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.

And if you are backing up a statement with research or documents which cannot be accessed by the people who you are discussing it with (save for an abstract) such as when you posted 20 links to research which was behind paywalls, then the onus is on you to provide access otherwise you are expecting people to take your statements on a 'because I said so' basis.

No-one was going to take out shibboleth access or individual periodal access just to access the 20 links you listed in order to know what it was you were basing your argument on.

Areas of health, education, politics and economics, not just pay.

Do you think these areas are not good measures of women's overall well-being?

No, because it's been done repeatedly and you will ignore anything I say.

'Gender' equality is not sex equality, those stats are no longer meaningful because 'women' is now a mixed sex group. And you are talking about a shiny new world in which women are raped in prison and excluded from services, resources and provisions in order for men to have more freedom of choice. Which is a world of binary, sex based power imbalance. And you are trying to argue that as a woman I should think this is a good thing.

You're onto a loser there my friend, you really are.

Thank you for posting that. I do wonder, sometimes, if the lurkers still see what I saw when I was lurking.

You have answered the queries I had in my head.

And 1000000% agree with your last paragraph😁

Yeah ok, you tell that to the countries out there doing the best for women.

Because I have have said several times those countries were doing better before self ID not because of it. Because you are using the UK as an example of somewhere without self ID but the reality is we have defacto self ID in the UK because institutions and individuals are too scared to use legal exemptions and because a GRC grants access and we aren't allow to request to see a GRC so the reality is men with a GRC can access female spaces but they can't be challenged to provide a GRC therefore any man who can say the words 'I am a woman' can enter female spaces.
So perhaps the question should be why haven't the metrics greatly improved for women in the UK now there are men in women's prisons, men taking women's awards and men able to select which ever bathroom they like.

If 'best for women' includes rape and exclusion?

Then whoever sees that as 'best' has a very serious problem with misogyny.

So...happy to spend time reading the other posts, search for and plonk down spurious information but so so busy that you don't have time to actually discuss the data in the studies you googled.

OK.

Nobody has actually challenged the data in the Massachusetts bathroom study.

Bizarrely, I appear to be getting flack for not challenging a study that supports my own position, when nobody who takes an alternative view has pointed out any problems with it. 🤷‍♂️

Such measures, at best, are only mesuring women's 'performance' in a traditionally male public and economic realm. The sort of neo-liberal vison of women being 'equal' or the same as men.

Of course iit is good that women can now go to university and enter occupations previously only open to men, and in some circustances get paid the same.

But what has any of that that got to do with single sex spaces which have to been created to protect the dignity and privacy of women - as well as their safety?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

I’m more interested in the UK than a single US state, Suggy - do you live in MA or was that the only data you could Google up
that supported your viewpoint?

The report which can only be requested from the Unversity? I haven't heard back from them yet.

As you have seen a copy, can you share or summarise please?

I don't see why you are dismissing women's wealth, health, education and representation in politics?

These are massively important areas and will correlate with women's overall well-being, and I find it very hard to believe that they will negatively correlate with woman's safety.

The fact is countries who are performing well here are also ones that are introducing policies of self ID - why are they doing this? Why are these countries that are doing so well for women also happy to proceed in this way?

Do you not wonder why that is?

Do you think they've all suddenly lost their minds after such strong track records for women and population wellbeing in general?

Why would you think that?

I have challenged it. I pointed out that is doesn't record women's discomfort, distress or self exclusion. Your response that is doesn't measure TWs either. Well they are unlikely to be distressed or self exclude from the spaces they want to access so let's assume you mean their distress if not allowed into women's spaces.
So again I ask why does the distress of 0.5 % of the population out weigh that of a goodly proportion of 51% of the population? Even if only a small minority of women object that is still more people than every single trans person (and many trans people are OK with not accessing opposite sex spaces). So in one sentence why are the wants of trans women more important than the needs of women?

The thing is you introduced the information to the discussion. People are trying to have a discussion with you about data that you should, as you posted it, have a good grasp and understanding of if you are using it to hold up your argument. The fact that some of the studies you link to have access issues makes this even more important.

I tend not to link to studies that way people don't ask me to explain it. If you don't want the questions then don't post the links.

#Suggestions, assuming your arguments based on the data are correct, and there's no clear and present danger, are you ok if other groups swap identities if again data shows no negatives?

There has always been a burgeoning trans racial movement, but the black community stamp on it, and they're unrepentant, Rachel Dolezal the most prominent example, Elizabeth Warren in US claiming she's part Native American, Oli London claiming he's Korean.

Had Dolezal not been challenged, and all other "white to black" wannabes not been challenged, I'm pretty sure there would be a rolling phenomenon where thousands of whites globally would right now be claiming they're black or any number of non white IDs.

There would be no data showing negatives, but the vast majority of blacks would be rightfully incensed.

