Trans rights: a perspective

[Nearly Sane]

Commentary on the commentary of the Maya Forstater (sacked for saying men cannot become women)  tribunal mentioned earlier.


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1196754856645709825.html

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that today's is the Transgender Day of Remembrance. While I have issue with some of the movement and the numbers that might be seen here in terms of determining danger, it remains true that 1 murder for this is too many. I will refrain from posting on this topic today other than this.

https://www.unison.org.uk/article/2019/10/transgender-day-remembrance-20-november/

[jeremyp]

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.  They identified that there are biological differences between males and females, and instituted a segregate sporting category for females. Entry into that category is determined by biological/medical tests which identify (with varying degrees of success) sex, and that makes the intent and the actual segregation sex-based; this is in contrast to things like which toilet people use, where there are no medical tests, there is a self-identification gender test.

Your implication was that it was the nature of the tests which led to the segregation being based on sex rather than gender. i.e. the segregation based on sex was  caused by  the nature of the tests.

You help people to understand that someone being a 'biological male' doesn't make them a man

Would that it were so simple.

I think the issue is deeply ingrained because men have been doing bad things to women since the beginning of history - probably before and I think some of the reasons why are physiological: greater size and strength and more testosterone. As long as there are men and women, some women are going to be uncomfortable sharing certain spaces with men.

[Nearly Sane]

Another good piece from James Kirkup


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Nearly Sane]

This

https://rdln.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/to-advance-civil-rights-oppose-transgender-extremism/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Nearly Sane]

And on the LDs


http://archive.is/mHYzA

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And on the LDs


http://archive.is/mHYzA

Yes - as a woman I decided I definitely wasn't voting Lib Dem after I saw the Newsnight interview with Sarah Wallaston. She refused to acknowledge that it was reasonable for women to be concerned about the danger to women from giving a blanket freedom to any man to self-identify as a woman that then allowed him access to female-only spaces. She could only focus on the needs of transgender people to the exclusion of the needs of women to feel safe from men who weren't transgender but could self-identify as trans in order to gain access to women.

She was asked about the danger to women from men with an urge to commit criminal sexual acts against women and just said if there was evidence that a person was dangerous they would be restricted - presumably after they had finished attacking a woman to provide that evidence. Her attitude was that the danger to women had been exaggerated.

She had no interest in discussing stats e.g. all the voyeuristic men and the male criminals who currently have the urge (that doesn't seem to be similarly statistically present in women) to sneak into women's showers and toilets to secretly plant cameras and illegally film women, to molest women etc who would be able to exploit and have easier access to victims due to the gender self-identity rules. 

So Labour or Tory...based on their stance on transgender not much difference it would seem.

[jeremyp]

She was asked about the danger to women from men with an urge to commit criminal sexual acts against women and just said if there was evidence that a person was dangerous they would be restricted - presumably after they had finished attacking a woman to provide that evidence. Her attitude was that the danger to women had been exaggerated.

How do you tell if a man is dangerous to women before he has attacked a woman?

I have no evidence but my speculation is that a trans woman in a male prison is in more danger that the women in a female prison are from a trans woman, unless that trans woman is in there for committing a violent crime, especially a sexual one.

She had no interest in discussing stats e.g. all the voyeuristic men and the male criminals who currently have the urge (that doesn't seem to be similarly statistically present in women) to sneak into women's showers and toilets to secretly plant cameras and illegally film women, to molest women etc who would be able to exploit and have easier access to victims due to the gender self-identity rules.

What are the stats?

The reality is that it has never been about actual danger - at least with respect to public bathrooms. It's always been about how people feel about certain situations. Probably only about 1% of the population is trans sexual. That means only about one person out of every hundred you come across in a public toilet is a trans woman. Of that one percent, only a fraction is likely to be there for voyeuristic reasons. So the chance that the person in the next cubicle is there to perv is really quite small.

However, that's not the point. The point is that some women get uncomfortable by having what they thought of as a female only space invaded by people with penises. No amount of me telling them that their fears are virtually unfounded is going to help and they would not be wrong to point out that trans women only want to use women's bathrooms because they get uncomfortable at having to use the men's room.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How do you tell if a man is dangerous to women before he has attacked a woman?

