Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Matthew Best]

I guess it would be the Gender Recognition Panel who would make the decision. I'm not sure who they are or how they decide, but I guess (other than the need for a medical report) it would be the same way they do it currently.

 

[kellyb]

Can you link to that data because I have been out of the thread until recently. Thanks.

I googled and found it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

Do you know or can you speculate as to why?

 

[Belz...]

I googled and found it:

Interesting. I guess I would've thought that being used to seeing both sexes would make it more banal and thus safer, but I can't stay that I'm surprised that I'd have been wrong there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting. I guess I would've thought that being used to seeing both sexes would make it more banal and thus safer, but I can't stay that I'm surprised that I'd have been wrong there.

It might be safer for a woman in a unisex changing room than for a woman in a men's changing room, which would go along with your expectation, but we can't really test that since women understandably don't go into men's changing rooms if a women's changing room is available.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It doesn't matter. All it's gonna do is shift the argument in the "Who's discomfort/fear gets to trump who's rights" language but be the functional same argument.

 

[kellyb]

We have unisex "family" changing rooms (nobody knows if lone men are allowed to use them, but if you saw a random dude it wouldn't be weird because he could be a dad fetching something) at the indoor aquatics center near me. But the changing "stalls" are actual tiny rooms in a hall with densely packed hotel room doors that close and lock, and there's 100% privacy. They look a lot like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...San_Francisco,_CA_USA_08620_(30452133290).jpg


I'm guessing the elevated incidence in the UK broken down by stall type would show the risk is highest in ones which are least like that design, and the closer you get to that design, the closer the incidence comes to zero incidents ever.

 

[Darat]

Here you both go:

That's the new proposal.

 

[caveman1917]

That's the new proposal.

Yes, that's the self ID proposal, which was what was being discussed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Self ID is about getting a GRC without needing gender dysphoria to legally change sex, allowing one access to single-sex spaces of the other sex. The current law is about getting a GRC while needing gender dysphoria to legally change sex, allowing one access to single-sex spaces of the other sex.

Can you spot the difference between these two? Like I said, self ID is the removal of the requirement for gender dysphoria.

No you are confused here I think.

Self-ID is about not needing a medical report to be allowed to legally change sex and get a GRC

You don't need a GRC to enter single-sex spaces.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It would be. There's no should or should not in the situation. Do you accept that the calculations are different with and without male-bodies people being present? That the risk of something bad happening would be increased?

Different yes, increased ... I don't know.

I think the numbers are going to be small so it's going to hard to get a real handle on it.

Is for example, the small increased risk of a male pervert being in the changing room mitigated by the small increased likelihood of a big burly transwoman being in the room to beat the crap out of anyone trying anything dodgy? I genuinely don't know.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not easy, but we actually do it all the time. We can determine that someone is lying when they say one thing that is contradicted by reality, and which we know they are aware of. We can determine that a certain claim of pain is psychosomatic. We can determine that someone's opinion is mistaken, etc. Some of these might be more difficult to reliably determine than others, but it can be done, and given the stakes, here, I think it's worth looking into it.



I don't agree with that in any way, shape or form. In fact, I'd say this is probably the single statement I disagree with the most of any statement I've ever been exposed to.



Yeah, that can be an issue, but certainly a professional's opinion is more reliable than someone's untrained perspective. And I think that our gut feeling that we know ourselves better than others may is often misguided.



Well I disagree with your first premise to begin with.



Except that the proposed solution is not without consequence. Given that we're talking about tiny percentage of the population, the question right now should be whether the purported negative consequences are expected to outweigh the benefits to that segment of the population.

Ok ... if you disagree with the 1st premise can you tell me how, today, we can determine the objective reality of whether someone is transgender or lying/mistaken? Because I am unaware of any method to do that.

Your last statement is correct, but doesn't answer the question. You have a choice between A and B. Both have benefits and consequences. Your job is to explain why A is better than B, my job is to explain why B is better than A considering all of the benefits and consequences.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you tell me you are transgender, how can I tell that you aren't?

I don't know. If you tell me you are a man or a woman or an alien from Zarg how can I tell that you aren't? Your or my ability to determine things is neither here nor there.

If a judge decided you're lying but you're actually telling the truth, you're in deep deep doo-doo. So that doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that the legal system has power over you.

But how does a judge decide this? He has no method to do so. There are no rules, there is no precedent. If he invents a method himself, he risks being labelled transphobic.

The judge would have the legal power to make that decision and it would be his job to make the decision. Dealing with decisions that have no precedent happens all the time. Some people won't like the decision. That's how the law works.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I googled and found it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html



Do you know or can you speculate as to why?

I don't know and would have to look at the data further but I'm skeptical of claims based on reports rather than convictions.

