“Because if a trans person is a predator, the issue is that they are a predator and not that they are trans.”
Your argument about ‘female people do it too’ is ignoring the overwhelming statistics and it is again dismissing reality while you wish to prioritise male people’s wants over safety of female people. This is the type of argument people use to placate themselves about their decision to expose women and children to additional risk of harm. It is a falsity. Is that what underlies your decisions here?
Yes! Absolutely we should address same sex violence! No arguments from me and I doubt any poster on this thread. We should be doing that now while continuing to safeguard against male people in female spaces though.
I can only assume that you cannot either produce any evidence that male people in any stage of transition have a reduced level of committing sexual offences than any other male OR perhaps you don’t understand the significance for me asking the question.
The significance is why do you wish to include the same % of male people who ARE likely to commit sexual offences in the female single sex spaces as safeguarding processes are designed to keep out? Ie. Why are you determined to include some male people into female only spaces knowing that all other male people have been excluded for exactly that same reason?
Do you understand the dissonance in your statements? On one hand you say ‘yes, I understand why all male people are excluded’ but then you twist and say but these particular male people, who have at least the same % of risk, should be allowed to use the spaces anyway’. So you knowingly allow them in.
Male people have huge physical advantages that have be proven to not be diminished with reduction or removal of testosterone. These are advantages that the very few female predators do not have. Therefore other female people are considered an acceptable risk because no area can be risk free unfortunately.
I also point out that female predators most likely have very different ways that they predate. So not only is it consistently shown that about 2% of sexual offences are perpetrated by female people across different countries, they are different in motive and how they access their victims.
Also, most traumatised girls and women will not be distressed by seeing another female in a place they expect to be only female people.
They will be distressed at male people’s presence. And it would be foolish to believe that women and girls with heightened senses due to male abuse are not likely to pick up male cues that a person is male. That women and girls can’t tell is another false trope that people repeat.
It is a trope often fed by female socialisation to not react adversely to a male in the female single sex space. And to never let those male people they know that they are uncomfortable with sharing single sex spaces with them amongst other defensive actions.
To repeat the point, the attempt to reframe the discussion to ‘all predators including female predators’ is meaningless. Amongst other things, It ignores the massive difference in prevalence and nature of predating, the male cue issue and glaringly, the physical differences- including grip strength, punch power, leverage, bone density, height and average muscle mass.
That you, personally, have chosen to ignore those aspects is your own choice and that is fine.
However, doing so you also then need to accept that you choose to create a special group of male people. A group you willingly exempt from safeguarding protocols. This has historically been shown to be very harmful to women and children. You are, in effect, using a form of positive discrimination for male people in doing so while then negatively discriminating against female people.
You can keep following your choice. But please don’t try to shame people, largely women, who disagree with you and seek to restate stronger safeguards for women and children by having single sex spaces that remain single sex.