My impression from the interview was that Sarah Wallaston wanted someone to be attacked by the self-identifying man before the authorities should be allowed to conclude that that particular man who was self-identifying as a woman in order to gain access to potential female victims was a threat that would warrant him being denied access. 

What are the stats?

The reality is that it has never been about actual danger - at least with respect to public bathrooms. It's always been about how people feel about certain situations. Probably only about 1% of the population is trans sexual. That means only about one person out of every hundred you come across in a public toilet is a trans woman. Of that one percent, only a fraction is likely to be there for voyeuristic reasons. So the chance that the person in the next cubicle is there to perv is really quite small.

However, that's not the point. The point is that some women get uncomfortable by having what they thought of as a female only space invaded by people with penises. No amount of me telling them that their fears are virtually unfounded is going to help and they would not be wrong to point out that trans women only want to use women's bathrooms because they get uncomfortable at having to use the men's room.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities. Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

Sarah Wallaston seems to be saying that as the reported numbers are not very high in the current single-sex environment, we can assume these stats will not change once men can self-identify and gain access to single-sex spaces and therefore the threat to women is being exaggerated.

Or she seems to be saying the number of attacks on women is an acceptable level of risk in order that people who genuinely feel they have a particular gender specific 'essence' (though there is no scientific evidence that this essence exists) can have their essence enforced and recognised by law. As I've argued before, to me it's a bit like people believing they have a soul or immaterial spiritual essence and other people being forced by law to accept that the individual's experience and labelling of this soul is a factual reality. The alternative to enforcing acceptance of someone's gender 'essence' or their soul is that we could humour people and respect their beliefs in and experiences of their gender 'essence' or 'soul' while asking for objective evidence that the gender 'essence' or soul exists. 

The issue is not about men who genuinely identify as women but about the threat of men pretending to identify as women using the self-identity route to gain access to female victims. In this scenario you would not know that the men are not genuine or have benign intentions until they have proved otherwise by actually attacking a woman. Presumably we started the policy of single-sex spaces in certain defined areas rather than adopting a policy of innocent until proven guilty in order to try to minimise the risk of attack to women because women were getting attacked? What's the justification for changing that policy now?   

[wigginhall]

Is the policy being changed now?  I thought it changed in 2010, with the Equality Act.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is the policy being changed now?  I thought it changed in 2010, with the Equality Act.

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to reform the Gender Recognition Act in their election manifesto, so it no longer includes a requirement for medical reports to be submitted to get a GRC. This makes it easier to obtain a GRC, which is the legal recognition of your gender. There seems to be ambiguity around the interaction between a GRC and the Equality Act exemptions for excluding trans people from single-sex services. The onus seems to be on someone manning reception at a business to know the complex issues involved and make a decision on a case by case basis - they run the risk of either causing the business to end up in court for discrimination and the prohibitive legal fees that entails or  allowing a woman to be attacked by a male criminal pretending to self-identify as a woman . That seems a ridiculous state of affairs to me. The lawyers cannot agree on the outcome of changing the law regarding GRCs.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

You are allowed to provide single-sex services (services just for men or just for women) where this is objectively justified and:

• the services may be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman
  might reasonably object to the presence of a man (or vice versa), or
  
  the services may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that
  other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should
treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents
(as opposed to the sex recorded at birth), as it is unlawful to discriminate against someone
because of gender reassignment. Although a business can exclude a transsexual person
or provide them with a different service, this is only if it can objectively justify doing so.
A business may have a policy about providing its service to transsexual users, but this
policy must still be applied on a case-by-case basis. It is necessary to balance the needs
of the transsexual person for the service, and the disadvantage to them if they are refused
access to it, against the needs of other users, and any disadvantage to them, if the
transsexual person is allowed access. To do this may require discussion with service
users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in
each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice.
Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from
someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their
acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so.
Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition
Certificate (if they have one) as evidence of their legal sex. If a business requires proof of
a person’s legal sex, then their birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Has the case of the transgender person who wanted a Brazilian wax from specifically female beauticians already been posted on here? They needed a court to settle this.

