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.

Gah, I hate it when I write out a post and I forget to add part of my point by the time it get to where I should add it:

NO! The closet comparison is other men because they’re all male and we don’t have any qualms about treating all the other men that way.

I think they believe that they are enlightening people. They are, but not in the way they want to.

If that "gotcha" is true then having mens and womens facilities at all is equally equivalent to racism and we shouldn't have any division because its insulting to all men to be treated as if their presence creates an elevated risk for women - after all, the vast majority of men are nonviolent, honourable and no threat to women. But we know that some are not - the violent, the creepy, the predators - they exist and are a real threat.

There is no point at all having a division between mens and womens facilities that any male who wishes to is allowed into the womens side and no one is allowed to complain. It doesn't matter if the majority of males who benefit from that are nonviolent and no threat. It is 100% guaranteed that the creepy predators will and do take advantage of having carte blanche to ignore anything that suggests no men beyond this point if culture says that simply the words "but I'm not a man" have to be believed.

Don't forget that it's also transphobic to have any kind of barriers or standards in terms of medication/testosterone, surgery, or clothing, for a transwoman to qualify as a woman under the TWAW. An unmedicated TW with no surgery is just as much allowed to wear jeans and a t-shirt as any woman is.

It's muddled and irrational thinking without a coherent set of statements that hold it together. I've seen the memes being disparaging and sarcastic about "oh yes of course I've undergone years of therapy and difficult expensive treatment in order to (whatever)" but that conveniently ignores that the same ideological framework upholds that no therapies or treatments are required and a TW who doesn't have a hope of "passing" shouldn't be treated any differently from one who has made great efforts towards passing.

Your relative doesn't understand that admitting transwomen is legally and practically the same as admitting any male of any gender identity who wants to come in, and that will include some very dangerous ones. They are dismissing this because deep down they believe that the status of "woman" is so ignominious and shamefully low in the hierarchy of humanity that no male would ever claim it with any kind of ulterior motive, because the shame and debasement required would be sufficient barrier to stop a dangerous man from claiming that status.

Patronising man attempts to shut down debate by shouting 'bigot' !
It seems they think we haven't heard this all before- it's tiresome isn't it...

Yes. And it happens a lot, particularly the patronising.

But for what it's worth, I have only been called 'bigot' by women, for refusing to behave as if men can become women. On the whole, in my (admittedly limited) experience, women have been much more inclined to put 'kindness' above truth and justice than men. I could point to dishonourable exceptions among men. I'm pretty sure this is a result of socialisation to elevate kindness above all other virtues.

Try telling an assembly of muslim women that it is fine and totally safe and comfortable to be around the vast majority of muslim men while they undress or when they are pre-occupied with their biological function.

Get real!

Everyone - regardless of race or creed or nationality understands the differnces between male and female and why women require single sex facilities in certain sorts of situation.

There is a definite tendency, even for those who claim to be woman centred feminists, to assume that a 'muslim' is a man. Women are just after thoughts and not real citizens at all.

but that conveniently ignores that the same ideological framework upholds that no therapies or treatments are required and a TW who doesn't have a hope of "passing" shouldn't be treated any differently from one who has made great efforts towards passing.

Or indeed a man who decided last Tuesday that he might be non-binary, or just that he prefers to use some toilets more than others.

They are dismissing this because deep down they believe that the status of "woman" is so ignominious and shamefully low in the hierarchy of humanity that no male would ever claim it with any kind of ulterior motive, because the shame and debasement required would be sufficient barrier to stop a dangerous man from claiming that status.

Nailed it.

I object to woman being a status, one can achieve a status, one can't achieve womanhood other than by being female.

I think it helps to understand why people think this way.

It's an idea typically they have had drilled into them with regard to other topics. So, even if black men commit a larger percentage of murders in the US, it's not ok to subject them to extra police scrutiny. That kind of thing.

For a lot of people that is a tightly held, foundational belief.

So you need to be able to tell them why this is not the same. And usually, the numbers aren't an effective argument. Because it's the principle that they care about, no matter what the numbers.

One thing that's worth considering is that it's not just about risk or even perceived risk. There are also things like we privacy. I think a lot of it is really about the nature of human sexuality. We don't want people shagging in their either.

You appear to 'need help' countering this accurate comparison because you can't. Stereotyping is stereotyping regardless of the fact that instances do occur.

And you would think that this would be obvious to gender critical supporters given one of their major grievances is the stereotyping of women's behaviour.

Can't have it both ways.

Oh for heaven's sake.

