You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There are also real cases of men convicted of spousal abuse seeking pkacement in womens refuges as transgender and then committing further acts of abuse
Can you provide any links?
Are you saying that if you are a woman you can enter a women's refuge without any checks? How does that work in cases of spousal abuse in lesbian couples?
Women seeking safety in a refuge are assessed to determine what risk they pose to the other women and children living there.
Diana James, who is also a strategic adviser to the Devon and Cornwall police on hate crime, explained to PinkNews the screening process that every woman goes through before gaining entry to a refuge.
First, each woman is asked about the abuse she’s experienced, going over all the details of what happened and when.
The service provider will also check if the woman has access to public funds. Refuges need to know that the she is eligible for housing or other benefits that will cover her living costs and the cost to the refuge, otherwise they may not be able to accept her.
Does the woman have a criminal record? If she does, what is it for – a refuge might take a woman who’s been arrested for stealing food, but not if she’s been convicted of a violent crime. Does she use drugs or alcohol? Does she have children? How many? How dangerous is her abuser? Does he have access to weapons?
In the case of same-sex domestic abuse, the screening process must also ensure that a female abuser doesn’t gain access to the refuge where her former partner is staying.
After this screening process – which can take place over the phone or in person – the woman may be invited to the refuge. But she won’t be given an address; she’ll be given the description of a person who will take her to the refuge and a place to meet them, often a railway station.
All of this security is designed to ensure a dangerous abuser can’t gain access to a women’s refuge.
PinkNews asked Diana whether, as anti-trans campaigners claim, a cisgender man pretending to be a transgender woman could get through this screening process in order to gain access to vulnerable women living in refuges.
“I would say that it was impossible for a cis man to get through the screening process,” she said bluntly.
A few posters have (repeatedly) expressed an opinion along the lines of “trans women are still men so they shouldn’t be allowed into women’s ‘safe spaces’ or sporting events”. That being the case, presumably they would be perfectly happy with trans men being in those arenas because they’re still women?
Absolutely. Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women. It may be that medication a transwoman takes to change her appearance (testosterone, for example) would disqualify her from some competitions.
Likewise, transwomen are men and should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for men, subject again to meeting the same entry criteria as required of other men.
Sex based sporting categories do not exist to separate individuals on any basis but that of their sex. It is disingenuous to claim that women’s sport should be made available to men who choose to artificially reduce their physical capabilities.
Absolutely. Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women. It may be that medication a transwoman takes to change her appearance (testosterone, for example) would disqualify her from some competitions.
Likewise, transwomen are men and should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for men, subject again to meeting the same entry criteria as required of other men.
The problem with this debate is that it's impossible to have a debate as soon as someone says transwomen are men and transmen are women.
It's a belief that doesn't really stack up once you examine the evidence. People who refuse to look at and acknowledge evidence can't be debated with.
The facts are there are two sex characteristics. We assign sexes based on the basket of characteristics presented. A small percentage of the population don't fit nicely into either category. In some cases this can be identified from physical characteristics and in some cases it presents as severe gender dysphoria.
If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout "MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!' over and over again then there is no debate to be had.
Or is it just manufactured ‘concern’ based on some edge cases to try and make it seem like trans women’s rights can only come at the expense of women’s rights?
Accepting transwomen as women renders meaningless any idea of sex based rights.
It’s just a way for people who, for whatever reason, want to discriminate against or exclude Trans people to gaslight everyone into treating acceptance of trans people’s right to exist as a false dichotomy set against women’s rights…
It is not discriminatory to recognize that humans cannot change sex and that transwomen are men.
Enforcing sex based sporting categories does not exclude transwomen from playing sport. They are welcome to compete in the sporting categories that their sex qualifies them for, ie mens sport and mixed sport.
Transpeople clearly exist (and have every right to exist) as persons of one sex who believe themselves to be of the opposite sex. That they hold this belief to be true does not mean it is.
BruceWee
There are about a dozen or so studies where the conclusion says there is some retained advantage. However, once you actually look at the methodology some fairly obvious flaws appear. So please, no more appeals to ‘science’ unless you link to a peer reviewed study.
Bruce, do you believe that there is no retained advantage for those who went through male puberty?
I don’t agree. The divide is between people who believe transwomen are women and those who don’t.
Did you actually read what I wrote? Because that doesn't describe anyone I know.
The facts are there are two sex characteristics. We assign sexes based on the basket of characteristics presented. A small percentage of the population don’t fit nicely into either category. In some cases this can be identified from physical characteristics and in some cases it presents as severe gender dysphoria.
There are two sexes, male and female. They are well understood and clearly defined. Those with intersex conditions are still determined to be male or female based on the sex cells their body would have produced had development not gone awry.
At birth sex is not assigned, it is observed. Intersex conditions may present in such a way that a male is identified as a female or vice versa.
If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout “MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!’ over and over again then there is no debate to be had.
I am not doing this. I have put forward clear, scientifically accurate definitions of man and woman, male and female. These definitions are not circular and are based on physical reality, as opposed to being dependent on an individual’s claimed belief.
What is your definition of women that includes transwomen?
Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women.
The entry criteria is "being a woman," n'est-ce pas? Which, to your mind at least, is seemingly clearly defined. Scientifically, and everything.
So you'd by your own arguments be perfectly happy with a fully transitioned trans male, six feet tall and 200 pounds with a beard and a penis, in your women's safe spaces so long as they were biologically identified as female at birth. Because they're still a woman and not a man.
