Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

But the standard is to be a single sex space it must be single sex.

A women's space has to be for women, not women and men who think they feel like women,
or women and men who say they are women
or women and men who have had lots of surgery to try to look like women,
Or women and men who aren't dangerous (my 82 year old neighbour is an absolute sweetheart, kind, polite, small, frail, totally non threatening probably at far greater risk from his fellow men than a 45 year old 6'3" transwoman but he doesn't get to use the ladies).

If transwoman aren't safe in men's spaces they need to tell men to be kiiiiiiiiind or campaign for separate spaces not remove women's right to single sex spaces.

Most of us don’t want men in women’s spaces. Not even if they write long essays, design apps or just really really want to. It’s still a no. Maybe just give up?

A public restroom has different risk calculations than a prison.
Medical Credentials would be for low-risk public areas.
If an individual has a history of kidnap, torture, or sexual violence, their risk profile remains incredibly high regardless of their endocrine levels. No actuarial equation would ignore a conviction record like that.
A high-security prison inmate doesn't fit to be used to dictate the policy for a public park restroom if the circumstances and policy are different. Self-ID by itself is not enough in the context of a prison.

@ArabellaScott
"Does Castration Stop Rapists?"

Actuarial risk isn't about achieving a mathematical zero. It is about measuring significant statistical reductions.
If a medical credential proves an intervention that suppresses risk to such a degree, it is the exact definition of an altered risk profile.
The actuarial assessment looks at the math: "This medical intervention drops the risk profile of even a convicted offender to between 0% and 10%, drastically altering the threat level compared to the baseline population."

That's a good breakdown of it

So are we supposed to make a rota of women to stand a the door of every public loo in the land and ask to see the lady certificate of any man trying to enter? Do you have any idea how that would go down with TRAs? Can you imagine why women wouldn't be up for this or indeed why we shouldn't have to. Even if the risk is zero what happens to the women who are triggered by male physiques or male voices or those women whose religion or culture bars them from sharing space with unrelated men. Or women like me who just say no. No. NO NO where do we go when we just wanna pee?

I think the rota at the doors of the public lavatories ought to be men. Big strong hairy men who are aware of women as human beings not support animals, and who would be angry about having to waste their time teaching perverts to perve off.

This guy is typing one handed at this point. He’s never had so much female attention in his life and can’t believe his luck

We don't need to do any calculations.

Men are not women.

Men can't become women, no matter what's going on in their heads or however much they really really want to be women.

Women's spaces are for women. All men need to stay out of them.

That's it. No men. Not even men with special lady feelz.

You are correct that absolute privacy introduces a different set of health and safety risks. If someone has a medical emergency in a fully enclosed stall, emergency access becomes an issue.
Recognizing that trade-off doesn't mean someone doesn't care about safety, but engaging in risk assessment.
Every structural design chooses which risks to mitigate and which to tolerate:
Standard stalls: Prioritize emergency medical access but compromise privacy.
Fully enclosed stalls: Prioritize absolute privacy but compromise emergency medical access.

I brought up the enclosed design because it neutralizes the specific threat of intrusion that is almost always the focal point of the issue.

If you think privacy is not an issue when only the female sex is using the bathroom, thus there is no trade-off for them, then that would be a fair point to bring up.

Men think it is the focal point of the issue. Women know that the issue is multi-faceted and that fully enclosed cubicles come with a whole other set of issues. You need to stop trying to find ways to justify men in women's spaces and listen to us when we say no.

@ArabellaScott
"The Dhejne study you seem to have missed"

I already agreed to such findings, in a comment before the one you're replying to

The issue of "intrusion" when there are the safer, standard stalls (which allow the victim of a seizure or heart attack to be seen from outside to be on the floor, so that the victim's life can be saved) does not in the main exist if men stay the expletive out of places where they are not wanted and not allowed. As a general rule women don't put cameras under doors to film other women taking a piss.

The law says no men in women's single sex spaces. Just obey the law. It's not even slightly hard to understand, and certainly doesn't require a shedload of actuarial gobbledegook.

Thank you. You now understand why there is a compromise with safety for anyone at their most vulnerable. Medical emergencies are more common than people realise in toilets. It’s where people go when they feel they are going to vomit or empty their bowels quickly. The latter can be a sign of cardiac arrest. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on a toilet.
I saved the life of a young woman who had choked on her vomit precisely because of a 15cm floor to door gap.

