Women’s privacy and dignity

[Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks]

I’ve just been to my local leisure centre swimming pool and while I was in the changing rooms a woman walked in from the showers, fully naked. I averted my eyes, and she walked quite close past me in a way which to me (and I fully accept I may well have imagined it) felt a bit pointed. I felt vaguely uncomfortable and embarrassed in the same way I would have if a man had walked in naked.

My impression is that the vast majority of people on this forum believe that it is a fundamental breach of women’s privacy and dignity if people with male biology (whether cisgender men or trans women) share changing facilities with women. Yet they do not consider that it undermines a woman’s privacy or dignity to have to get changed in front of other women, or to see other women naked.

I understand that many women have had experiences with men’s exhibitionist or voyeuristic behaviour which makes them specifically uncomfortable being undressed around men, or being around men who are undressed. But I’ve often seen the argument on here that it equally undermines men’s privacy and dignity to have to share changing facilities with women.

So my question is, do you think privacy and dignity are not infringed by having to get changed in front of people of the same sex? If not, why not?

I also suspected that hurty words by trans widows could be reported as “domestic abuse” and that could in turn be written down as “violence”.

This is what I keep saying.

There have been so many alleged incidents involving gender non conforming people being harassed and threatened by women in women's toilets since the Supreme Court judgment, and no equivalent incidents reported as having occurred in men's toilets.

So why do they think they're safer in the women's?

You can't simultaneously complain about being unsafe in women's toilets and also claim that you need to be in those spaces for your safety.

Don't be using logic again.

The point here is they hate women, they must have power over women.

Everything else is just noise.

Cos transcels are a sub set of incels.

It's about power over women not wanting to pee or have proof.

That's why our proof is irrelevant to the conversation they want to have.

The answer remains no.

Incidentally, there was also this link posted by Howseitgoin · Today 05:11

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5406271-womens-privacy-and-dignity?page=24

In response to a request so it seems from Arabella from yesterday 9.57 am:

"Go ahead and spell out what safeguarding measures you think are being 'weaponised' and what those 'unfair' rules are."

The post was this from Howse:

"There are convictions of:
"Mexican rapists"
"Arab terrorists"
"trans women sex predators"
"Lesbian sex predators"
Should Mexicans & Arabs be banned?
Are lesbians bigger predators than trans women or vice versa? There's no data recorded according to the UK gov so by your 'safe guarding' logic lesbians perhaps too are a 'risk category' or would that be "unfair"?"

Then there was this link posted.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/violentcrimeratefortransgenderpeoplecomparedwiththegeneralpopulation2013to2023

You (the FOI requester) asked
Please could you tell me the frequency of violent crimes committed against trans individuals directly compared with those same crimes committed against the general population. Over the last 5 to 10 years would be ideal.

We said
Thank you for your request,

"We started asking about respondents' gender identity in October 2019 on the self-completion module of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). We do not hold information prior that date."

"The most recent publication regarding the prevalence of total crime broken down by gender identity can be found in the associated download 'Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2020'. The data set shows the prevalence of total crime broken down by gender identity based on 6 months of CSEW data for the year ending March 2020. Sheets D1 and D3 show the breakdown by gender identity in column F."

"As violent crime is relatively rare, we were unable to publish prevalence estimates by gender identity because there were too few cases within those who identified as trans to produce reliable estimates. In addition, our disclosure policy is such that we do not generally release estimates for sensitive outcomes, such as violence or domestic abuse, based on less than three cases because of the potential for individuals to be identified. In this case, we do believe that the information is identifiable."

Does anyone know why this link was posted?

If I am reading this correctly, it points out that there is thankfully such a low % of violence against transgender people it is not reportable under FOI. And looking at the raw stats the survey this FOI uses had 144 out of 24317 respondents answer that they were trans. And 1.3% of those reported violence with injury. Meaning 2 people. So no wonder the FOI wouldn't say.

What was the point of posting this link? It contradicts the arguments about how this group is directly targeted for violence.

By the way, this is the link to the general survey webpage - it is an invited public survey. I don't think you can self-nominate to take it. You are then interviewed in person.

https://www.crimesurvey.co.uk/en/AboutTheSurvey.html

Either way, anyone got any ideas why this link was plopped down at 05.11 this morning? Maybe @Howseitgoin will tell us?

Correction, The 144 out of 24317 relates to the survey results for England and Wales, year ending March 2024

And it was 144 out of 24 461. It is still just below 0.006% of the respondents.