Have I missed anything?
Have I missed anything?
If what you mean by ‘biologically identified as female at birth’ is that they are female, an individual who does or did or will or would, but for genetic or developmental abnormalities, produce eggs, then nope.
Women (as men) are defined by their sex. How they look is irrelevant to that.
If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout “MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!’ over and over again then there is no debate to be had.
Equally applies the other way. If you put your fingets in your ears and refuse to understand the real concerns many women have and that have occured with the inclusion of trans women in women only safe spaces then thete is no debate to be had. These women i know are nor denying trans women are women.
The shutting down of debate and the no platforming of anyone who expresses concern is a truely scary issue. To write off concerns and to refuse to listen is not a good point and polarises the debate. Id love you to debate this with some of these women i know. The thought that it was because the younger women do not know a time before safe spaces for women existed came from one of them
I cant find a primary source for the uk case i know of but it hapoened in a stonewall shelter. Trans woman was admitted to the shelter and bullied the other women there until they were made to leave.
To pretend this is not an issue is to hide from reality
https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender
The debate should be how can we find safety for trans women without compromise to the safety of the non trans women.
until they were made to leave
Rightly so. Vetting and protecting those using the shelter should always be key. Focussing on the wrong doings and law breaking of a minority of a minority is odd though. Deal with those people, not the whole minority.
There are two sexes, male and female.
If sex in binary then there is a single defining factor that makes you male or female.
That single defining characteristic does not exist and therefore your argument that there are only two sexes is wrong. Sex is a definition, not a state.
Being intersex is not a medical condition. It is a perfectly valid state.
Sometimes there may be some medical issues related to being intersex, sometimes related to gender identity or sometimes not, but many people are able to live healthy normal lives without any medical intervention.
This constant insistence that their existence is somehow less than or that they suffer from a tragic medical condition leads to continued discrimination against both intersex and transgender people.
Did you actually read what I wrote? Because that doesn’t describe anyone I know.
I'm literally arguing with someone who just said transmen are women and transwomen are men on this very thread. These people exist and I don't even think they are in the minority (in the UK, at least).
Equally applies the other way. If you put your fingets in your ears and refuse to understand the real concerns many women have and that have occured with the inclusion of trans women in women only safe spaces then thete is no debate to be had. These women i know are nor denying trans women are women.
If you want to have a debate about this issue then that's fine. However, what you are doing is providing links from the US and it's difficult to create a solution that is going to work for the entire planet.
What we can talk about is the UK. I've provided links that show that it shouldn't be possible for the story you posted to happen here.
It's not shutting down debate. It's asking you to stay within reasonable boundaries of that debate. If you are going to present evidence from anywhere in the world and from any time then yes, you are going to find cases to support your argument.
However, I think you should only use cases where we can find out the entire story. For instance, what are the admittance criteria for women's shelters in Toronto? How was someone with convictions for violent sexual assaults against women and girls able to gain access? That's a question that's completely independent of gender. Is it really relevant to a UK discussion given the extensive background checks that happen here?
It's not shutting down debate. All I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence that is relevant to what we are actually talking about.
If sex in binary then there is a single defining factor that makes you male or female.
There is.
The sex cells your body produces (or produced, or will produce, or would have produced absent genetic or developmental conditions). Men produce small mobile gametes - sperm. Women produce large immobile gametes - eggs.
This is the single factor that describes whether any human (including those with intersex conditions) is male or female.
Being intersex is not a medical condition. It is a perfectly valid state.
Yep. And intersex individuals are either male or female.
This constant insistence that their existence is somehow less than or that they suffer from a tragic medical condition leads to continued discrimination against both intersex and transgender people.
I have never claimed that a transpersons existence is less than that of a non trans person. Nor have I described intersex conditions as tragic.
Bruce, do you believe that there is no retained advantage for those who went through male puberty?
I don't know. I haven't read any primary source research that shows (note, that shows, not concludes) that there is.
If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.
The sex cells your body produces (or produced, or will produce, or would have produced absent genetic or developmental conditions).
So you're saying that Caster Semenya is male?
And because she is male she should go to the men's prison and be denied entry to women's shelters?
I see the London Marathon are adding a non binary section to the entry for the mass participation (non elite) race next spring. That feels like a very positive change.
We can spend all our time twisting our knickers (or pants - or anything else you might wish to wear) about elite sport but big picture - getting the masses out, feeling included and welcome, doing stuff is where it's really at. And the best bit is that getting changed involves a bin bag and having a slash involves a non gendered portaloo that is equally gopping for everyone - happy days!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/62900507
So you’re saying that Caster Semenya is male?
Yes. Caster Semenya has testes and therefore is male.
Yes. Caster Semenya has testes and therefore is male.
So if she's convicted of a crime she should go to the men's prison?
If she has an abusive partner she should be denied entry to a women's refugee?
So if she’s convicted of a crime she should go to the men’s prison?
Male prisoners should not be housed in women’s prisons. If a custodial sentence is necessary and a mens prison the only non womens prison option, then yes.
If she has an abusive partner she should be denied entry to a women’s refugee?
Yes. Support and protection should be available to all who suffer any form of abuse but womens refuges are to provide support and protection for abused women.
What is your definition of ‘women’?
you’d... be perfectly happy with a fully transitioned trans male, six feet tall and 200 pounds with a beard and a penis, in your women’s safe spaces...
Have I missed anything?
... nope.