“No woman should be compelled to touch male genitalia against her will,” irrespective of identification, Jay Cameron, Justice Centre litigation manager said in a statement.

"Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that human rights legislation does not oblige a beautician to wax genitalia they have not consented or had training to wax."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transgender-woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

[jeremyp]

My impression from the interview was that Sarah Wallaston wanted someone to be attacked by the self-identifying man before the authorities should be allowed to conclude that that particular man who was self-identifying as a woman in order to gain access to potential female victims was a threat that would warrant him being denied access. 

How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?

Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities. Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.

All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.

Presumably we started the policy of single-sex spaces in certain defined areas rather than adopting a policy of innocent until proven guilty in order to try to minimise the risk of attack to women because women were getting attacked?

No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.

What's the justification for changing that policy now?

In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.

[Nearly Sane]

How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?

Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.
That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.

All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.
No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.
In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.

What are transwomen? The issue with self ID is that there is only self definition which means every one can be a transwoman.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?

How do we know the person being given access to vulnerable women really is a trans woman and not a man pretending to be a trans woman?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapist-karen-white-in-women-s-jail-was-trans-faker-lbcwjp8jc

Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.
That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.   

All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.
No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.
In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.

Embarrassment is certainly one issue but I am more concerned by safety issues. I think that in the current toxic political climate it is misogyny when the feelings of someone having gender identity issues trumps the risks to women, given that anyone can self-identify. I can't support misogyny in order to alleviate transphobia. 

[jeremyp]

What are transwomen?

Biological males who identify as women.

The issue with self ID is that there is only self definition which means every one can be a transwoman.

I'm sure there must be a legal definition but I don't know what it is.

[jeremyp]

How do we know the person being given access to vulnerable women really is a trans woman and not a man pretending to be a trans woman?

That doesn't answer my question.

Embarrassment is certainly one issue but I am more concerned by safety issues. I think that in the current toxic political climate it is misogyny when the feelings of someone having gender identity issues trumps the risks to women, given that anyone can self-identify. I can't support misogyny in order to alleviate transphobia.

But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.

[Nearly Sane]

Biological males who identify as women.
I'm sure there must be a legal definition but I don't know what it is.

What does 'identify ' mean here? Is Pip/Phillip Bunce a transwoman 2 days a week? There is a specific definition at the moment but that isn't what self ID proposes - it's a change to the law.

[Nearly Sane]

That doesn't answer my question.But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.

Self ID though allows any man to be a transwoman - that's the point - there are no safeguards

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That doesn't answer my question.But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.

I think that given the statistics around sex crimes and the high proportion of women who have reported being sexually assaulted by men when those men have had the opportunity, there is a strong argument for preventing men from being in a place where women are more vulnerable. A man (who is sexually attracted to women) self-identifying as a woman does not prevent that transwoman (if he really is one and not just pretending) having sexual urges towards women and nor does self-identifying decrease the level of testosterone, aggression or greater physical strength, height, weight that person has compared to women. So any situation where a man would be denied access to interact with smaller, weaker people, a self-identifying woman should also be denied access as the risks are the same - whether it is prisons or sports competitions.

As you mentioned before, a trans man would be in increased danger in a male prison or a male sporting competition such as boxing because self-identifying as a man does not suddenly increase your testosterone, muscle-mass, height, weight, bone density, aggression  etc etc 

We can humour people who identify in opposition to their biology but not by expecting women to bear the increased risk of physical harm - in my view that is misogyny.

[jeremyp]

I think that given the statistics around sex crimes and the high proportion of women who have reported being sexually assaulted by men when those men have had the opportunity, there is a strong argument for preventing men from being in a place where women are more vulnerable.

But you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about men in general. You're argument seems to be some men are dangerous, therefore all men are dangerous, therefore trans women are dangerous.

You are demonstrating my point. You are claiming it is dangerous to allow trans women in a women only space based on only a few well publicised incidents. Your problem is not the actual danger of trans women, it is the perception of danger.