Sorry, I am trying to do too many things at once.

I am just posting the list of links that supposedly inform us why a group of male people should be included in female single sex spaces. This is to keep the fuckwittery clear:

Hate crimes

( 2 links to the same data set)

The Guardian "Record rise in hate crimes against transgender people reported in England and Wales" Thu 5 Oct 2023

which includes this "Increase of 11% in year ending March 2023 may be due to comments in media and by politicians, says Home Office".

https://archive.ph/WtKLd

Which relates to this data (and a link was also posted - meaning two links to the very same data)

Hate crime, England and Wales, 2022 to 2023 second edition
Updated 2 November 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

The figure 2.8 was highlighted by Howsa, but as pointed out this afternoon, this Violence of the Person data includes significantly, a whole lot of ‘non-physical violence’ data.

General crime rates against transgender people in the UK

(2 different links)

The Olga Suhomlinova and Saoirse C O’Shea research which pointed out this:

Evidence from the study using official statistics dating from 2021 revealed that while 0.5% of the population identify as transgender or non-binary, they represented just 0.2% of the prison population.

And

Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Trans Women & Trans Men
Another anomaly in the statistics is that while 96% of the cisgender prison population is male and 4% female, the trans prison population is 84% trans women and 16% trans men.

http://archive.today/VciGN

Then there was this Guardian article:

Trans people twice as likely to be victims of crime in England and Wales
17 July 2020

http://archive.today/GIloK

And this article was written using the information from the Crime survey up to March 2020. This survey had 63 respondents

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020#measuring-the-data

“Estimates of the likelihood of being a victim of crime for those whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth (trans or transgender) are based on a small base size of 63 and are therefore subject to lower reliability.”

There have been no other links to UK crime relating to people with transgender identities linked on this thread by this poster. Except Allsop’s medium article. And yet, we are told over and over and over that the data has been linked and we should read it.

Well, I have read it. The links don’t show any reason why a group of male people should have access to female single sex spaces.

It’s very revealing behaviour because their ‘movement’ appears to have more than its fair share of deviant people.

Damn

Still fitting this in with other stuff and missed 63 respondents who were transgender.

In the year ending March 2023, 4,732 hate crimes against transgender people were recorded – a rise of 11% on the previous year

What does this even mean when you have a nutter going around accusing people of hate crime for tweets which drop an a off a name?! Or using correct sex pronouns!!!

It's utterly meaningless.

An increase of 500 'hate crimes' in the space of a year could just theoretically be one or two militants on a mission to report certain people they don't like for absolutely everything they say.

Watching certain accounts over the space of just a couple of days, you start to think this is a plausible possibility given what they are saying.

Trans rights organisations actively encourage people to report anything which might possibly qualify as “hate crime”.

Made up shit.

That account is a trans identified male purporting to be a source of reliable “stats”. That claim was debunked by Louis Appleby, head of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness and independent government advisor.

“Conclusions

1. The data do not support the claim that there has been a large rise in suicide by young patients attending the gender services at the Tavistock since the High Court ruling in 2020 or after any other recent date. The figures for the 6 years covered in this review are 12 suicides in total, 2 per year on average, of whom half were under 18. With small numbers, single-figure differences can be expected and causal explanations are unreliable.

The patients who died were in different points in the care system, including post-discharge, suggesting no consistent link to any one aspect of care. They had multiple social and clinical risk factors for suicide. However, it is likely that there has been a rise over a longer period as young people at risk have increasingly presented with gender dysphoria and referrals to GIDS have risen. There is a degree of uncertainty about the deaths recorded as “suicide not confirmed”. It is possible that more information on these cases would result in amended figures for individual years but the numbers remain too small to affect my conclusions.

1. The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide. One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers - some of the responses on social media show this.

Another is identification, already-distressed adolescents hearing the message that “people like you, facing similar problems, are killing themselves”, leading to imitative suicide or self-harm, to which young people are particularly susceptible. Then there is the insensitivity of the “dead child” rhetoric. Suicide should not be a slogan or a means to winning an argument. To the families of 200 teenagers a year in England, it is devastating and all too real.

1. The claims that have been placed in the public domain do not meet basic standards for statistical evidence. To be reliable, evidence should be objective, unbiased and open to independent scrutiny. It should admit uncertainty.