Well. Wow.
a mens prison the only non womens prison option
What other options could there be?
Bruce. Good answer to me above. You were polarising the debate a little but to be clear i wasn't accusing you of shutting it down.
There are two issues of concern. One is that some men will pretend to be transgender to get attemt to get access to vulnerable women. As you say proper vetting etc should refu e that risk. Tbe other issue is that some women in for exampke womens refuges will be scared of trans women thus admitting trans women to these safe spaces trampkes o their right to a space they feel safe in. A much harder issue to resolve because whichever way you deal with it someone is having their rights trampmed on. This is why there is a divide over trans inclusion in womens only safe spaces. Please dont just dismiss that concern. Its real
Ill look for further links including statements from womens refuges around this an exampmes of people abusing safe spaces later. Two of the women i refered to that is concerned about these issues are involved in the running of refuges
a custodial sentence is necessary and a mens prison the only non womens prison option, then yes.
Unfortunately that does not stand up to any scruitiny. Trans and intersex people housed in mens prisons are vulnerable. Subject to rape and abuse and there are cases of them suiciding as a result.
Its not an issue that is solvable by simplistic answers.
Tbe other issue is that some women in for exampke womens refuges will be scared of trans women thus admitting trans women to these safe spaces trampkes o their right to a space they feel safe in. A much harder issue to resolve because whichever way you deal with it someone is having their rights trampmed on. This is why there is a divide over trans inclusion in womens only safe spaces. Please dont just dismiss that concern. Its real
I think it's important to know something with this kind of statement. Is it a fear of real life flesh and blood transwomen or is it a fear of the idea of transwomen?
As I said, I live in a country where I can transition by filling out a form. The things people in the UK are concerned are going to happen just haven't happened in reality.
What is your definition of ‘women’?
It's difficult to come up with an exhaustive list that covers every edge case but if I had to start somewhere I would start with them saying, 'I am a woman' and go from there.
Why is this definition so important to you? You've already shown with you comments about Caster Semenya that your simple definition doesn't survive even a cursory interaction with the real world.
Maybe a simple one line definition is not going to be the solution to this issue?
Well. Wow.
If a six foot tall, 200 pound woman wishes to abuse other women, whether or not she a beard or a pseudo penis is irrelevant.
What other options could there be?
America has ‘coed’ prisons. Some countries have separate prisons or wings for transgender prisoners.
BruceWee
I don’t know. I haven’t read any primary source research that shows (note, that shows, not concludes) that there is.
Laudable.
BruceWee
If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.
I'm not in a position to judge the worthiness of scientific research TBQH. I'm just trying to follow the debate and understand your position.
It’s difficult to come up with an exhaustive list that covers every edge case but if I had to start somewhere I would start with them saying, ‘I am a woman’ and go from there.
This is a circular definition - ‘a woman is someone who says they are a woman’. It is meaningless.
Why is this definition so important to you? You’ve already shown with you comments about Caster Semenya that your simple definition doesn’t survive even a cursory interaction with the real world.
In what way does my recognising Caster Semenya as male disprove or render invalid my recognition of women as being necessarily female?
Maybe a simple one line definition is not going to be the solution to this issue?
You have thus far been unable to provide any sort of definition.
It matters because women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, are protected by sex based rights and supported by sex based spaces.
Claiming men can be women is both nonsensical and misogynistic. It erases women as a sex based category and removes or erodes women’s sex based rights, spaces and protections. It
If a six foot tall, 200 pound woman wishes to abuse other women, whether or not she a beard or a pseudo penis is irrelevant.
Is it not in fact highly relevant if your solution is to put that person inside female-only safe spaces in the first place?
This makes absolutely no sense. You're strongly against putting M2F trans people who might for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from women-by-birth, because Safeguarding. Yet you'd cheerfully stick an F2M trans person in there who clearly presents as male and likely has a bigger cock than you do simply because they were born female 40 years ago?
America has ‘coed’ prisons.
They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though.
Some countries have separate prisons or wings for transgender prisoners.
Why do you suppose that might be? I thought women are women and men were men, end of story?
Do these wings separate out trans men and trans women? I tried to look it up but I couldn't find a single example of a transgender prison wing, which countries do this?
It matters because women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, are protected by sex based rights and supported by sex based spaces.
One snippet I did find however is that transgender prisoners are ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.
I think it’s important to know something with this kind of statement. Is it a fear of real life flesh and blood transwomen or is it a fear of the idea of transwomen?
By my understanding its not a fear of trans. Its a fear of deep voices and men. It may not be logical and would of course depend on individuals and where they are in transition
These are vulnerable women escaping abuse so may not be thinking logically at all.
If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.
Well most studies of the type that would give any indication of retained or gained athletic performance would need to be carried out over quite a length of time. Given that the questions being asked are relatively recent and given there’s likely to be such a small cohort of volunteers because trans athletes are still relatively few in number, not to mention an athletes’s career is relatively short it wouldn’t be surprising that there isn’t much evidence knocking around.
Also, not everyone is able to view the full study & data without academic access or paying extortionate fees, so examining it is quite difficult.
That said, my first half-arsed Google search produced these, all of which suggest that trans men & women can retain physical advantage & disadvantage depending on the treatment, for quite some time after treatment:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
I actually have no opinion over whether transgender athletes should be able to compete against cisgender athletes, but if I was involved in some way either as an athlete or a parent of a transgender athletes then I may rapidly form an opinion. But therein lies the main problem (in my opinion); it is such an emotive issue that I can’t see consensus taking shape that quickly.
