I have a family member whose “gotcha” response to the trans debate is that treating trans identified men as potential threats is exactly the same as racists who say that all Muslims are terrorists.

[tetherabumfit]

Just this really. Patronising man informing silly woman that she is bigoted in the same way a racist is.

How do I counter this in a rational, reasonable way? I’m sick of being smugly informed that I’m no better than a racist.

@EmailsaysOOOI think I do, yes, until there is evidence to the contrary. I’m in my sixties and have unfortunately experienced a few wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Thank you to everyone who’s commented so far, it’s really helpful.

Frankly with that kind of a bore I'd be smiling sweetly and finding that I had something very very urgent to do somewhere else away from him. I'll take the Reeves approach: 2+2 make 5? Certainly. Enjoy. Bye bye now. But if you want to...

I'd start with why he thinks women's single sex facilities exist in the first place? Does he feel that those should be ended because treating men as potential threats are wrong? Or is there something in there about privacy and dignity? How does he feel about women's entitlement to that?

Should that entitlement be overriden by a man's desire to be present with a woman as she undresses, requires a strip search, post rape exam, etc? What is it about him Y chromosome, dick, obvs that makes him a more important kind of human being than her? Is it some biological born duty to women to sacrifice themselves for others? Let the misogyny roll.

What shall we do with the women who cannot use mixed sex spaces? If he digs out the revolting racist/xenophobic/religious intolerant stuff at this point that such women just need to stop all that nonsense and be like him, I'd frankly let him rant and get it all out in front of everyone (but you have him if he then tries the 'ner ner, women who want rights and privacy are extremist right wing' silliness)

It's not about men being a threat, it's about men with gender identities being no different in any other way to other men, and women having an entitlement to not have to subordinate themselves to a man's personal belief system (which, unfortunately, proven by law many times is sometimes 'this is a really cool way to enjoy a sexual thrill/access victims').

I don't care if a man is Jack the Ripper or has just been awarded sainthood. I don't care if it's his deep and sincere belief or his fetish. It's not my problem. I want and need sex based spaces, services and resources, because that is my access need and my life does not revolve around what may or may not be happening between a man's ears or what efforts he's gone to with medication or surgery. I absolutely want him to have accessible provision and whatever else he needs alongside, I want answers that work for everybody. But I will not be setting myself or other women on fire to keep him warm.

Smug bloke can smug off. And let's face it you could go straight to the jugular here and stop all the messing around: just inquire why he is so enjoying the thought of distressed, non consenting women being forced to submit to men in their spaces. Is that something he finds exciting?

But don’t all TIM think all men are a potential threat also? Otherwise they’d be fine using male spaces wouldn't they? Isn’t one of the reasons they need to use female spaces the fact they are scared of using men’s spaces and will be safer in the women’s?

Have you tried saying to him "No, its the same as including Muslim men alongside all the other men who are not allowed in women's toilets."

Or: "It's the same as including Muslims alongside all the other air travellers when airport security checks are made."

I.e. it isn't bigoted to treat all men, or all travellers, equally.

They aren't being treated differently to any other man.

Perhaps your friend could argue that it's sexist to suggest that men are a potential threat to women, but then you should point them towards crime statistics.

Yes.

Im 43, 5ft 8, 145lb and of standard fitness. I could stand my own against most women but I would be easily overpowered by any male over about 12 years old. My 12 ye old daughter can lift me and move me against my will if she puts enough effort in.

we know that the vast majority of physical/sexual crimes against women are committed by men.

So yes all men are a threat until you can assess that you are reasonably sure they aren’t the

I did a wee bit of googling.

Do you know the only crime where women are guilty in the majority of cases?

TV Licence evasion.

Men have us beat on every other crime.

Do you know why 74% of tv licence evasion prosecutions are female? Three reasons:

1. Women are more likely to be the one that opens the door to the inspectors.

2. Women are more likely to be responsible for a household’s admin.

3. A much higher proportion of women are in severe financial distress than men.

So yes, everyone treats all men as a potentially violent threat. Because they are.