Campaign groups are often selective about evidence - there is nothing wrong with this until it becomes misleading and potentially harmful. The evidence put into the public domain for an “explosion” of suicides is not unbiased nor has it been independently verified. There seems to be no suicide expertise behind the claims.

1. Suicide by any young person is a profound tragedy: it should be seen as an indictment of our society. Young people with gender dysphoria may well have experienced ostracism and abuse, and their distress is likely to be heightened if services are perceived as rejecting. It is unfortunate that puberty-blocking drugs have come to be seen as the touchstone issue, the difference between acceptance and non-acceptance. We need to move away from this perception among patients, staff and the public.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust

Thank you. It's posts like these encapsulating 'the' narrative that is very essence of why I'm interested in discussion forums.

Post truth & conspiricism are social phenomenas that particularly interest me given their corrosiveness to society. Nebulous strands with kernels of truth are woven by a combination of mental gymnastics & base fears into conduits designed to place doubt into standard modes of verification.

The goal here is a return to 'the cave': Reliance on emotion rather than logic. The crying call of many of these 'emotion' proponents (most famously Elon Musk & Trump) is 'don't believe anything unless you see it yourself' IE your senses. Discrediting the constitution of knowledge/institutions & their processes is particularity convenient for those attempting to avoid accountability.

White nationalist activists use it to deny black & ethnic data on hate crime as do Mens rights activists use it to deny data on crime against women. Police reporting as 'incompetent' or 'bias' or 'woke' can easily wave away data reliability that's probably just 'mean words' …cue Graham Linehan as 'proof'.

Convictions not being that high reflects the 'truth' of the 'lie' behind 90% of sexual assaults/hate crimes going unreported. Of course that people don't report crimes because they understandably can't deal with the justice process particularly when the likelihood of proving a crime is low or they simply don't attend public places for a justifiable fear of a hate crime is neither here not there.

The inconsistencies easily characterise these post truth evangelicals:

We are supposed to believe on one hand trans people are an existential threat to humanity where media demonising saturation is a necessary 'safe guard' & on the other: Who would ever raise a hand to such an inconsequential threat?

The threat is supposed to be so great that it necessitates the domination of social discourse & immediate government action for what is a minuscule community whose offence rate is so low its not statistically meaningful to draw any conclusions. But it's okay to discredit gender affirming care research for the same reason….'not enough people' as per Dr Cass.

Anyone pro trans must be enabler of misogyny but anyone who is pro women's spaces can't possibly be an enabler of misandry.

We are supposed to believe men are an ever present dangerous threat & therefore the necessity for private spaces & yet where sexual violence is substantially more likely: THE WORK PLACE doesn't necessitate such separation.

However, when research or police data confirms biases its 'real' evidence. Suddenly, institutional process is 'legitimate'. When science commentators confirm our bias its 'real' when not it's 'woke'. 'Woke' being the all purpose 'get out of jail free card'.

That's not all to say our institutional processes are without flaws hence the need for supporting evidence all of which points in a direction or not. I think of Dr Cass here & her decision to make an 'each way bet' on puberty blockers even tho she felt the evidence supporting it was 'low quality' as a consequence of the numbers of participants being so low as trans people are. She, understood that although any one study on their own was not enough, many pointed decisively in a direction where under strict research conditions were worth pursuing.

This is all to say, however you feel about trans people or the necessity of women's private spaces, the guiding principles you employ to pursue this cause aren't a zero sum game & can easily be weaponised against women by others.

We can give up our principles cheaply to win battles but we won't be winning any wars without them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegoryofthecave

I reported my rape. The police treated me appallingly. Not quite sure of the relevance of that in your wall of text, but I’m sure you’ll just laugh at me anyway.

I can’t sleep because I had a nightmare about my attack. I expect you’ll laugh at that too. I dreamt he slit my throat with a knife exactly where he put his hands and the blood ran down through my fingers all over the floor. When I passed out in the dream I woke up. But I’m sure you’ll laugh at that too. Coz it’s hilarious.

I still say no to men in women’s single sex spaces, as is my right in law, in the U.K..

Why do you have such a problem with that?

I hope you have access to some mental health support as soon as possible taztoy. I am sure you are aware that it is good to step away from any thread that causing trauma to reemerge.

All this to say that you hadn’t drilled into the link you posted and you were misusing the information to support an irrelevant point.

I think the general tone of this is “oh noes! The nasty wimmen just won’t give me what I want! So I will twist whatever they say into deniable conspiracy rather than address the substance and engage in good faith.”