Is it not in fact highly relevant if your solution is to put that person inside female-only safe spaces in the first place?
This makes absolutely no sense. You’re strongly against putting M2F trans people who might for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from women-by-birth, because Safeguarding. Yet you’d cheerfully stick an F2M trans person in there who clearly presents as male and likely has a bigger cock than you do simply because they were born female 40 years ago?
Any prison will have prisoners who present a threat to other prisoners. They will have ways to manage this.
In a woman’s prison it doesn’t matter if the female predator identifies as a man or not. If they are a threat they will be a threat regardless and should be managed as such.
Likewise in male prisons there will likely be predatory prisoners who could easily overpower at least some of the fellow inmates.
Prisons should have ways to manage these situations - though as evidenced by the disproportionate number of sexual assaults committed in womens prisons by transwomen, they are not always successful.
They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though
I was unaware you were placing Semenya in the role of a sex offender.
Why do you suppose that might be? I thought women are women and men were men, end of story?
Sex is binary and humans are unable to change sex. That prisons have, for whatever reason, transgender wings doesn’t change this. The UK transwomens wing was set up to protect female prisoners from assault by transwomen.
Do these wings separate out trans men and trans women? I tried to look it up but I couldn’t find a single example of a transgender prison wing, which countries do this?
The one in the UK separates transwomen from the female prison population for the safety of the women.
One snippet I did find however is that transgender prisoners are ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.
Can you please cite this?
My information regarding violence committed by transwomen prisoners against women in womens prisons comes from:
Can you please cite this?
Apologies, I thought I had.
https://transequality.org/issues/police-jails-prisons
I'll reply to the rest later unless someone else does first, I need to go eat something.
A question.
A few posters have (repeatedly) expressed an opinion along the lines of “trans women are still men so they shouldn’t be allowed into women’s ‘safe spaces’ or sporting events”. That being the case, presumably they would be perfectly happy with trans men being in those arenas because they’re still women?
I expect there might be situations where it’s appropriate, but it’s a mistake to believe that one necessarily follows from the other.
For obvious reasons, men don’t benefit from single-sex spaces and services to the anything like the same extent that women do, so the justifications are not equivalent.
Discrimination typically goes one way - one group oppressing or exploiting another group. Forcing a symmetrical solution onto a non-symmetrical problem isn’t necessary and may result in other harms.
one group oppressing or exploiting another group.
Sure.
So if for the sake of argument we accept that a 'man' (by whatever definition you choose) in a space intended for women presents a potential risk to those women, then a 'woman' in a space intended for men is surely at a massively greater potential risk. What's worse, a possible sex pest in a roomful of women, or a woman in a roomful of possible sex pests?
This is where it all falls down, you can't have it both ways. For all that Markie's argument is stone cold bonkers in the nut, credit where it's due he is at least consistent.
Any prison will have prisoners who present a threat to other prisoners. They will have ways to manage this.
Or those who are at risk themselves. Is your solution to put trans women in men's prisons but have them serve out their sentence in solitary confinement for their own protection?
Prisons should have ways to manage these situations – though as evidenced by the disproportionate number of sexual assaults committed in womens prisons by transwomen, they are not always successful.
"Should" is the operative word here.
Your turn to cite that second claim.
They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though
I was unaware you were placing Semenya in the role of a sex offender.
I wasn't, as well you know so don't play that game. It's your argument (IIRC?) that trans people are more likely to be arrested for sex-related crimes - Which is a whole other level of "needs unpicking" but anyway.
The UK transwomens wing was set up to protect female prisoners from assault by transwomen.
...
The one in the UK separates transwomen from the female prison population for the safety of the women.
Who's protecting the trans men from the men? What happens to them?
So if for the sake of argument we accept that a ‘man’ (by whatever definition you choose) in a space intended for women presents a potential risk to those women, then a ‘woman’ in a space intended for men is surely at a massively greater potential risk. What’s worse, a possible sex pest in a roomful of women, or a woman in a roomful of possible sex pests?
This is where it all falls down, you can’t have it both ways. For all that Markie’s argument is stone cold bonkers in the nut, credit where it’s due he is at least consistent.
I'm saying that you not only can have it both ways, but that there are likley to be many cases where it should be so. Trans women should not be in the women's prison estate, and trans men should not be on the men's prison estate. Both situations are unsafe.
It's a consistent position becuase I'm viewing it from the perspective of the male oppression of female people, not an idealised principle that people should always and symetrically be grouped according to sex. It depends on the situation, as the Equality Act recognises.
Even if this debate is unresolved, it threw up some great double entendres.
ps don't confuse sex and gender
Better to reply here, I think.
This is the direction your own particular brand of ‘feminism’ is leading. Women are going to be challenged (mostly by men) in bathrooms, in changing rooms, in shelters, and on the sports field for the crime of not conforming to a definition of feminine largely created by men.
I agree with your premise that women being challenged in women's spaces is a bad thing. Where I disagree with you is your solution - removing anything and everything women have for themselves, just to prevent such a challenge from ever occuring. I don't actually have a solution, but I don't need one in order to know that throwing away all safeguarding for not being perfect in all situations is a laughably daft thing to propose.
I don’t actually have a solution,
In order to come up with a solution you first need a problem. So far you haven't detailed any problem. You've made sweeping statements without actually going into any specifics.
If you actually thought about it and presented some real life well defined problem then maybe a solution can be found.