Some men, not all are a threat to women. We don't know which ones, so we have some single sex spaces for women only.

Some men who identify as women, not all, are a threat to women. We don't know which ones, so it is not appropriate for men who identify as women to use single sex women's spaces either.

Nobody seems to have any trouble understanding the first proposition, but
somehow the second continually gets twisted into "you are stereotyping transwomen as a threat".

I call bullshit. The people who do this understand perfectly well what gender-critical women are saying (and not saying) but deliberately misrepresent it.

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread but are we calling trans women "trans identified male" now? I find that so confusing.

Not new, we've been calling them "TIM"s for years and years now (perhaps moreso on the old r/gendercritical subreddit before it got the ban hammer, on Ovarit before it died, and now it's successor Vexxed). And the trans identifed women are called "TIF"s. Appropriately, they sound like gendered names of their sex.

Tbf, @TransParentlyAnnoyed 's argument is actually in support of made-up stuff, so she has nowhere to go but through it.

I agree. I spoke to a male friend about this once. Super smart guy. The very idea that a man would identify as a women, makes him "not a man" in his eyes. In a "banished from the tribe" kind of way. I believe it comes from a deeply held (but usually unacknowledged) belief that women are lesser than men. This same man has a wife and a daughter so would argue vehemently that he loves women, and maybe he loves some, and i think he does have genuine respect for me, but there's a cognitive dissonance there that I just can't quite explain. I don't pretend to understand how men think, but his comment about trans-identifying men gave me pause for thought.

The problem with this oversimplified analysis is it assumes all males offend at the same rates & they don't. Poorer, younger, straight men offend at higher rates than older, wealthier or gay men. In fact some studies show, lesbians offend at higher rates than gay men. And it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about the incarceration rate of trans women given their low numbers are statistically insignificant. Its the same as saying all muslims present an elevated risk to terrorism & should be banned from immigration when they don't.

And let's not forget the division of facilities is more about the differing requirements like urinals although we seem to cope fine on airlines, in cafes, restaurants, theatres & even in our own homes with unisex facilities.

By this "elevated risk" logic men & women have no business ever being alone together outside of a relationship including the work place given the substantial elevated risk women face from sexual harassment.

Do you even realize that the more you utter this kind of nonsense in response to a woman who just doesn't want to change in front of a male, the more I think "Oh, well, then transphobic I am, oh dear how sad never mind" ? It. Doesn't. Work. Anymore.

It's even quite counterproductive actually.

There are 245 trans identifying men in prison in the uk, which is absolutely enough for meaningful statistical comparisons to be made.

In fact there are nearly as many trans identifying men in prison in the UK as there are convicted women (actual women) in prison in the whole of Scotland.

High Court of England & Wales rules numbers statistically insignificant.

"Holroyde said the statistics were too low and had insufficient detail to provide a safe basis for conclusions, adding: “I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners 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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

I'd reply that no one GC is suggesting that Transwomen be treated more harshly than all other males (although frankly sometimes I begin to wonder...). We just ask they be treated the same, because they are males.

Whereas it's widely suggested on the right that Muslims be singled out and treated more harshly than other humans, eg with respect to asylum requests.

Although one could argue that the judges who let Afghans off for raping little girls because they didn't know it to be wrong are doing exactly the same as those who claim TWAW (treating a subcategory more leniently because of a sacred woke characteristic).

Well in this country we are supposed to have the legal protection of single sex spaces. Which is there to protect women, not just their safety but also their dignity. So the law thinks this is necessary.

We don’t however have legal apartheid because that’s not necessary.

Why? It’s the literal, accurate truth. They are not women in any way, they are males who identify as trans. You can use TIM for short.

Holroyde was not commenting on the number of trans identifying men in prison.

you said “ it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about the incarceration rate of trans women given their low numbers are statistically insignificant.”

That’s not correct. 62% of the trans identifying men in prison in the uk were convicted for sexual crimes. That is easily significant when the sample size is 250.

By contrast the number of women in Scotland in prison for sexual offences is too small to be statistically significant.

it is clear that trans-identifying men have a very different offending profile to women.

which is not surprising, because they are not women.

Are you saying because males and females share a toilet at home we should let males into women’s prisons? You win batshit comment of the week.
why are you so invested in trying to convince people mixed sex prisons are good? Because if there’s no great danger to women when men put on a dress, why don’t we make all prisons mixed sex but just make the men wear dresses? Because that is the only difference between a TIM and a non TIM. What they wear. Both men, both statistically proven to be of the same danger to women.

two TIM rapists have been convicted this week. Should they go into female prison? If not, why not?