Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith

[beachcitygirl]

Hello.

This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id.

I welcome those with different views but I don't on this thread welcome those who only want to state their firm settled opinion without nuance or discussion that self id is absolutely wrong.

It's my view that there is no point in discussion if mind firmly made up.
I'll respect your legal right to that view but there's not much point chatting about it and pissing each other off.

There are plenty threads of gc women hoping to create more gc women and that's fine.

I'd like this to be a different space. A place for anyone with genuine questions, discussion points and where we all try to be civil and attempt to answer each other in good faith. Anyone who is unsure, let's talk:

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

Fab posts catiette - it's always very heartening hearing from the lurkers

“self ID have not lead to a collapse of society”

Not yet. But if left unchecked, when most of the 'women' in the government and at the top of business are male and actual women are powerless; when the Olympics is just a male sports tournament and the Wimbledon Ladies Championship is won by a male; when rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer go up because women avoid having intimate examinations carried out by men dressed as women and expecting those women to call them by female pronouns; when thousands more children are being home-schooled because parents of both sexes don't want their children being told by a man who says he's a woman or a woman who says she's a man that boys who like playing with dolls are girls and short-haired girls who like riding bikes are boys; when more and more women drop out of the workforce because having to share loos and changing rooms with men presenting as women freaks them out: when the NHS and mental health services are overwhelmed by people who've transitioned and had their bodies mutilated and are still depressed and suicidal — maybe then we'll start seeing social breakdown.

Maybe, like many trapped in a dystopian society where truth is denied and anyone who questions is sanctioned, there'll be a massive rise in people who'll commit suicide rather than live with the madness. It's what happens in populations who feel they have no hope of fairness. Maybe many more women who've managed to turn a blind eye to patriarchy thus far will take to the streets, stop having relationships with men, stop having children because they can't bear to see their daughters growing up as second class citizens.

This is what happens when you deny a fundamental truth and punish people for being unable to go along with the lies that result.

A nuanced approach would consider their individual risk level, which would incorporate a very detailed profiling of them and their history by experts to make the best decision about their accommodation.

An even more nuanced approach would consider the women and their feelings about sharing a space with individuals who possibly still had penises and testicles and even if not still had xy chromosomes.

I gave that up when I spent time disseminating the 10 studies that suggestions posted to back up their words in February this year , to be told off for expecting any discussion about them. Those 10 studies were simply plonked down by suggestions with not even a sentence about any of them.

I figured it was a defensive google attempt to support something with little documented support.

And that is not even considering the number of times they post their very clearly bad faith interpretations (including removing context) of what Kellie Jay says. And the inability to steel their interpretation once the full context is shown and other information provided.

I sometimes think must be very hard to make things fit a narrative of reality you want to be true but is materially not true.

It's only working because the discomfort of all those required to lie about reality is being ignored.

I know it's not good form to cross-post from another thread, but it may be of interest for those here to understand that @suggestionsplease1 has elsewhere described being a woman as something aspirational — something that women should be pleases men want to buy into. As if sex is something you can acquire, like a better car or Turkey teeth.

'Nuance in safeguarding' is like the serious comment on an RTÉ discussion on transwomen in women's sport that there needed to be a balance between inclusion and fairness.

If your ideology requires compromise on safeguarding, and compromise on fairness, there's something badly wrong with your ideology.

Me too NotHavingIt I would love suggestions from Suggestions as to how this nuanced paradise will work in public spaces or where the actual needs of women will feature in the assessment of putting a person with a penis into a prison cell with a woman.

Glass ceiling feminism. How embarrassing!

I’m cringing for you, Suggy

I simply don't have hours to waste on here, unlike others 🤷‍♂️ It's as simple as that.

You can easily trace the provenance of that data to the World Economic Forum.

I'm not convinced they have a horse in the race of trans issues, and this analysis by them has been carried for years now, predating the furore over self ID so I have no reason to consider their data problematic, and have already answered concerns that 'gender' rather than 'sex' was used as an identifying term earlier in the thread.