Someone else will have to do it though. I'm away for the weekend.
In order to come up with a solution you first need a problem. So far you haven’t detailed any problem. You’ve made sweeping statements without actually going into any specifics.
Ah, you proposed the problem: that some women get challenged when using women's spaces, and you asked me what my solution was.
I admitted I don't have one. I just think your solution (for women to have no spaces) is ridiculous.
I described two real issues of great concern to a number of women i know some of whom are linked with womans refuges
That you chose to dismiss them as not possible is your choice.
I know these concerns are widely shared amongst feminists and tbe issue is divisive and the debate vitriolic.
Its not a simple issue given to simplistic solutions as you would like to pretend.
I merely relay the concerns of these women i know. These are feminists and activists with a long and honourable record of fighting predjudice and to call them transphobic is simply wrong.
However we will not solve anything debating on here especilly when you do not want to listen and nor do i want to be labbelled transphobic or associated with some obvious transphobes on here
Ah. That comment not aimed at me?
Ignore my post then
Not you! I was responding to BruceWee.
I also know people who work in women's shelters and counselling services. It was listening to them that made me understand the situation. They're fine with the services that exist for women and trans women together, and they completely support the services that exist only for trans women. They just want to *also* have a service which is only for women, but there's no longer a single one!
Trans women should not be in the women’s prison estate, and trans men should not be on the men’s prison estate. Both situations are unsafe.
We're going round in circles now.
Assuming that to be the case, we then have two alternatives:
1) We put trans men in the women's prison and trans women in the men's. Is that any safer?
2) We file trans people of whatever identity as 'other' and deal with them separately, presumably along with anyone else who is a bit different and doesn't fit into neat little boxes. Aside from the psychological damage this might cause, this is paradoxical with your assertion that trans women are men. If that were true then why treat them differently?
TJ:
I know these concerns are widely shared amongst feminists and tbe issue is divisive and the debate vitriolic.
Its not a simple issue given to simplistic solutions as you would like to pretend.
I merely relay the concerns of these women i know. These are feminists and activists with a long and honourable record of fighting predjudice and to call them transphobic is simply wrong.
We've already discussed this too.
These concerns may be 'widely shared' but that doesn't mean that they have any basis in reality. I could have concerns about meteor strikes, do we have a sensible conversation around risk and threat and maybe try to allay some of those concerns, or do we make a start on building a biodome over Great Britain?
And if people are frightened of trans women when, in fact, there is nothing to be frightened of, is that not the very definition of transphobia? It doesn't have to be born out of hate and it doesn't have to be rational, it's simply a fear.
We’re going round in circles now.
You posed a qestion in form of a binary: that if trans women should not use women's spaces, then trans men must use women's spaces.
I'm saying it's a false binary.
Assuming that to be the case, we then have two alternatives:
This is another one 🙂
And from the other thread,
you claim that every right, space and service women that fought for to allow them to particiapte in a male-dominated society now already belongs to men if they want them, because you just redefined ‘woman’ with some semanic slight of hand.
But if that were the case then every male space now also belongs to women because you've similarly just redefined 'men'. So that's good then, right?
Your White Knighting for cisgender women to champion and protect them from the vanishingly miniscule threat from trans women is laudable but at what cost? Are an even more persecuted and vulnerable minority that you're throwing under the bus in order to achieve that simply acceptable collateral damage? I sincerely cannot reconcile "I'm fighting for women's rights" with "so bollocks to those guys."
It's a complex issue and you probably don't have the answers. I don't. But I'm fairly confident that this isn't it.
Returning to the sport question, I believe Prof Ross Tucker, who is a physiologist and was an expert in various hearings regarding Caster Semenya, talks about retained post-pubertal advantage in transgender women in this podcast (prompted by the Lia Thomas furore). There are a number of pods where he discusses these issues so I may be mistaken.
Here's another one.
And if people are frightened of trans women when, in fact, there is nothing to be frightened of, is that not the very definition of transphobia? It doesn’t have to be born out of hate and it doesn’t have to be rational, it’s simply a fear.
A fair point
MrsMC is a Guide leader. There was mass hysteria on social media (Mumsnet, I'm looking at you) when Guiding said it would accept young people who identified as female. Parents (mostly mothers) were going to pull their daughters out of any organisation that would put their daughters at risk etc.
We are several years on now, and I'm not aware there's been any incidents to support their concerns.
I’m saying it’s a false binary.
I was going to say "it's your binary" but I think I may have conflated your and Markie's posts somewhere along the line. Apologies if so, I'm not very good at tracking usernames.
The assertion, the hypothesis if you like, was that "trans women are men." This is a binary, the statement is either true or it isn't. If it is true then trans men should be in women's spaces because they're women. Conversely if trans men shouldn't be in women's spaces then at a stroke it defeats the initial hypothesis.
We are several years on now, and I’m not aware there’s been any incidents to support their concerns.
Exactly.
We (as a country) had a near-identical discussion around homosexuality not all that long ago. "The maths teacher is gay, why are they allowed to be around children, I'm taking mine out of school!" and so forth, there were mass "concerns" back then also. Did those concerns turn out to be justified? Being distrustful of 'other' is part of the human condition.
Yes of course, you'd probably find some who turned out to be a bit noncy if you looked hard enough in order to prove a point. But I'll wager that it's a statistically insignificant number compared both to the ones who aren't and to the straight ones who are.