And this is also a great reminder that you not only have little, if any, understanding of consent and safeguarding principles, it is coming across as if you strongly resent those principles.

All this post does is to remind me to say to whoever needs to hear it

‘If you are a male person in the UK, just follow the law and stay out of female single sex spaces’!

Oi sunshine

Prove your numbers come from a reliable source.

Provide actual evidence when asked to provide evidence

Howseitgoin · Yesterday 07:53
Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women’s prisons, of which seven appeared to be committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC. It is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC but the number of transgender prisoners with a GRC across all jails is thought to be in single figures.

See ^ here you proved that a UK judge recognised there were seven avoidable sexual assaults against women in the control of State.

So you proved that women have been harmed.

There is no statutory requirement that male and female prisoners be accommodated in different establishments, but rule 12(1) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides that –"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

See ^ there the UK State decided women held in its control should normally but not always not be protected from male rapists.

The Claimant says in her witness statement that she does not object to transgender women who are not violent, and are not sexual predators, being allocated to a women's prison. But, she says, she and other women are scared about transgender prisoners who have committed sexual offences against women being in the same prison as them. She says that J had been convicted of serious sexual offences against women, but was at the material time accommodated within the general population of the prison. The Claimant describes J as being of large build and masculine appearance.

This ^ is the State placing a male rapist (or want to be rapist) of women into a space women can not remove themselves from.

: “I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman [men] into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners [women] than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced. But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

This ^ is the Judge recognising these men whom the State force women into companionship with are a higher risk to women than other women are.

His waving the States figleaf of Ooo we did not realise that each man has a much higher risk of being a sex offender than women risk assessment is not working to excuse the State for failing in a basic duty to protect the women in its control.

And the fact that the Judge did not do maths

What can be said, however, is that data collected across the prison estate in March/April 2019 recorded the following:
i) There were 163 transgender prisoners, of whom 81 had been convicted of one or more sexual offences.
ii) 129 of those prisoners were allocated to the male estate, 34 to the female estate. Of the 129 in the male estate, 74 had been convicted of one or more sexual offences.
iii) Although no records are kept, the number of transgender prisoners with a GRC is thought to be very low: a single-figure total across the estate as a whole.

163-129=34
81-74=7
7/34=20.5

So 20.5% of the males held in the female estate have prior know convictions for sex offending

Again that is sex offending at a higher the male rate which was 18%

“This is all to say, however you feel about trans people or the necessity of women's private spaces, the guiding principles you employ to pursue this cause aren't a zero sum game & can easily be weaponised against women by others.”

The emotional manipulation is clear in the use of ‘zero sum’ and ‘weaponising’. If the attempts of “weaponising” are in the line of what this poster has done over the past two weeks with a short and repeated series of disconnected arguments, such as the workplace example that has been mentioned which relies on where someone misses the consent aspect, I think we are ok to keep pointing out safeguarding lapses.

And that in sex segregation for safeguarding there are not special exemptions for sub groups to allow male people into female single sex spaces (except for male people under 8).

This statement quoted, can be considered intimidatory. It is effectively saying “women be careful what you wish for or you suffer the consequences later”. Which is, intentional or not, just a version of the abuser’s code.

All this just because some male people feel enraged that their claims about themselves are not materially real and are therefore rejected.

I always felt that it was such an emotional toil for that brave woman to go through court, but I wish someone could have the standing to take the appeal further for her.

In the face of the Supreme Court clarification, this judgement was wrong.

No. Just no. Men are not allowed in female spaces. Deal with it.

Indeed, bloke arguing that a rape should be ignored because it (checks notes) will be used as a stick to beat wimmen.

‘If you are a male person in the UK, just follow the law and stay out of female single sex spaces’

“This is all to say, however you feel about trans people or the necessity of women's private spaces, the guiding principles you employ to pursue this cause aren't a zero sum game & can easily be weaponised against women by others.”

‘Don’t exclude us, you stupid women, or you will regret it!’

It cannot be clearer can it?

No wonder some men hate discussions about consent and safeguarding. They don’t like the ‘zero sum game’ aspect of ‘no, means no’ which is foundational to consent and robust safeguarding.

Has it become any clearer to you yet @Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks ? When someone tells women that they are ‘weaponising’ safeguarding, it is always someone who is trying to destabilise safeguarding because safeguarding is blocking something they want access to.