Something That Never Happens Has Never Happened Again (US Women's Shelter)

[EsmaCannonball]

A man who identifies as a woman has attempted to murder a female homeless shelter worker in the US after being excluded from the facility the previous night. The man was evicted from the women's shelter for breaking the rules and not for being a male. Thankfully he is being held in isolation in a men's prison but it is unclear whether this situation will remain in place. The mainstream US media seems more concerned that he is in the male estate, and that this all makes trans-identifying men look bad, than they do about the woman who was stabbed with a sword.

Inside Edition

The trans “community” is not being “marginalised”.

Transwomen are being asked accept the reality that in some circumstances the fact that they are male matters. These circumstances include areas that are intended to be safe spaces for women, where some males are a threat.

Some transwomen do accept this.

It's quite startling isn't it that some people first reaction isn't 'my God that's horrific that poor woman! '

But 'will nobody think of the poor menz being unfairly tarred with the same brush!'

A woman has been stabbed but their first concern is that this might make trans women look bad.

Which # rule of misogyny is it again that the worst thing about male on female violence is that it makes men look bad?

I really can't understand the cognitive dissonance that allows a person to believe that we know men as a class are a risk to women, but also we shouldnt take steps to keep women safer because that would be demonising men.

Very few women want to demonise all people in the group 'men' (and I include trans women in this group).

Taking reasonable steps to improve safety is not demonising.

I am not demonising cycling because I make my children wear a helmet!

Absolutely!

It's the same thing with sports- trans people are not being banned from single sex sport, as we so often read in the media.

They are being expected to follow the same rules as everyone else and compete in the correct sex category, because in some situations, sex matters.

Any time there is a need for a single sex provision it should automatically exclude anyone of the opposite sex. Transwomen are male so should be excluded. There is never any need to separate people on gender. When sex matters its only sex that matters.

This is all that needs to be said on the subject. We need to go back to the old days when all men were excludeded from single-sex spaces and services set up for women, and all decent men respected this. They kept out themselves and they took action when they saw other men breaking the rules. The rule was simple and clear and it helped.

In the case of women in a shelter or refuge, their previous experience of male violence will mean they especially need a single-sex service for their wellbeing and peace of mind. If a trans-identifed male needs a homeless shelter, let him use one for men or a mixed sex shelter or one specially set up for trans people. He is being utterly selfish to put his wishes above the needs of the women already there.

@RatalieTatalie said:

“But in this particular case, the fact they were trans is not relevant and my mind won’t be changed.”

They? Why do you use that word. Everyone in the world is he or she. You claim you believe this man is a woman. Why would you shy away from using the pronoun “she”?

🤔

Anyway, you are quite correct. The fact that he claims to be trans is entirely irrelevant. The fact that he is male is the reason he should never have been allowed to access a women’s shelter.

This is nothing to do with demonising a community, it’s a perfectly standard and reasonable rejection of men in women’s spaces.

The fact he claims a trans identity might be relevant to his likelihood of exhibitionism as sexually deviant men are likely to have more than one paraphilia. This is a good and valid reason why the rules excluding men should not, under any circumstances, be bent for this group.

If you are unable to change your mind, that merely demonstrates that your mind is closed and that is nothing to be proud of.

@RatalieTatalie said:

“But in this particular case, the fact they were trans is not relevant and my mind won’t be changed.”

They? Why do you use that word. Everyone in the world is he or she. You claim you believe this man is a woman. Why would you shy away from using the pronoun “she”?

🤔

Anyway, you are quite correct. The fact that he claims to be trans is entirely irrelevant. The fact that he is male is the reason he should never have been allowed to access a women’s shelter.

This is nothing to do with demonising a community, it’s a perfectly standard and reasonable rejection of men in women’s spaces.

The fact he claims a trans identity might be relevant to his likelihood of exhibitionism as sexually deviant men are likely to have more than one paraphilia. This is a good and valid reason why the rules excluding men should not, under any circumstances, be bent for this group.

If you are unable to change your mind, that merely demonstrates that your mind is closed and that is nothing to be proud of.

I’m confused on the point you’re making.

Really? Men shouldn't be in a women's shelter, because they pose a risk to women. That's it. How confusing can it be?