It's surely similar with trans folk, no? When asked, TJ found one example. Heck, if there's a sudden flurry then I might need to start counting on my other hand.
And we of course need to be sensitive around places like shelters where people using those facilities are... troubled. Anything could be a potential trigger. An assault victim might have blocked out any memory of their attacker apart from their piercing blue eyes and minty fresh breath, in which case you'd probably want to send a counsellor in with sunglasses rather than a pack of Polos. Trans people of either direction could potentially be triggering if one of the sensitivities is a deep voice and they happen to meet that criterion. But all of this is far more complex and nuanced than "yes but sperm".
The assertion, the hypothesis if you like, was that “trans women are men.” This is a binary, the statement is either true or it isn’t.
Yes. But whether true or not depends on whether you’re using a sex or gender based definition of the word. That conflation is responsible for a lot of hassle
If it is true then trans men should be in women’s spaces because they’re women.
This is the specific point I’ve been making. I disagree - the aim is not forced segregation of all people on the basis of sex, but for female people to have equal access to society and not be discriminated against because of their sex.
Are an even more persecuted and vulnerable minority that you’re throwing under the bus in order to achieve that simply acceptable collateral damage? I sincerely cannot reconcile “I’m fighting for women’s rights” with “so bollocks to those guys.”
I’m fully behind less throwing under the bus. Less using one group in the service of another. No, it’s not easy. I believe any solution needs to start by recognising that there are different groups involved which have different needs
Thanks, Couger. Have a good weekend 👍
Yes. But whether true or not depends on whether you’re using a sex or gender based definition of the word. That conflation is responsible for a lot of hassle
Of course it is. And that's exactly what I'm trying to shine a light onto. We cannot even begin to have a conversation around sex / gender issues if the initial premise is "M2F trans women are still men, end of story." That's barely the beginning of the story.
This is the specific point I’ve been making. I disagree
I disagree also. But that's the logical conclusion from the above. If trans women are really men then trans men are really women, and suddenly no-one seems to want to talk about that for some reason.
the aim is not forced segregation of all people on the basis of sex, but for female people to have equal access to society and not be discriminated against because of their sex.
Well... yes, but, what's that got to do with trans people?
But that’s the logical conclusion from the above. If trans women are really men then trans men are really women, and suddenly no-one seems to want to talk about that for some reason.
I’ve been talking to you about it 👋 I’ve been saying your conclusion doesn’t follow.
Well… yes, but, what’s that got to do with trans people?
You’re pulling my leg here, right? This is a thread about trans women in women’s sports in the context of male performance advantage.
Benos
You cacelled your sub because of the "political" statement by stw yet you are still posting. Double standards / hypocrisy? Your statements are much more political and pretty extreme.
We (as a country) had a near-identical discussion around homosexuality not all that long ago.
Did we? I don’t remember that. I do remember countless debates and discussions around the ‘issue’, and thankfully we came out of it fairly positively. I don’t remember anything around the fear of erosion of women’s hard won sex based rights being eroded by Homosexuality.
Any discussion of the issue of trans rights has to involve having women’s voices heard. There’s been a lot of cancelling and shutting down of debate, overwhelmingly by a small yet extremely vocal section of the trans ‘community’, it must be said, and an awful lot of knee jerk reactions, which are just ruining any chance of intelligent debate. The abuse and cancelling suffered by women such as JK Rowling, Maya Forstater and many others, is absolutely appalling. We’re going backwards in terms of Womens Rights.
The real discussion that should be happening, is why men are still making women suffer.
You cacelled your sub because of the “political” statement by stw yet you are still posting. Double standards / hypocrisy? Your statements are much more political and pretty extreme.
I said I was cancelling my paid subscription, not flouncing off. I’m a free member now.
Political, yes. STW’s actions and statements have been political. Everyone’s responses on the topic have been political. Extreme, no.
If the stw statement is that offensive you cancell your sub then why are you still here? Gross hypocrisy imo.
And yes your position is extreme and refusing to acknowledge that this is a very difficult topic with plenty of shades of grey and some of your statements are downright offensive even to a fence sitter on this topic like me
If the stw statement is that offensive you cancell your sub then why are you still here? Gross hypocrisy imo.
I didn’t find their statement offensive. I disagreed with it. I cancelled my subscription after reading Mark’s comment that they’d intervened in a sporting event, because I didn’t want to finance that. As I recall Mark put it, they decided to pick a side.
And yes your position is extreme and refusing to acknowledge that this is a very difficult topic with plenty of shades of grey and some of your statements are downright offensive even to a fence sitter on this topic like me
Would you mind telling me what you found offensive?
Your comments on Caster Semaya amongst others
With that I am out. If you cannot aee the gross hypocrisy in cacelling your sub but remaining on the platform I am sorry for you
I don't see that as hypocrisy. Arguing a case should be possible without financially contributing to your "opponent".
Your comments on Caster Semaya amongst others
I think you’re confusing me with someone else.
If you cannot aee the gross hypocrisy in cacelling your sub but remaining on the platform I am sorry for you
I like the forum, they offer free membership, and they’re allowing free discussion on this topic (which speaks very highly of the STW team). I don’t want to leave, and no one is forcing me to.
I may even re-subscribe at some point, because although I disagree with STW on this topic, I am grateful that I’m allowed to voice my opinions on their forum.