Personally, I think that bar is high enough already. If there are women who get uncomfortable or suffer anxiety because a trans woman might be in the women's toilets, that's good enough for me to stop the trans women going in.

As you mentioned before, a trans man would be in increased danger in a male prison or a male sporting competition such as boxing because self-identifying as a man does not suddenly increase your testosterone, muscle-mass, height, weight, bone density, aggression  etc etc 

I didn't say that before, although I would agree with it. What I said before was that trans women are likely to be in danger in a male prison.

[wigginhall]

How do you stop a trans woman going in a toilet?

[jeremyp]

How do you stop a trans woman going in a toilet?

How do you stop a man going into a toilet?

[wigginhall]

Close it, due to budget cuts.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about men in general. You're argument seems to be some men are dangerous, therefore all men are dangerous, therefore trans women are dangerous.

Sort of - I don't actually think all men and trans women are dangerous but I don't know which ones are and which ones aren't. And if there was a justification for single-sex facilities previously (we as a society did not decide some men were prevented from entering women's facilities while others were allowed), I don't see how self-identifying as a woman suddenly removes that justification for barring someone. The person self-identifying could retain all the biological characteristics that justified single sex facilities in the first place regardless of what is going on in their heads.

I think what is going on in that person's head about one aspect of themselves doesn't necessarily cancel all the other aspects that goes with their biology and which would ordinarily preclude them from a single-sex facility. It may or it may not but a blanket rule ignoring the risks to women seems misogynistic. I don't see the justification for prioritising the risks to the self-identifier (biological males) over the risks to biological females.

On a practical note - washing your period blood from your clothes in a bathroom is a reality for some women and they really do not need even benign self-identifying men walking in. If you have polycystic ovaries it can cause periods to be irregular and really, really heavy and painful. I remember helping someone at work in the bathroom who had been wearing 2 thick maternity pads in her knickers - the type you wear after childbirth to stem the heavy blood flow that occurs for about a week after delivery - and despite this the sudden gush of menstrual blood she experienced meant it soaked through the pads, soaked through her knickers, soaked through her black trousers and was all over her chair. She eventually had surgery to remove some of the cysts, which helped reduce the symptoms.

Self-identifying men claiming they know what it feels like to be a woman because they want to wear a dress is a not very funny joke. How many of them know what a gush of blood from their vagina feels like, and for those of us who don't have polycystic ovaries it is still an uncomfortable moment of stressing that only another menstruating woman could relate to. And you have to deal with this from puberty - every month for years and years. A dress and liking pink doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what being a woman means and that trans women think it does just demonstrates how clueless they are. The trans women cannot relate to these defining moments and the thoughts and emotions that run through your head as you navigate this and similar issues, any more than I can relate to what it feels like to be a trans woman fantasising about their version of womanhood.  But I could respect their feelings enough to not disagree with the projections of their minds in most situations, but I think we should each form our own groups and have our own facilities while there is self-identification and a safety or embarrassment issue. 

You are demonstrating my point. You are claiming it is dangerous to allow trans women in a women only space based on only a few well publicised incidents. Your problem is not the actual danger of trans women, it is the perception of danger.

Yes true - perception based on not being able to tell the criminals from the benign - whether that is men, men pretending to be trans women, or actual trans women who retain biologically male physiology.

Personally, I think that bar is high enough already. If there are women who get uncomfortable or suffer anxiety because a trans woman might be in the women's toilets, that's good enough for me to stop the trans women going in.

I guess yes - based on my story above. I have been ok using gender-neutral toilets even though I feel wary when I come out of the toilet and there is a man at the sink. But that's because I don't have polycystic ovaries and haven't had any adverse experiences from a yob making sexist comments in the toilet ..yet. I would always accompany my daughter to a gender neutral toilet because while hopefully I would go to the extent of ripping a guy's throat out with my teeth if I had to in order to stop him sexually assaulting me, I suspect if she got attacked she would freeze if she was on her own.

I didn't say that before, although I would agree with it. What I said before was that trans women are likely to be in danger in a male prison.

Ok sorry - noted.