Ditto able bodied claiming to be disabled, non neuro diverse claiming they're autistic.

There are reports of a trans age movement. Again, where's the harm in adults joining young playgroups or chess clubs or reading circles or camping trips if there was no data showing abuse etc?

You get my drift. You may posit these studies showing no increase in issues when men ID as women, likely this data would also be unremarkable with my other ID swap scenarios. But it doesn't make them ok.

You've not challenged the study remit itself, just queried why it didn't examine another measure.

Trans exclusive bathroom policies that people attempt to enforce harm women who do not fit expected norms of appearance for their sex. They are challenged and made to feel uncomfortable and I have
butch lesbian friends that have experienced this. So in this way they have the potential to cause distress to women...you can look the news articles on this as well.

So that is a ‘no’.

Did you read any of the 10 studies you posted on the other thread?

I take it this is the way you operate? You post links to studies, someone else reviews it and you tell them they are wrong and you disagree?

If women weren't worried about men in their toilets they wouldn't be challenging 'butch' women.

I haven't asked why is doesn't examine female distress/self exclusion merely pointed out than in a world of lies, damn lies and statistics a study that look at only one impact of a policy is pretty worthless. In much the same way that looking at education levels and gender pay gaps in countries with self ID doesn't give the full picture.
No-one is dismissing those things - it's fantastic that scandi women have a good education and better pay than in many of their neighbouring countries but if they price they pay for that is increased DV and lower inclusion in public spaces for Muslim women that should be taken into account.

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.

So it's literally the case that laws are needed to protect men, but not women, as they are making it up.

I suggest it's the other way around and all types of men with personalities are fine using men's facilities. All those countries that are so civilised that men have allowed equality for women, and apparently self identification is just perfect there, how come they are so utterly lethally unsafe for transgender people at the same time? This lopsided contradictory storytelling is tiresome.

Single sex means single sex.

Sorry, just got back from pre- preparing dinner and hanging washing out on the line......

I'm not dismissing such gains. Why would I?

The South American countries were amongst the first to introduce Self Id - and as you must know violence against women and gilrs is endemic in these countries - as I mentioned earlier with a couple of examples of how femicide is recorded; plus Self Id for males to access female spaces was granted even before abortion rights were given to women in some.

Many countries who consider themselves 'progressive' have been swept along on a wave -laregly carried the by changes to their equality laws for gay people - see Ireland as a prime example of this. And this is what has been attempted here, too - slip it in before people become conscious of what has been done, and what it all implies. Scotland tried it too - dismissing all concerns.

It is only now that the ramifications are becoming more apparent and more numerous that the debate has even started to get going in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

Canada is full on 'loop the loop' with working class immigrant women being sued by a TW because they don't wax male genitals. Violent offenders are regularly placed alongside women in U.S jails. Also in the U.S males quite frequently take away sporting awards and medals meant for girls and women, and there is an epidemic of gender 'affirmation' surgery on young people - so much so that even the pioneers of it are suggesting it has all gone too far.

Caution is now being suggested in Demnark and Finland over te use of puberty blockers......

Yep.

The way I see this is that, yes, there may be no exponential increase in assaults when men are legally allowed entry to women's toilets and changing rooms etc. But there will be an exponential increase in unease, fear etc from the natal women who'll have no say in this.

I guarantee the studies that #Suggestions is positing don't ask natal women in these situations "HOW" they feel.

Let's ask Lia Thomas' teammates HOW they felt that a natal man walked around their changing room with his maleness on display. He didn't have to attack them. The very fact he was there was enough.

That poor girl who went straight to SM to document her sheer terror of finding a male in the changing room at Primark. That male didn't attack her. He was simply there.

So yes, violence per se may not statistically increase as Self ID is introduced, but I bet you any money psychological distress amongst many, and terror amongst quite a few, will be the result, just not noted on any survey.

And many women will not log any negative response, so browbeaten are they by the No Debate period of the last decade, and the typically female trait not to complain or victimise.

Once there are increasing numbers of men in women's spaces after a decade and more of Self ID, let's check the stats then. They may be very different.

The issue drove an acrimonious wedge right through the Left wing coalition in Spain, and if the conservatives get elected at the next election, they have vowed to repeal Self ID.

Suggestions, I have looked at that table, but I can't see any information whatsoever on what the criteria involved are. None. Nothing.

'areas of education, economics health and politics measures'

This could mean virtually anything at all!

Faced with this utterly vague information/stats yes, I will 'hold steadfast' in my position that there is fuck all evidence to support self ID as 'good for women'. It's a bizarre assertion to make, frankly.

As noted before, self ID may itself obscure some of the data we need to judge its effectiveness/harm/risk/benefits.

If a transwoman attacks a woman in a country that uses self ID, this will be recorded as a 'female' crime. So the issue will be invisible.