Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[lionking]

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal?

I agree with it. Yet many countries (including the UK and US) simply give in to demands of TRAs and allow access to shelters and refuges by violent males. You will deny this of course, but there have been ample examples provided in this thread.

 

[smartcooky]

Women's refuges should be able to prevent access to any member of the public they reasonably believe is a threat to the safety of women or staff in the refuge. This would include biological men, transsexual men, transsexual women and biological women. The obvious case would be the ex-partner of a woman in the refuge. Who disagrees with this proposal?

I agree, with conditions and a question.

Condition 1. It applies to all women-only spaces without exception , including but not exclusively the following... rape crisis centers, prisons, hospitals, public toilets, changing rooms, restrooms etc

Condition 2. It should not just apply to threats, it should apply to the level of fear of those for whom the space is for.

Condition 3. Women should also be permitted to set up or create groups and spaces from which they can legally exclude all males.

Question. Who gets to decide what is 'reasonable to believe'?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I agree with it. Yet many countries (including the UK and US) simply give in to demands of TRAs and allow access to shelters and refuges by violent males. You will deny this of course, but there have been ample examples provided in this thread.

Great! So we agree on something. I also don't deny that some or possibly even the majority of the demands of the TRAs are harmful. E.g., the whole Tavistock groupthink disaster shows what happens when an unreasonable ideology takes hold of an organisation dealing with vulnerable people. I also think getting young people to think about what gender they are is not useful. My step son, while not labelled, is almost certainly on the autistic spectrum, was very confused and distressed by this for a while, but appears to be feeling more comfortable in his own skin now.

What we don't need to do is swing the pendulum to another extreme in the opposite direction, which will also result in causing unnecessary harm. I would suggest we avoid this by focussing on actual problems and, far more importantly in my opinion, the causes of the problems rather than quick fix laws to give the appearance of doing something.

I think abused women should have places where they can go which provide protection from their abusers and allies of their abusers, irrespective of the abuser's biological sex or sexual orientation. Given the huge problem of domestic violence I also think refuges should be funded by general taxation, as should programmes that address the causes of male violence in society. I think this latter aspect is the crux of the different approaches to this and many other issues.

Some people think nothing can or possibly should be done about the causes of people behaving badly; the best that can be achieved is to apprehend them as soon as possible and take them out of society. If the problem is severe, bring in more draconian laws to make it easier to apprehend people and build bigger prisons to house them. Another viewpoint is that by providing better inputs to people while they are growing up will result in fewer adults behaving poorly and be less expensive in the long run. I generally have the latter viewpoint, though I think there are a small group of people who are just defective and all we can do is limit the harm they inflict on others.

 

[Georg]

Suggesting people be kind to those who are merely different to them is now labelled as hate.

No, you got that wrong.
Suggesting to impinge upon women's rights is labelled as misogyny.

 

[Pixel42]

It's suggesting that transgender folk should have exactly the same rights as everyone else that's labelled as hate.

 

[lionking]

It's suggesting that transgender folk should have exactly the same rights as everyone else that's labelled as hate.

And this is what so many seem to be missing, and it’s no coincidence that nearly all of the “what’s the harm with transwomen accessing female safe places” on this forum are male.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sex is definitely more important to me.

But treating human beings with kindness, tolerance and dignity is also important. It would be easier to allow bigotry and hatred to win as it seems to be doing.

I don't think it's bigoted or hateful to treat males as males. Nobody has given a compelling reason why it is. The most that is offered is that they don't like it.

As it certainly is in this thread. Allow these human beings to be treated horribly by society.

Asking males to stay out of female only spaces isn't treating them horribly.

It is probably the practical choice. To sacrifice these human beings to abuse. As opposed to allowing hate to spread to others as it is certainly doing these days.

Oh please.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suggesting people be kind to those who are merely different to them is now labelled as hate.

Nobody here objects to being kind. But it's not kind to put Isla Bryton in a women's prison.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I agree, with conditions and a question.

Condition 1. It applies to all women-only spaces without exception , including but not exclusively the following... rape crisis centers, prisons, hospitals, public toilets, changing rooms, restrooms etc

Condition 2. It should not just apply to threats, it should apply to the level of fear of those for whom the space is for.

Condition 3. Women should also be permitted to set up or create groups and spaces from which they can legally exclude all males.

Question. Who gets to decide what is 'reasonable to believe'?

I don't think that is the right or even an effective approach to deal with the problem of violence against women. I think it mainly just makes people feel like something is being done when in reality it will have little to no effect on violence against women, as well as being harmful to a small minority of people who pose no threat to women or are women. E.g., we have already had one thread about an androgynous looking female being harassed.