Meanwhile, in Leeds, a Lesbian Strength rally was threatened with cancellation following threats of violence by so-called trans activists. Who are demanding that trans women be included in a rally that specifically states it is for biological lesbian women only. Now whatever your views, I’m sure most folk would agree that shutting down free speech and the right to protest is somewhat fascistic. Such incidents are increasingly frequent, and there have been several attack on women attending women only events etc, and several so-called trans activists have been convicted of crimes including assault, following such violence. Attacks by biological males on women, are misogyny, pure and simple. And this has to stop.
https://twitter.com/drlouisejmoody/status/1571138157747503106?t=IJxT5aUHFFlKiXzzc_7G5A&s=08
Apologies Benos. I was confusing you with another poster
Thanks, tjagain.
I know I’ve been bald or blunt at times but I don’t think I’ve been offensive.
A couple of years ago I would’ve supported STW’s statement completely. I mean, I didn’t pay much attention to trans rights, but I thought it was obviously the right side of history.
But then I read about events similar to configuration’s post above: protesters shouting abuse at lesbians in the name of trans rights.
And also what you talked about: the loss of all female-only rape counselling services in some areas, but trans-only services are allowed (both should exist!).
Then of course there’s sport.
So now I’m a middle-aged man posting on a cycling forum about women’s rights. But the homophobia especially shocked me into changing my views. I marched for gay rights in the 80s, and 4 decades later lesbians are being abused all over again.
That’s why I got riled on Friday and responded to BruceWee when I really should’ve left that cost-of-living-appeal thread alone.
I support trans rights and women’s rights. Both equally. Sometimes that means separate rights. That’s really my point.
Meanwhile, in Leeds, a Lesbian Strength rally was threatened with cancellation following threats of violence by so-called trans activists
If you want to reduce all the work done by Sisters Uncut to simply being 'trans activists' then I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
I had a look on the various social media sites for Lesbian Strength to find any evidence of the violence referenced by Dr Louise Moody but Lesbian Strength don't seem to making as much noise about the violence as Louise Moody is.
It was quite informative scrolling through the Facebook pages for Lesbian Strength and Sisters Uncut Leeds. I would advise everyone who wants to try to build a better picture of the activities of these so called trans activists to do the same and compare it to what seems to be Lesbian Strength's primary (only?) concern.
I'm going to step back from this thread now because it's really not doing my mental health any good. It's really sad to see the state of this debate in the UK (and it really is a UK issue, other countries do not have this level of toxic debate other than from the usual suspects such as religious fundamentalists).
All I would ask is that you don't just take the tweets you agree with as gospel. Read the social media posts from those on the other side and try to build a view of the full picture.
Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.
I don't know who either of those groups are but I've argued for years that with any demographic it's a vocal minority which give the rest a bad name. Extremists are, well, the clue is in the name, they are not representative of the whole.
This argument isn't a world apart from saying that you're standing up for the rights of white people because Muslims are terrorists, then posting links to the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence.
I'll reply to the earlier questions later.
I’m glad you say these views are extreme, Cougar. I just don’t think they’re that uncommon.
On Friday BruceWee warned that we’d be seeing homophobia and behaviour policing in the near future if we didn’t get behind trans rights now, but less than 24 hours later a group of trans activists in Leeds shouted at lesbians for saying they’re not interested in penises.
This is overt and public homophobia, and it receives too much tacit acceptance. Look at your response: you ended up dismissing the whole thing using an argument in which you actually compared calling-out lesbian abuse to white supremacy.
In some situations, like sport and sex, trans women and women are different. If there were some compromise here, the left wing could stop being so fractured and get on with challenging the tories.
This argument isn’t a world apart from saying that you’re standing up for the rights of white people because Muslims are terrorists, then posting links to the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence.
Wow. This is incredibly offensive, and if you can’t work out why, then perhaps you should step away from the thread.
To me, the real issue is that male violence towards women is being ignored, and women are being blamed for ‘transphobia’ simply for standing up for their sex based rights. So why aren’t we, as men (given that this forum is overwhelmingly male by demographic), discussing that?
Can you please stop misrepresenting the Lesbian Strength demonstration and the counter-demonstration by Sisters Uncut Leeds.
Sisters Uncut are a feminist organisation, not a trans activist organisation. They are not a TERF organisation as Lesbian Strength is (not using TERF as an insult here, it accurately describes their philosophy and they proudly refer to themselves as TERFS on social media) but they are an inclusive feminist organisation.
I'm not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the demonstration and counter-demonstration or if you have found a single tweet and decided that, because it agrees with your viewpoint, it is gospel. Either way, please stop.
From Sisters Uncut's FAQs:
Why can’t men come to meetings?
We believe that women and non-binary people must be at the forefront of the movement for our rights. Therefore we need safer, collective spaces where we can organise, share our experiences, learn from each other and support one another. We want to ensure our meetings are welcoming and empowering for survivors of domestic, sexual and state violence, and for that reason we ask men not to attend.
How can men support Sisters Uncut?
We welcome support from male allies. When we stage a protest, men can support us by promoting our activity on media and social media. They can also help by enabling their sisters attendance at our meetings and actions, for example by providing childcare or covering a colleague’s shift at work. We are thankful to the male allies who donate money to us through fundraising and regular contributions.
By continuing to say that this was men silencing women you are, at best, ignorantly promoting a falsehood or you're just plain lying. Either way, this has to stop.
Stepping away from the thread went well, I see.
I just don’t think they’re that uncommon.
What you or I may think is commonplace is neither here nor there. Is it commonplace? Do you have any statistics?