It has to be a short reply to him, I think there are two good approaches:

1. Either women getting changed around men is safe or not, if it's safe then there's no reason TW can't be in the men's
2. You don't get to play that card whilst arguing for a policy that will have a huge impact on Muslim women and their ability to access single sex spaces.

Male people are responsible for all rapes and nearly all sexual assaults. It's the maleness that is the risk factor. This is the reasoning for employing risk reduction matters based on sex.

If this person thinks that Muslims - or any race, religion, football team or star sign - are responsible for nearly all terrorist attacks then I'd like to see the evidence.
People believing that they are, aren't doing it based on the evidence.

Ask him if he understands the difference between the two, and perhaps you can work from that.

Ok..I know some will say I am privileged and obviously statistics show more men commit violent and sexual crimes than women. But I still don't regard all men as potential threats. Because most men, as far as I'm aware, do not commit violent and/or sexual crimes. Anyway I am bowing out of this debate. But please do consider what it means to say all men are potential threats but not all ( or any ) women..

Let's rewind

When we go to the airport, why do we all get searched if it's wildly awful to assume that some people might harm us? Why how very dare they be unkind and presume our guilt until we are proven innocent at security!

Why do we have passports? Are they racist? Or are they part of a worldwide legal framework which protects interests in multiple ways? Are they just about keeping people out? Or are they are about providing legal assistance and benefits whilst abroad?

Why do we have single sex toilets? Are they sexist? Or do they fulfill a particular purpose? Or multiple purposes? Why are they recommended in parts of the world in refugee camps or high levels of sex based violence by the same charities that wave trans flags about? Why is there are different in these charities policies? Is this policy difference based on race? Are they racist? Why are they suggesting that women in the west shouldnt have the same facilities as women in the third world?

What is the impact on certain religious groups to allow, indeed insist on "gender neutral" sorry mixed sex toilet facilities? Does this have the unintended consequences of preventing them from being able to use them? Is this indirect discrimination?

Shall we do an impact assessment on changing single sex facilities to mixed sex ones? How many toilets can men use? How many toilets can women use? Who needs the most toilets, men or women? Is there a difference between how long men and women take in the toilet? If so, why is that?

Joanne was John last week at work, but now she's transitioned everyone immediately has to refer to her as Joanne. Joanne is still waiting for her first appointment but has changed all her social media and clothes. Joanne has never committed any crime. At what point does John become Joanne? Has John changed sex?

Joanne has a beard and penis. Joanne's colleagues are unhappy because she keeps asking them about their breasts and bras sizes. If John did this he would be pulled up by HR. Instead Joanne has complained to HR because the women are avoiding her and walking to the other side of the building to use different toilets to her.

Next week your daughter is going swimming at the same leisure centre as Joanne. Are you happy with this? Are you going to tell your daughter off if she tells you Joanne is wearing her out?

It’s an interesting point. Probably the first interesting point I have had that makes some sense.

But I don’t think it’s a gotcha. If you look at immigration threads you will see many do think we should be wary of those coming from Islamic countries. Just another can of worms.

So who would you rather babysit your small daughter? A random man or a random woman? No reason why the man should be a greater threat, right?

There is a sexual assault every 35 seconds in England and Wales and a rape every few minutes.

Studies which asked British men to self report sexual aggression come out about 1 in 20.

So yes you are very very fortunate.

The bit you are missing though is “potential”.

Not every man is a threat, every man is potentially a threat.

If I offer you a sweetie from a bowl of 100 skittles and tell you that 5 of them are poisoned, would you take one?

Of course not. 95 of those sweeties are perfectly fine but you don’t risk it because you can’t tell which ones

My Dad, DH, and DS are all lovely men. I know women would be safe with them - but you don’t.

So my Dad, DH and DS quite happily stay out of the few spaces that society has agreed should be single sex. Mostly those spaces where women are undressed or vulnerable.

They pose no risk to the women those spaces but at least 1 in 20 of their sex do.

