"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 2

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

The last thread ended with Tandora attempting to sidestep the question about what she would say if her daughter had been raped by a trans woman in a female only space and no longer believed that trans women should be in female only spaces as a consequence.

Her last reply was along the lines of, "The same thing I would say if she had been bullied by a green person at school and said she no longer wanted to go to school with green people."

@Tandora can we have a serious answer?

You’d think so, but it seems few here can hold a discussion without it becoming vicious.

"effective service delivery" What?

I think prisons is an exceptional case. We don't build general rules about society around prison security systems.

I do not think a person who has been jailed for sexual assault should be jailed in a place where they have access to people who they can further assault.

By the way, men and boys can also be victims of sexual assault and rape.

My understanding about the way prisons work - although I don't know a huge amount about prison security - is that an individual risk assessment is conducted on an individual basis as to where they should be placed for the sake of everybody's security. I think this is exactly appropriate.

Have you read the relevant part of the Equalities Act. Let me see if I can link it for you.

The existence of some criminals who happen to be trans, says nothing about trans people as a group.

Note the carefully chosen word 'existence' to distract from what is salient: prevalence.

It is extremely stark that trans-identifying males have offending patterns at least as bad as other men, if not worse, and a very long way away from female.

To the extent that many headlines about a 'woman' committing a violent crime are a pretty safe bet to actually be a trans-identifying man, despite the huge gap in population size between them and actual women.

Statistics like these demonstrate why it makes absolutely no sense to treat trans individuals as the opposite sex - they don't exhibit opposite-sex behaviour!

Well, that would be the first link from you.

What is it about the trans woman advised to use condoms for contraception that makes them less of a threat than any other person for whom the appropriate form of contraception would be condoms?

Here you go:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

"A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified."

So why do you believe that men with a trans identity are immune to these factors? They remain physically bigger, stronger and more powerful (as a class) than women (as a class), they have grown up with the social pressures and influence and they figures from the MoJ show they offend at the same rate as other men.

Few here? Really? You think the majority of the posters here are viscous?

Violence against women and girls is not a natural phenomenon driven by chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy, or the wearing of condoms.

Violence against women and girls is a social problem, rooted in inequality, power, misogyny and patriarchy.

Actually, I haven't read the EA, but nevertheless:

1. Men are not women.
2. Men can't become women
3. Women are allowed to prefer single sex spaces without having to explain why over and over again
4. That is really all that there is.

Yes.

That was how I interpreted her multiple replies. I did ask her to confirm whether that was actually what she meant and she continued to be evasive.

For what it's worth, IF Tandora is actually a woman and IF she does actually have a (real, female, not TIM) daughter, and IF that daughter had the misfortune to be raped in a female only space by a TIM, I do not actually believe that she would continue to gaslight her daughter about TIMs not presenting the same risk to women as other men. I do not think her luxury beliefs would be able to withstand her own daughter being harmed in such a way.

But if she did tell her traumatised daughter that her being raped had nothing to do with the fact that a TIM was in a female only space and continued to spout her usual rubbish, then I stand by what I said. A parent who reacts like that in that situation does not deserve to have a daughter, and should not be in any way surprised if their daughter goes no contact and never speaks to them again.

And it means that she can only maintain her pretence that what happened to Katie Dolatowski's preteen victims is unfortunate but can't be helped, and that they are acceptable collateral damage for being trans inclusive, because neither of Katie Dolatowski's preteen victims is her own daughter.

I do not think a person who has been jailed for sexual assault should be jailed in a place where they have access to people who they can further assault.

Right, but before they are jailed, they can access any women's single sex spaces they want because we should dismantle all safeguarding if a man says he identifies as a woman. Where did Katie Dolatowski access his victims?

Can you genuinely not see the flaws in your arguments?

Violence against women and girls is a social problem, rooted in inequality, power, misogyny and patriarchy.

All of which arose in a vacuum and there's absolutely no reason why the same structures couldn't have been sex reversed.

It's just a coincidence that in every society in history men have overpowered women.

There could be societies where sexual assault and unwanted pregnancies are a female-on-male phenomenon.

I'd be highly surprised if you could, given that there is no piece of legislation on our statute books called the "Equalities Act".

What with that and being unable to spell "judgment", I don't understand why you think we should give your opinions on matters of law any weight.

I wasn’t asking you but as you’ve responded so will I. This is where words mean something different to you again isn’t it? I would say brutally honest not vicious.

Exactly this.

Anyone can access any single sex space they want, regardless of equalities law about the provision of single sex services. these things are not rationally connected.

If a man wants to rape a woman in a toilet he will do so - he does not need to pretend to be trans. If a trans woman wants to rape a woman in a toilet she can do so, regardless of what the Equalities Act says about the definition of sex as a protected characteristic in law.

I didn’t say the posters themselves were “vicious”, but the discussion inevitably turns vicious. There’s a distinction. However, I would say that most posters here have an edge to them.

BTW: ‘Viscous’ means ‘thick’.

Nor really an answer. What is it about the individual in question’s ’transness’ that makes them less of a threat?

But that's only one justification. There are others, including where members of one sex "might reasonably object to the presence of" a member of the opposite sex.

@Tandora Are trans women who commit sexual offences women? If so, then why do you not think they should be in a women's prison with other women?

So why is rape even illegal?