There aren't good figures for how many trans people there are in the UK but a few minutes googling and cross-referencing suggests less than 1% of the population. What percentage of that fraction of a percent do you suppose are "activists" of the type to be holding a counter-protest? Much more than the 30 that turned up? "Common" seems an unlikely descriptor.
We have better stats on lesbians. You can read that here if you like. (I don't really need to tell you how many cis women are in the country in the country regardless of their sexuality, I assume.)
On Friday BruceWee warned that we’d be seeing homophobia and behaviour policing in the near future if we didn’t get behind trans rights now, but less than 24 hours later a group of trans activists in Leeds shouted at lesbians for saying they’re not interested in penises.
Or a possible alternative scenario: less than 24 hours later a group of feminists in Leeds shouted at a hate group who proudly self-describe as being a radical and exclusionary organisation.
You've got two sides with opposing views clashing. Try to be objective.
This is overt and public homophobia, and it receives too much tacit acceptance.
I don't think many people are accepting it at all, are they? Having a gang rammy in the middle of town is clearly wrong.
Gents, this is the statement from Lesbian Strength's Facebook page:
"We are a collective of (exclusively same sex attracted women), who promote and celebrate lesbian lives, culture and visibility. We hold the Lesbian Strength March annually every September in Leeds, UK"
Sisters Uncut, accompanied by masked men (I've seen the videos) protested against this rally. The police ended up telling Lesbian Strength to change their plans for their own safety.
@Cougar having already compared the right to be same-sex attracted to white supremacy, are you really now comparing it to Nazism?
Wow. This is incredibly offensive, and if you can’t work out why, then perhaps you should step away from the thread.
Help help, I'm being cancelled! 😁
I was suggesting that it was OK to hate a group of people based on the unacceptable actions of a small minority of them, package up that hate as a positive by saying that I want to protect another group, and then provide an example of a tragic but vanishingly rare incident in order to justify it. You quite rightly felt that this would be an offensive viewpoint to hold.
Perhaps you can work out why I might have provided that example? Maybe there's an equally offensive parallel to be drawn with another scenario? Hmm?
To me, the real issue is that male violence towards women is being ignored
Is it? By whom?
Violence against women is a big problem and of course it is unacceptable. We have support structures (granted, of varying effectiveness due to resourcing) in place to help victims and potential victims. It's a small thing but the nominated charity on my Amazon Smile account is a local women's aid charity.
We, of course, also have systems that could be better. The police historically have been notoriously poor in their dealings with abuse victims. But it's getting better for one reason - it isn't being ignored.
and women are being blamed for ‘transphobia’ simply for standing up for their sex based rights.
Well, no, they're being blamed for transphobia for being transphobic (if 'blamed' is the right word). Sometimes - perhaps even in the majority of cases - it's born of ignorance rather than hate, but they don't like other people because of what they are.
So why aren’t we, as men (given that this forum is overwhelmingly male by demographic), discussing that?
looks around
What you suppose we're doing right now? This is a public forum, feel free to take the lead on any subject you like if there's something else you want to want to talk about.
Feminists concerned about erosion of safe spaces are not transphobic. What you are doing there is shutting down debate as the trans activists are doing.
This is pretty sinister. If you do not agree that all a man has to do to become a woman and gain access to women only services and safe spaces is to declare they are a woman you get shouted down, no platfirmed and are subject to horrendous abuse.
There is no room for any debate. If you dont agree then you are kabbelled a bigot.
There are serious issues with instant self identification. Express any doubts and you are instantly attacked
@Couger
Who?
having compared the right to be same-sex attracted
You already have that right, it's enjoyed daily by the vast, vast majority of the adult population. I provided statistics earlier if you want to look them up.
to white supremacy
You missed the point.
are you really now comparing it to Nazism?
Do you really now believe that I am?
Feminists concerned about erosion of safe spaces are not transphobic.
Feminists who self-identify as TERFs are, by definition.
Your logical fallacy here is: rash generalisation.
What you are doing there is shutting down debate as the trans activists are doing.
Yet, here you are, debating it. If you're being shut down then it's not proving very effective, is it.
I'm getting increasingly bored with this lazy line of argument, it's cropping up again and again at the moment. It's this generation's "political correctness gone mad" wail, and has a similarly tenuous basis in reality. You aren't being "cancelled" or "shut down" if people simply don't agree with you FFS.
Honestly, you can't bloody win. You hold a minority opinion and it's cancel culture, you hold a majority opinion and it's an echo chamber.
This is pretty sinister. If you do not agree that all a man has to do to become a woman and gain access to women only services and safe spaces is to declare they are a woman you get shouted down, no platfirmed and are subject to horrendous abuse.
If all a man had to do to access women's spaces was go "hi, I'm a woman today" then yes, you're absolutely right, that would be a disastrous situation and I'd be by your side protesting against it. But crucially, as has been explained to you time and again, that simply is not the case. You've assumed a misunderstanding and that's why you're meeting resistance, not because we all secretly want to put on a frock in order to get a bit rapey in the toilets.
There are serious issues with instant self identification.
There are. I agree 100%.
But.
NO-ONE IS DOING THAT, THAT IS ALREADY NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Access to places like shelters is strictly controlled. Aside from the seemingly clear and present danger from marauding transexuals you also have issues with things like abusive partners or parents. It's not "sign here, show us your fanny, off you go then love."
You are arguing against a fiction. This is a comedy sketch, not a documentary.