Allowing legitimate discrimination based not only on safety but the need for privacy and dignity is not comparative to the examples that you have used. The legitimate discrimination of excluding all male people (over the age of a child who requires care if it is appropriate for that child to be there) from a female single sex space is not marginalising a 'whole community'.

Legitimate discrimination based on a person's sexed body is based on safeguarding principles where a pattern within the population has been identified and evidenced over time. Hence, much of the world has sex segregated single sex spaces. Based on sex. Not on gender.

However, it is important for specificity that a country regulates their discrimination laws based on their own country's requirements. Therefore, your attempt at leveraging a war in another country into a country's discrimination law is irrelevant and highly inappropriate.

Also, the basis of assessing whether a specific group of people is at a population level for that group not an individual level. This makes your example of nannies also irrelevant. When considered as a group, it is not likely to be evidenced that a nanny will have a higher propensity to murder than other people of their sex. Therefore, collectively it would be inappropriate to exclude nannies from services open to female people.

You have again tried to use what you obviously think are great 'gotchas' to support your view and they continue to fail. Because they are either incorrect or they are irrelevant. Your comparators are false. A male person has not changed sex category, therefore they should always be treated as a male person. If they are vulnerable, they should be treated as a vulnerable male person.

Excluding ALL male people (above the age of a child if it is appropriate for the child to be in the space) from a service or a space meant for female people is a legitimate discrimination based on historic and ongoing patterns of male behaviour.

If you wish to change this ability to discriminate in a particular country, you would need to show through long term statistics and studies that the group of male people have the same or lower risk of committing a violent act or a sex crime as the general female population in that country.

As I said before, you will always have evil people, that doesn’t make all trans people evil and deserving of segregation.

And this is hyperbole. No one is saying that 'all trans people are evil'. Just like no one is saying 'all male people are evil'. Excluding male people from female single sex spaces is also not 'marginalising' those male people.

He should not have been in a women's shelter. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women, so I assume that a men's shelter would not have been staffed by a vulnerable woman, but by men who would be better able to defend themselves.

If they had kept the shelter single sex, that woman wouldn’t have been attacked.

You're being obtuse in order to protect your ideology.

He is being utterly selfish to put his wishes above the needs of the women already there.

I completely agree, but need to add that he puts his needs so far above any real woman’s that he will get out a sword and chop the entrails out if any woman who dares to thwart him.

Yes! Hope the US authorities wake up and keep him in a male prison.

It’s male violence. It’s not that they are trans but that male people who are rejected come back with a sword to try and kill you.

People pretend to be something they aren’t to gain access to victims every day of the week. That is not an argument to marginalise a whole community. As I said before, you will always have evil people, that doesn’t make all trans people evil and deserving of segregation.

We don't want "all trans people to be segregated", we want all men, regardless of gender identity to stay out of women's spaces, like they have always been expected to do.

The lack of clear thinking in this post keeps coming back to me.

"The first post says “The man was evicted from the women's shelter for breaking the rules and not for being a male”. He was evicted not for his trans status. He then came back uninvited and murdered someone AFTER being evicted. If someone breaks into my home and kills me in the night, they had no right to be there whether male, female, trans or otherwise. Therefore being trans has not played a role."

This was a male person who had been rejected (either before actually entering or after entering) a female single sex space. A male person that should never have been allowed access under solid safeguarding protocols.

That they are 'trans' is absolutely the issue here. The statement issued declared that the management did not know that this person was male. So, either they have an inclusive policy that has now been shown to subject female service users or staff to abuse that is a pattern of male people, or that male person was not honest and did not disclose their transgender identity.

Exclusion should not be based on whether that male person was trans or not. It should have been always based on the fact that they are MALE. They should therefore be evaluated as any male seeking access to that centre would be evaluated.

Being 'trans' most definitely did play a role here.

There are two scenarios really that underline this case: either the centre is not providing a truly safe space for female users and staff through negligence in the safeguarding principles they choose to apply to the centre's users and staff if they allow male people to access the service - meaning that they have centred male transgender people instead of female people, or, that person did not disclose their identity and was in that space when they should not have been but accessed it as a male trans person.

If others see a relevant alternative scenario please do post it.