People who are motivated to sexually assault women will find a way to sexually assault women, no matter what rules you dream up. We already have the rule "sexual assault and rape are not allowed and you will be put in prison for a substantial period of time" and people still sexually assault and rape women. Adding the rule "biological males are not allowed in spaces reserved only for biological females" is not going to deter such people who are already willing to break a rule with a far more substantial penalty. Maybe if you were willing to put someone on the entrance to such a space to enforce the rule it would have the desired effect, but then the mere presence of that other person would probably be the deterrent rather than the rule!

As for your question, obviously if the person is the alleged attacker or a relative or associate of the alleged attacker of a woman in the refuge and she does not want them to come in then they shouldn't be allowed in. Where it is others requesting access then they need to have both a good reason to want to come in and not be likely to cause significant distress or harm to women or staff in the refuge.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are no limits to my kindness and tolerance. At least I don't want there to be. Hatred and xenophobia have always been an easy sell. Anyone that is different. Whether it be another religion, another race, another sex, another sexual preference etc. This is a step too far. But it is no difference. This is just another form of hatred and tribalism.

What exactly is "this"? I can't help feeling it's straw.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nobody here objects to being kind. But it's not kind to put Isla Bryton in a women's prison.

Actually I think it was. She should have been given a choice: segregated in a women's prison for the protection of the other prisoners or in the general population in a male prison, unless threatened by males, in which case she would have to be segregated in a male prison as well.

Objections to that?

 

[Pixel42]

Adding the rule "biological males are not allowed in spaces reserved only for biological females"

There is no need to add such a rule if a space is reserved only for biological females, because that's what "reserved only for biological females" means. The question under discussion is: should the right to reserve spaces (and services, and sports leagues, etc etc) only for themselves be taken away from biological females?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

There is no need to add such a rule if a space is reserved only for biological females, because that's what "reserved only for biological females" means. The question under discussion is: should the right to reserve spaces (and services, and sports leagues, etc etc) only for themselves be taken away from biological females?

In some cases, yes. In others, more sensible rules that would have that effect de facto should be created. E.g., having a people with very different levels of physical mass or strength compete against each other, where they are significant for safety or competitiveness, is clearly not sensible.

 

[smartcooky]

Great! So we agree on something. I also don't deny that some or
possibly even the majority of the demands of the TRAs are harmful. E.g., the whole Tavistock groupthink disaster shows what happens when an unreasonable ideology takes hold of an organisation dealing with vulnerable people. I also think getting young people to think about what gender they are is not useful.

I think their demands (over and above those rights already afforded to other groups) are ALL harmful.... they are radical activists after all. In many ways, their demands and actions are indistinguishable from terrorism.

My step son, while not labelled, is almost certainly on the autistic spectrum, was very confused and distressed by this for a while, but appears to be feeling more comfortable in his own skin now.

I have dealings deal with a nine-year child on the spectrum most days of the week, so I know how stressful that can be.

What we don't need to do is swing the pendulum to another extreme in the opposite direction, which will also result in causing unnecessary harm. I would suggest we avoid this by focussing on actual problems and, far more importantly in my opinion, the causes of the problems rather than quick fix laws to give the appearance of doing something.

There is only one reason for that pendulum swinging to extremes - its the actions of TRAs. Not happy with having equality under anti-discrimination laws, they pushed for extra rights that would come at the expense of other groups (among them, women, lesbians & gays). Naturally, those other groups objected, and when they did, they were labelled tranny-bashers, bigots and transphobes. The gender ideology captured media turned on them, and TRAs went on campaigns of letter writing and social media dog-piling aimed at employers of those who dissented. This included threats, harrassment, and violence if dissenters were not fired. Similarly captured far left organisations... especially academic ones, tried to shut down ALL debate, and more threats were made against those who refused to comply. Ideologically captured governments (Australia being the worst example) changed laws to make the concerned groups who were defending their rights, into the perpetrators, while those who made all the threats of violence and death wre made into the victims.
The Trans Rights Activitists have only themselves to blame for what is happenening now. They sowed the seeds of violence and intimidation, and now it is backfiring on them - they are reaping the consequnces.

I think abused women should have places where they can go which provide protection from their abusers and allies of their abusers irrespective of the abuser's biological sex or sexual orientation.

They already had them before TRA's objected to men who pretend to be women not being allowed access.

Given the huge problem of domestic violence I also think refuges should be funded by general taxation, as should programmes that address the causes of male violence in society. I think this latter aspect is the crux of the different approaches to this and many other issues.

I agree, but this should be done AS WELL AS keeping biological males out of women-only spaces, NOT INSTEAD OF.

Some people think nothing can or possibly should be done about the causes of people behaving badly; the best that can be achieved is to apprehend them as soon as possible and take them out of society. If the problem is severe, bring in more draconian laws to make it easier to apprehend people and build bigger prisons to house them.