I brought up the enclosed design because it neutralizes the specific threat of intrusion that is almost always the focal point of the issue.

Now to look at this bit you said. Have a think why you are wrong on this.

That's an interesting catch. No idea how that even happens

If the sex of a perpetrator may have been falsified by the police, as has been the case for a while now, there would be little point in the stat, would there.

At the point at which rape can be put in the record as having been committed by a woman, even though in this country rape requires a penis to commit it and women do not have penises, that set of statistics becomes meaningless.

That is the exact quote
The abstract states the overall homicide rate for transgender individuals is less than that of normal individuals.
Because biological men make up the overwhelming majority of global homicide victims, for the overall trans rate to be lower than the general normal average, it must logically be significantly lower than the baseline male rate.

As you highlighted, for young Black and Latina transfeminine individuals, the rate is higher than their biological female comparators.

When you put those two data points together, it tells us that this demographic occupies a completely unique actuarial space.
Their risk profile for victimization is demonstrably higher than the baseline female rate, but significantly lower than the baseline male rate.

Fucking hell did you really just use 'normal' to mean not trans?

I wonder if the splintery rolling pin threats will be in coming or if there is something about you that will protect you from them 🤷‍♀️?

It is not just about the “risk profile”.

It is about how many women feel (given how vulnerable we are to assault by any man who decides he wants to hurt us) at the sight of a male person in women’s protected spaces.

Why should we have to feel on edge like that? Why should we have to second guess if a male has had his “actuarial risk” assessed and deemed acceptable ?

WHY SHOULD WE? Women campaigned for women’s toilets AND prisons AND domestic violence refuges for obvious reasons of dignity, privacy and safety.

Just because MEN can’t organise themselves to welcome gender non-conforming men with some respect and tolerance it is suggested that VULNERABLE MEN CAN JUST USE THE WOMEN’S SPACES AS A REFUGE WITHOUT FUCKING ASKING WOMEN OR CONSIDERING OUR NEEDS.

Women have said no. Fuck off and sort yourselves out. Trans women are MEN. Men need to grow up and take this on. It is not women’s problem to solve. Campaign for 3rd spaces for vulnerable men. But don’t casually assume you can have ours - we need them to be single sex for bloody good reasons. WOMEN ARE NOT SUPPORT ANIMALS FOR VULNERABLE MEN, WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS IN OUR OWN RIGHT.

And for men who want to be in there because dressing as a women and being in women’s spaces validates them and gives them a hard-on, they can fuck off even more. WOMEN ARE NOT BIT PART PLAYERS IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD.

And please stop with the patronising mansplaining up and down this thread.

We already know what the evidence says, we know we are right. We don’t need you to confirm this with a pronouncement of your blessing and approval. Do you think there are no women here with higher education in science, maths and everything else? We are not stupid. But you still don’t understand this whole shitting situation from a woman’s point of view, because you don’t listen.

It is not just about the “risk profile”.

That's a fair critique
I appreciate the way you did the actuarial risk assessment

Whenever someone says we don't need the no-no word, that's the alternative they ask for, so that's why I used it

Good luck with that.

Just women is fine, we aren't a subset.

This whole thread is about the essay
The blog doesn't go into whether trans women should be in women's spaces, even concedes a lot of points, instead, it only goes into the way debates about it work.
I think it's fair to talk about my interpretation of it, I'm open to critiques, as I think I've shown, and I tell someone if I agree with them because that's how I believe debating in good faith works

Do you realise how much you come across as a Men’s Rights Activist to most women on this thread, @MedicalConsensus? We weren’t born yesterday.

@MoistVonL

"makes perfect sense because male on male violence is the biggest issue."
If their risk profile was simply reflecting standard baseline male violence, their homicide rates would align neatly with men. But the full study actually tests this exact assumption by running the estimates against male comparators as well.
For example, the study notes that 6 of 12 estimates for young Black transfeminine residents actually give a lower homicide rate than the rate for all young Black male residents.
For Latina transfeminine residents, 6 of 12 estimates also give a lower homicide rate than that for all young Latino male residents. Furthermore, the study explicitly notes that overall, "transgender residents may have been at lower risk for homicide than were normal residents".
Which is why you cannot map this cohort 1:1 onto the baseline "male" risk category, just as you cannot map them 1:1 onto the baseline "female" risk category. They occupy a statistically distinct actuarial space.