Women's 'Private Spaces'

[Howseitgoin]

Clearly private spaces for women are considered a necessity by many due to a propensity for male sexual violence. Given this threat is much greater by orders of magnitude in the work place as opposed to public bathrooms, isn't it inconsistent not to demand private spaces there as well?
Thoughts?

The research indicates Trans women are more likely to be sexually abused in male prisons & bathrooms.

Or
...than other men?

I suspect you are comparing TW in mens spaces with women in women only spaces.

Women only spaces have less sexual abuse occuring in them because, by definition, there are no men in them. And men are responsible for the vast majority of sexual abuse.

Making women only space mixed sex will not keep the men safe, because it isnt the space thats safe, its the fact that it doesnt include men. Bringing men into a space will bring in more sexual abuse into the space too.

The solution for men is creating a space for men that reduces the opportunity for those men to abuse each other. Its a different challenge with different solutions.

Bloody hell you are stupid.

Some offices have CCTV - why would that imply that public toilets do?

You really don’t understand how to build a case do you?

"You have provided precisely zero evidence that they are abused at all."

There's this thing called 'google':

What @Helleofabore said.

Not even clear how it is relevant.

’trans’ doesn’t really come into it.

The only options are mixed sex or single sex, but it’s not clear what the OP is arguing for.

Answer is still no, lads.

"Making women only space mixed sex will not keep the men safe, because it isnt the space thats safe, its the fact that it doesnt include men. Bringing men into a space will bring in more sexual abuse into the space too."

Including transwomen isn't including all men.

I believe this document discusses those crime statistics and I am happy to discuss it with you.

escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg.pdf?t=qqfomk&v=lg

It refers to 369 trans people vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified in a study.

How strange that that was not mentioned at all in the press release!!

I might have forgotten most of what I learned from my Statistics module at uni but 0.0008 is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison.

Think about this from the point of view that women around the world admit they don’t bother to report their sexual assaults and rapes. Because they have no confidence that they will get justice AND not be vilified in the process.

What % of females actively reporting their attacks vs current trend of not bothering to report would decimate that 369 figure?

And that number cannot be accurately depicted in this point either;

”About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.”

Sure this 'maybe'. However, I believe the huge number of women telling us they don’t report.

This article is misrepresenting the reality.

I also bring to your attention this as it is relevant to your claim:

”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

Including! Notice it says ‘including’!

Not ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.”

What was NOT included was a handy breakdown of what constituted the crimes against trans people were. What was the bar for a hate crime being committed for instance? Misogyny? Does that fit the definition that holds for transphobic hate crimes?

And based on 369 people, I am not going to delve into that national dataset to look for it. I don’t have the will. Maybe if you wish to prove your point, you could link to that data with the breakdown of the actual crimes reported for those 369 people.

Now, one of the findings in your article was:

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”

How many females being taught how to accurately assess the motivation against them as to whether it constituted a hate crime, or indeed using the very same frames of reference as trans people do but based on sexism, and then reanswering that same survey would again make that point meaningless? Is misogyny a ‘hate crime’ for instance?

Do you understand the significance of what centuries of oppression of females has done on being able to accurately assess the motivation of crimes against our sex?

I am beginning to. The trans lobby groups are informing my learnings. Because of what they classify as ‘transphobic hate crimes’ when I look at what I have experienced as a female… wow! I sure have overlooked a huge amount of what I just waved away as crap from males.

And that the group who are trans could include many of those reporting abuse that includes misgendering and perceived micro-aggressions. Gosh, imagine if women reported all the hateful things said and done to them on a daily basis.
Crimes that cause harm and pain to anyone should be fully investigated and justice served.

But if a claim such as ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.” is going to be made by any institution or poster, it needs to be based on some very robust data.

Plus it should not be able to be argued against using other knowledge such as the prevalence of females who don’t report their rapes and attacks.

Because it then fails to show integrity by making any reference to those other studies and statistics. It may not even need to make adjustments for that information, but it should make the reader aware of the limitations of the study and its conclusions.

Thank you for posting the link..

By the way, I post this for the reader’s benefit. Because, I am sure you already looked further than the article to verify what it reported. I am very happy to discuss the numbers and the findings based on your interpretation now that I have started to scratch the surface of the article’s findings.

Google 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Again, anything that is in any way relevant to the UK?

Or not based on a limited dataset from 2017 and 2018 which unhelpfully lumps a wide range of crimes under the single heading of "victimization" [sic]?

Or written by a more credible source than the Williams Institute?

Well no, she didn’t say it was including all men. Some men. So yes it would be including men where all men are not otherwise included.

Ok basis maths and stats on population breakdowns.

How can you group a 100 men into two group, if you have been told 20 of them are "transwomen" and 80 of them are not "transwomen".

Do list your criteria which will result in you picking the "correct" 20....

🍿

It really, really is, because ‘trans’ is a subjective concept and a description that is now a matter of personal preference.

You therefore end up with policies that allow anyone to use any facility.

"You do realise that policy and laws usually reflect the needs of the majority of people as well as the needs of the minority of people?"

Not if they contradict constitutional law they don't.

And then what do you do if they say you are wrong?

In which toilet design would you rather be at your most vulnerable?

You haven’t answered this @Howseitgoin

Since I have spent the last few years looking at toilet safety your answer would be useful for my data, although it’s less relevant as I am interested in U.K. mostly.

Scroll back this thread to 11.29

For the sake of everyone’s blood pressure, this person is a waste of your time. It’s pigeon chess.

What constitutional law?

And this is where you have a failure in logic.

Firstly, what is the biological or neurological marker that can be used to categorise male people with a transgender identity from any other male person?

Please post this evidence. And I actually mean evidence, documented medical papers, and not just someone's article that you felt convinced by.

And then comes the significant part.

For safeguarding, the segregation is by SEX. Not gender. And transition does not move any male from the male sex. People cannot change sex.

So by including a sub-group of male people, you are indeed opening the single sex spaces up to all male people. Because to do otherwise is discrimination against the rest of male people in the population.

That is how anti-discrimination based on sex works. Did you not know this?

What “constitutional law” is being contradicted here?

Yep that's why men are literally coming thru the windows of women's loos where there's no laws preventing them…not.

And your credentials in UK constitutional law are what, exactly?

The U.K. doesn’t have a “constitution” like the US does. I’ve no idea what Australia does, but there are some great Aussie women on FWR who will.

What’s the difference and how do we tell?

Are you on drugs?