It is well understood that severe punishment does not seem to be a deterrent to the commission of crime. Many states in the US have the most severe punishment for murder - the death penalty, yet there is NO correlation in the murder rates for states with and without the death penalty

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPI) is a national non-profit organization whose mission is to serve the media, policymakers, and the general public…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Another viewpoint is that by providing better inputs to people while they are growing up will result in fewer adults behaving poorly and be less expensive in the long run. I generally have the latter viewpoint, though I think there are a small group of people who are just defective and all we can do is limit the harm they inflict on others.

By all means do this, but it will be years before we see any results, if at all, so it is not a substitute for action now!

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually I think it was. She should have been given a choice: segregated in a women's prison for the protection of the other prisoners or in the general population in a male prison, unless threatened by males, in which case she would have to be segregated in a male prison as well.

Objections to that?

Well, he wasn’t given that choice, so talking about a hypothetical that never happened as if it did is rather bizarre.

And why would being segregated in a women’s prison been better than being segregated in a men’s prison? What’s the logic there?

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think that is the right or even an effective approach to deal with the problem of violence against women. I think it mainly just makes people feel like something is being done when in reality it will have little to no effect on violence against women, as well as being harmful to a small minority of people who pose no threat to women or are women. E.g., we have already had one thread about an androgynous looking female being harassed.

Nonetheless, it should be women who decide whether they allow biological men to come into their spaces, not the men who benefit from it.

People who are motivated to sexually assault women will find a way to sexually assault women, no matter what rules you dream up. We already have the rule "sexual assault and rape are not allowed and you will be put in prison for a substantial period of time" and people still sexually assault and rape women. Adding the rule "biological males are not allowed in spaces reserved only for biological females" is not going to deter such people who are already willing to break a rule with a far more substantial penalty. Maybe if you were willing to put someone on the entrance to such a space to enforce the rule it would have the desired effect, but then the mere presence of that other person would probably be the deterrent rather than the rule!

We don't need Penis Police. ALL the women here have been telling you this, but you have not be listening.

I can tell you what they want, because I have been listening. What they want is to have the very reasonable right to eject biological males from their spaces (or prevent them coming in in the first place) without then being made into the perpetrators, and the offending biological male being made into the victim in law. As things currently stand, if a women tries to eject a biological male from a public toilet, SHE IS BREAKING THE LAW IF THAT BIOLOGICAL MAN CLAIMS TO BE A TRANSWOMAN! This law offends me, and it offends every woman I know.

As for your question, obviously if the person is the alleged attacker or a relative or associate of the alleged attacker of a woman in the refuge and she does not want them to come in then they shouldn't be allowed in. Where it is others requesting access then they need to have both a good reason to want to come in and not be likely to cause significant distress or harm to women or staff in the refuge.

No, not just that case. The last thing ANY woman wants to see in a refuge or a rape crisis centre is ANY male. Why is it that you find it so hard to comprehend the trauma of the victim?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Should "this makes some members of group x uncomfortable" be a sufficient criteria to end a debate, or is it okay for the skeptical mind to inquire about actual data about women facing violence in single sex vs. Unisex toilets?

 

[Ziggurat]

Should "this makes some members of group x uncomfortable" be a sufficient criteria to end a debate, or is it okay for the skeptical mind to inquire about actual data about women facing violence in single sex vs. Unisex toilets?

I don't know why there's this continual appeal to unisex toilets. There is no political constituency for unisex toilets. The social conservatives don't want them. The gender critical folks don't want them. The trans rights advocates don't want them. Nobody really wants them. Even assuming that they were an ideal solution, they're not going to happen at scale.

 

[d4m10n]

Should "this makes some members of group x uncomfortable" be a sufficient criteria to end a debate…?

Sometimes, sure. If someone wanted to design a space (whether a virtual space like Giggle for Girls or an actual space like MichFest) just for adult females, I would say that they should be allowed to do so even if their main motivation is to create a single-sex safe space for the sake of psychological comfort. They would not be allowed to do so these days—especially if they emphasized psychological comfort—because folk intersectionality requires deference to the progressive stack rather than centering (female) women.

The question under discussion is: should the right to reserve spaces (and services, and sports leagues, etc etc) only for themselves be taken away from biological females?

It often boggles my mind that we have to debate this.

 

[d4m10n]

...is it okay for the skeptical mind to inquire about actual data about women facing violence in single sex vs. Unisex toilets?

Of course it is okay, but violence isn't the only thing we are trying to prevent here.

An argument could be made that most people intensely dislike the feeling of immodesty, so much so that we have cinematic tropes on point.