I'm sure others will find issues, there is if course no such thing as perfect provenance of data, we have to make best use of what is available or do it ourselves (and of course declare our own bias in the process.)

In that thread someone asked me to post something like 5 studies on the topic in question, I complied and posted something like 20.

I thoroughly disagree with your interpretation of them, and believe they consolidated the evidence behind the position I took.

But, like I say, I don't have endless hours to spend on here to endlessly hash over points that people are entrenched upon anyway. 🤷‍♂️

Speaking of nuance... If the approach of placing males in female jails (and, by extension, presumably we'd assume some trans men would want, and have the equal right, to be placed in the male estate) were adopted, I think everyone's in agreement that it would require quite considerable investment of resources - money, manpower, administration - within an already underfunded system. Where would this money be sourced? Which services may be compromised, and individuals affected, as a result? How would the consequent impacts be weighed against the advantages to trans prisoners? Just another thought.

A nuanced approach would consider their individual risk level, which would incorporate a very detailed profiling of them and their history by experts to make the best decision about their accommodation.

You still can't drag your eyes off the men, can you?

Let's dispense with that approach, and start, instead, with a detailed profiling of every female inmate and their history by experts to make the best decision about their accommodation.

It's their prison, their risk, their choice.

Women don't want what you're suggesting, so the answer is no.

Yeah… we know you refuse to discuss the merits or flaws of what you post.

We will draw our own conclusions.

I'm not after hours of your time just a one sentence, 30 second answer as to how this nuance will be applied in the real world. How does my elderly mother who was once brutally assault by her own father in her own bathroom know that the man she finds in a women's toilet is safe and suitabily risk assessed?

Obviously I am really sorry this was your mum's experience.

The women that we are with in toilets are not risk assessed either. I am a lesbian and go out a lot to gay venues in a big UK city and I have concerns about what I see in bathrooms on occasion amongst very drunk women.
The men we sit next to in buses are not risk assessed.

I would say that there is a rigorous study indicating that there is no link between
trans inclusive polices and bathroom safety :
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106

If you look up the methodology of this study it is very robust.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

It is ok. People reading your reluctance to discuss studies that you post draw their own conclusions to your inability to even bother posting anything about them.

Please post the methodology. It is behind a paywall.

I think the link is in the news article as well, I don't know why it's not following through to the study in mine.

From the abstract:

" Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy violations in public restrooms if such laws are passed, while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded. No empirical evidence has been gathered to test such laws’ effects. This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances. Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces."

And you posted 10. Which you would know if you actually discussed the merits of each one.

Which you didn’t.

Simply plonking a study down is not discussion.

You commented on the methodology.

Please copy and paste the methodology section of the study.

If you have not read the study and have not checked the original data collection, how can you assert with the confidence you have that the ‘methodology’ is sound.

If you are taking studies from their abstracts, and abstracts only, you are not actually engaging with the study and have a very superficial understanding of the study.

I would say that there is a rigorous study indicating that there is no link between
trans inclusive polices and bathroom safety
I would say there there is a rigorous study into my mum being triggered to fuck and traumatized by finding a man in what should be a safe women space.

So again a one sentence 30 second answer why is female distress less worthy than male upset? Not letting TW into women's spaces upsets some TWs, letting TWs into women's spaces upset some women. Why is it the women have have to take the hit? Why should Muslim and Jewish women have to self exclude? Why should women who have been raped or beaten fear going out because they are too afraid to use public toilets.
What is it about TW that means their wants should trump the needs of vulnerable women?.

I have highlighted the relevant part above.

A matched pair analysis means that they have chosen very similar localities in the one state, that primarily differ only in their approach to gender identity inclusive bathroom accommodation...so some localities that have laws that exclude trans people using the bathrooms matching their gender ID, and others that do not have these in place. They found that the presence of this legislation or not made no difference to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in the localities.

If this:

“This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances.”

equals* *

“If you look up the methodology of this study it is very robust.”

I think that we can an issue.

If you have problems with this study why don't you highlight them? I'm sure you can find a way of getting access to the full text, it's not rocket, and I'm not doing your homework for you.