The easiest way to keep women safe from harm is to keep men away when they are undressed or vulnerable. All men, regardless of clothes, body modifications or internal feelings.

You are familiar with the successful terrorist attacks committed by white British men? Murdered Parliamentarians by far right activists to say the least. Are we "terrorist rich"?

We aren't calling them a threat, we are saying they can't come into spaces or do certain activities that are exclusively for women.

Same as we can't go to men's shed, the prostate cancer survival service, to have a Prince Albert piercing, to go to a men's prison or join a men's sports team.

Men in dresses are men. They are biologically the same as any other men. Their threat to women is at least the same as other men.

What on earth would be the justification for letting this one, distinct group of men into our spaces?

What do you think it means to consider all men as a potential threat? Given you have asked us to please consider this, I assume you think it is a bad thing.

Potential is the word. The statistics are unarguable. If you are going to be attacked, it is about 50 times more likely to be done by a man than a woman. Additionally, they are far stronger. Therefore, we treat unknown men as a potential threat in isolated situations until we know that person and make a character judgement. (Which we sometimes get wrong).__

Most men are quite accepting that this is how women have to regard unknown men out of necessity.

What you feel on this issue is of no consequence though. You do not get to consent on behalf of other women who do want their rights to single sex spaces upheld.

You understand that, right?

I think I'd like him to supply his data on this,

For example what percentage of threats to women and girls are carried out by men and what percentage of terrorism is carried out by muslims.

Then we can discuss.

But please do consider what it means to say all men are potential threats but not all ( or any ) women..

Is anyone actually making this argument? Or is it just easier to pretend that they are?

Every decision we ever make is risk assessed, most of that assessment is sub-conscious and instinctual. I don’t walk around quaking in my boots at the sight of every man, but if I’m going into a multi-story car park after dark and there’s a lone man in the lift I’ll wait for the next one or use the stairs, and I wouldn’t go for a jog round the park at night either.

At about 13/14 years old we had a half term of PE lessons where the girls and boys were split up. In one lesson the boys got a talk about erections, body hair and wet dreams, the girls got a talk about periods, pregnancy and presented with our very own tampax freebie. In another lesson the boys got a talk about respect and consent, the girls got a self defence lesson where we learned how to break a hold if someone grabs you by the throat or wrist, to carry our keys in our hands, to walk with purpose, stay in well lit areas and remain aware of surroundings at all times. When I worked late shifts in a call centre the women were all issued rape alarms, we were advised to walk back to our cars in groups, to lock the car door once we get in.

I don’t believe you when you say that you don’t regard all men as potential threats. It may not be at the forefront of your mind but I feel confident saying that if you were staying in a hostel and had the choice between rooming with a woman you’d never met or a man you’d never met, you’d choose the woman.

I AM considering it, and I think it means that there's a quite extreme statistical difference in risk and strength (highlighted above), that women's awareness of this keeps them safer, and that the degree to which a woman experiences this emotionally (from indifference, through considered caution, up to genuine fear/panic/trauma) reflects her personal experiences of male aggression and violence - how "privileged" she's been, to use Email's own word.

What I don't understand is what Email thinks it means. I'm not being facetious, I really don't, Email. The way you phrase this - "Please consider..." etc. - suggests you think the answer's rhetorical, that it's obvious. It quite honestly isn't to me. Could you come back and tell us what it means to you?

I'm assuming the answer will be something to do with prejudice, but prejudice is 1) irrational (this isn't - besides the many figures above, look at the stats for how many women have suffered male abuse and violence, and our near-100% vulnerability should a male but choose to attack) and 2) manifested in maltreatment of some kind (I'd say women's hidden wariness, & our preference for - for example - the back seat in a taxi over the front by the driver etc.) simply doesn't fit this definition.

So... what does it mean to you?

Edited for clarity.

I tbink the key word here is ‘potential’ and it’s context specific.

Knowing nothing about a man except that he is male, is he a potential threat in a specific situation? Yes. That is why some services are single sex.

However, nobody is suggesting that eg supermarkets should be single sex.