If you want me to speculate there could be reasons including:

1. Women being much more likely to report the same behaviour from a 'man' as they do from a 'woman'
2. Women being jumpy and reporting things that don't warrant reporting because they are uncomfortable
3. People who don't like unisex facilities reporting things , or even inventing things, to get unisex facilities stopped.
4. It says that unisex facilities are a way to cut staff so it may be that these places are understaffed anyway.
5. There may be something else going on entirely that we don't know about, there could be a handful of bad locations which just happen to be unisex.

Or of course a genuine increase.

It's worth remembering that what we are discussing here is not unisex facilities, but accepting transwomen into women's facilities. So it's a different thing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It might be safer for a woman in a unisex changing room than for a woman in a men's changing room, which would go along with your expectation, but we can't really test that since women understandably don't go into men's changing rooms if a women's changing room is available.

Except of course for the women that you want to force into men's changing rooms because they are trans.

 

[JihadJane]

Except of course for the women that you want to force into men's changing rooms because they are trans.

Don't transmen already use men's changing rooms?

 

[kellyb]

I don't know and would have to look at the data further but I'm skeptical of claims based on reports rather than convictions.

If you want me to speculate there could be reasons including:

1. Women being much more likely to report the same behaviour from a 'man' as they do from a 'woman'
2. Women being jumpy and reporting things that don't warrant reporting because they are uncomfortable
3. People who don't like unisex facilities reporting things , or even inventing things, to get unisex facilities stopped.
4. It says that unisex facilities are a way to cut staff so it may be that these places are understaffed anyway.
5. There may be something else going on entirely that we don't know about, there could be a handful of bad locations which just happen to be unisex.

Or of course a genuine increase.

It's worth remembering that what we are discussing here is not unisex facilities, but accepting transwomen into women's facilities. So it's a different thing.

All of your points about how it could be a perceived as opposed to real increase are valid.
I'm not sure the conviction rate is relevant, since we don't know how likely it is that an offender could actually get arrested and convicted. Only a tiny % of sex crimes of the traditional varieties end up in conviction. It's just a hard thing to prove like that, being a "he said, she said" event by nature, most of the time.

Anyway, I was just giving you the requested info.

 

[caveman1917]

No you are confused here I think.

Self-ID is about not needing a medical report to be allowed to legally change sex and get a GRC

You don't need a GRC to enter single-sex spaces.

Of course you need a GRC to enter single-sex spaces of the other sex. Why do you think a GRC even exists?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course you need a GRC to enter single-sex spaces of the other sex. Why do you think a GRC even exists?

No you don't.

A GRC exists in order to legally change your sex on your birth-certificate or driving license or whatever.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppo...ice-notes/working-with-transgender-employees/

In the UK people can obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC), which enables them to get a new accurate birth certificate. The process for applying for a GRC can be quite burdensome and not every transgender person will choose to do so. People do not need a GRC to transition at work or for most official purposes

Managers must ensure that the employee can use facilities appropriate to their expressed gender identity. It may be appropriate to set a date when this will happen - the social transition date - and ensure that it is communicated so that relevant colleagues are not surprised.

A transgender employee must be able to use the toilet or changing room of their expressed gender identity without fear of harassment. People should not be made to use unisex disabled toilets, unless they choose to do so, particularly as a temporary measure during the transition period.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

All of your points about how it could be a perceived as opposed to real increase are valid.
I'm not sure the conviction rate is relevant, since we don't know how a likely offender could actually get arrested and convicted. Only a tiny % of sexual assaults of the tradition variety end up in conviction. It's just a hard thing to prove like that, being a "he said, she said" event by nature, most of the time.

Anyway, I was just giving you the requested info.

Yes its a fair point on convictions vs reports but equally reports can be misleading without really seeing the data.

If we are talking about 150 reports or whatever then how many individuals are we talking about? If the same person is reported on average 2 or 3 times (and I have no idea what that number is in reality) what if one guy was reported 30 times or the same woman made 25 reports?

Or what if 100 of those reports were from 4 or 5 locations and the rest were absolutely in line with or even less than average?

I'm just urging a little bit of caution on jumping to conclusions based on 1 set of data.

 

[caveman1917]

No you don't.

A GRC exists in order to legally change your sex on your birth-certificate or driving license or whatever.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppo...ice-notes/working-with-transgender-employees/

Sigh... Fine, you need a GRC to enter legally sex-separated facilities (ie facilities segregated by sex under the exceptions listed in the Equality Act 2010). That employers are not allowed to stop people, on the basis of their sex, from using whatever facilities they like has nothing to do with transgenderism but with that sex-segregated facilities for employees do not fall under the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010.