 1000 persons; OR= 5.98, 90% CI = 2.09, 9.87), but there were no differences between transgender men and women (Δ = 21.4; SE = 68.7; P
= .76).

holy shit they are SO dishonest.

OR= 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55

that part means no meaningful (i.e. statistically significant) difference was found between victimisation rates of trans people and women.

what makes it even worse is this.

but there were no differences between transgender men and women

if they’d applied the same test to compare women and trans people they’d also have found “no difference.”

they wrote these in the SAME SENTENCE.

And when you compare the article to the press release about the article, the press release is highlighting the non significant non-finding (OR= 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55), not that you’d know that from the press release, which is brushed over in a sentence in the journal article. If the article had tried to play up that finding as meaningful it would never have got past peer review. This is deliberate, calculated dishonesty. It’s disgraceful.

If itcwas about safety they would be all over the third spaces. They aren't so it's not about safety. Also, the line they trot out re. a sign wouldn't stop a predator would apply equally to tw using facilities, so it's not about safety.

Yes. tasteful

This is such dishonest article.

I support the collation of statistics to track violence directed at specific groups. It is very important to collect and discuss.

Who, though, benefits from making trans people fearful by telling them they are more prone to attack than others when they are not?

Just like who benefits from the constant repetition of misinformation around suicide statistics?

Who, though, benefits from making trans people fearful by telling them they are more prone to attack than others when they are not?

Just like who benefits from the constant repetition of misinformation around suicide statistics?

It leverages emotional blackmail and serves to make the very idea of questioning them something completely hideous and it works as can be seen by @Mylittlesandwich.

Something that cannot be questioned or scrutinised because to do so would expose the entire falsity of what it stand upon is dangerous. Gender Ideology must be swallowed whole, without question or reservation hence the cries of no debate. Emotional manipulation is used as a tool, no critical thinking allowed.

As to who benefits - you know and I know but to say would have us both on the naughty step.

I am beginning to wonder anew as to whether some posters feel unsafe because they have been assured that theirs is a righteous view and that the flaws pointed out in logic, ethics, and methodology is twisted by hate and not by people seeking the truth.

And they have been told repeatedly they are the majority and then when they lack any other support on a thread they are literally and figuratively exposed without the tools to support their arguments. Because those arguments are built on lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods and cannot withstand analysis and scrutiny.

Yes, that's another lie that is constantly being chanted that everyone agrees with us and yet when the general public are surveyed the result is an overwhelming No, we don't. So out comes the right side of history manipulation to paint those who disagree as nasty and hateful.

The whole thing is built on a tissue of lies and manipulation.

When it's an ideology starting on the point that reality is created by emotions and not facts, and that your personal reality (with the unwanted facts erased) should be validated and enabled by all without interruption regardless of impact on others or they're 'hating'....?

It's a bit pointless expecting any sense or truth or grip to be found anywhere else in the movement.

'Identifying as this not being true' is a thing. The Scots govt are currently trying it on. 'We identify as this not impacting on women's sex based rights'. The Cologne police tried it some years back 'we identify as multiple women not having been raped'. The NHS is trying it 'we identify as there being no male on that ward who raped that female patient' and said it even looking at the video footage of it happening.

This is what makes this ideology fundamentally incompatible with any position of responsibility or accountability.

I think that's why we see people reach the point of 'poor me' posts and cop outs, because they cannot argue back against the hard evidence, do not want to face the hard evidence (another thread currently where an ideologist is asking that people just be positive and not look at the negatives ffs) and cling to 'but I identify as this being ok' while blotting out the nasty, ugly bits they can't cope with cognitively without too much dissonance to handle. It's those dry lines of Tim Minchin in his song 'If the facts don't fit my narrative I'll just believe alternatives, cos otherwise my brain will blow up'.

It is hard. Many people here began from a position of good faith, trust, whole hearted support for what they saw as vulnerable people - and then they started to see the problems. It's a long, slow and sad process of disillusionment and realising how very cynical and manipulative and cold much of this has been towards anyone other than TQ+ political lobby interests. Particularly towards TQ+ people who dare to say anything not compatible with the political lobby interests: those were some of my biggest eye opening moments.

No one here wishes any harm to TQ+ people. They want absolute equality and legal protections for them, and this shouldn't have to be constantly repeated. BUT they refuse to believe that TQ+ needs can only ever happen in the context of fucking over female humans and safeguarding. Answers have to be found that work equally for all, no winners and no losers on either side. And yes, that means compromise. Females have compromised their fucking imaginary baby doll nightwear off up to this point, for years, and have suffered a lot. The evidence that this does not work for females is coming in the shape of female lives damaged, females raped, females excluded, assaulted, harassed, threatened. We could fucking well do with a day of remembrance for them, because THOSE victims must be well into the hundreds in the past couple of years. It's time TW started reciprocating and managing to care about females and their inclusion too if they want this to work. And that compromise that works for all is the only way this will ever settle down. Otherwise this will rumble on until it eventually breaks, and that will end badly for everyone, including TQ+ people - the actual ones, not just the political lobby activists. Think Brexit. A pissed off population can only be controlled for so long.

The lack of curiosity about misinformation is a huge concern to me.

I just read Sally Hines, a Professor for Sociology and gender studies try to shame Sall Grover for saying that DNA tests would always show who was male and who was female.

Because according to Hines, DNA tests cannot show who is male or female.

A current Professor. Spreading misinformation and trying to silence people who are pointing out the falsehood in what they are saying.