|
Post by slowcoach on Jan 29, 2024 10:29:26 GMT 2
I no nothing of other countries but in the UK the following characteristics are protected from being the basis of discrimination:
Age Disability Gender reassignment Marriage and civil partnership Race Religion or belief Sex Sexual orientation
Age, Disability, Race, Sex, and Sexual orientation are characteristics that once acquired are difficult or impossible to change. Marriage and civil partnership, and Religion or belief are perhaps choices, but are not normally acquired without significant effort or consequences.
Gender reassignment differs as it requires little effort to obtain this protected characteristic. I am not sure exactly how little but a quick online appointment with a GP proposing gender reassignment might just qualify.
In law this is stated as:
Such an inconsequential requirement that it worries people. On the face not even an intention to do anything consequential is required.
As far as I know, there has never been any legal prohibition on who can and cannot use whichever public conveniences in the UK. Segregation has been a social norm, it is a matter of common decency and good manners. That said, cross-dressers have been slipping in and out of the Ladies' Loo for as long as I have known that TVs existed. And whereas some may disapprove of this behaviour I can't think that it was ever been a talking point. TVs were certainly not expressing their right to use the loo of their choice.
How do people feel about those more natural attendees of the Ladies' Loo who are horrified, or in sume cases terrified by the thought that men can so inconsequentially claim that they have a right to use the Loo of their choice. In particular those, and there are a great number of them, that have experienced physical and or sexual abuse.
It is all very well not to see that it will cause distress, or that abuse of such privileged access will be a rarity, while just the thought of an lone encounter with any man in the Ladies', let alone one that might be claiming special privileges, is for some a frightening prospect.
We now have the bizarre state of affairs were it seems that you could or can legally discriminate against someone on the basis of their being a TV in many areas of life, e.g. employment but not if they are claiming gender reassignment protection.
With the other protected characteristics it is not obvious to me that any other party is disadvantaged to the degree that some women feel they are by gender reassignment protection. A protection that we can all avail ourselves of, in the UK at least.
I think it clear that some group was going to lose out and in the UK it is women.
|
|
|
Post by OnlyMark on Jan 29, 2024 16:50:41 GMT 2
From the last UK census, answered by 45.7 million people over the age of 16, 48,000 identified as a trans woman. In the latest Crime Survey, just for England and Wales (so not including Scotland or Northern Ireland), 1,400,000 women experienced domestic violence against them - in one year. But that is only the reported ones. Apparently only one in four are reported, so realistically up to 5,600,0000 women possibly. It all depends on if you believe the sources for any of this. "1 in 4 women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime." "On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales." "...around 3 women a week die by suicide as a result of domestic abuse." "It takes, on average, 7 attempts before a woman is able to leave for good." An optimist may say, as there are so few trans women, the likelihood of a female coming across one whilst in a vulnerable position is minimal, so what does it matter. I have no figures to say how many victims would agree to let trans women access all their safe spaces if put to a vote/survey. Some wouldn't deem it necessary to give them a say or consider what they feel about it and give a blanket access to all who identify as a woman. I think they of all need a voice no matter what I think. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2023refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/#:~:text=Yet%20it%20is%20estimated%20that,domestic%20abuse%20in%20her%20lifetime. Last thing and I am feeling I’m belabouring the point to much, so it will be the last thing - Out of the total prison population of the UK - 16.8% of males were convicted of sex offences. 3.3% of females were convicted of sex offences. Of transgender women and just the offences they had committed which can only be done by males, i.e. rape and attempted rape (because you need a penis as mentioned before), those that had committed sexual offences were 58.9%. This is from a study trying to determine "The question of whether transwomen match male or female patterns of criminality." On the face of it, and I appreciate the amount of transwomen in prisons are low thus a low sample size, but you could conclude you are a lot more likely to be sexually assaulted by a transwoman than a male. That's up to you. committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/#:~:text=On%20pager%2011%20he%20states,rape%20(BBC%20News%202018). If none of that or anything that I’ve said convinces you that is a bad thing to allow without a line being drawn any and every male, no matter how far they are along in their journey, from any male who that day identifies as trans and says he is proposing to change, then nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by Scrubb on Jan 29, 2024 19:23:09 GMT 2
Then I guess nothing will!😁 Also, your math isn't very good. There is no way, given the numbers, that this can be true: "but you could conclude you are a lot more likely to be sexually assaulted by a transwoman than a male". I suppose you mean that higher percentage of trans criminals are sex criminals, than of overall male criminals. However, given that according to your numbers there are only 48,000 trans women in the country, the chance of being sexually assaulted by 1 are very, very, very small. While the chances of being sexually assaulted by a man are actually pretty high. I would also suspect that in general, more trans people do not have the resources to pay for good lawyers (as there is a great deal of discrimination against them, plus that prior to transitioning they frequently have mental health issues that are often serious enough to prevent career progression). It's very much like in the US, where minorities are over-represented in jails, but a big chunk of that is because a larger percentage of white guys don't get stuck with overworked, unmotivated public defenders. At the same time, transgenders are the victims of sexual abuse more than twice as often as cis women. And they are the victims of non-sexual violence at the same kind of elevated rate. They are far, far, far more likely to be victims than perpetrators. Here's an article that discusses why "men dressing up as women to access their bathrooms as predators" "trans gender women are a threat to women in bathrooms" is a red herring: Time magazine articleThe summary is that there is no evidence that allowing transgender women to use women's bathrooms leads to increases in assaults. Main points are: - states that have had laws in place for over 20 years allowing people to use whichever bathroom they identify with do not report an increase in sexual violence against women - there has been nothing stopping predatory men from dressing up like women for this purpose all along
|
|
|
Post by OnlyMark on Jan 29, 2024 22:20:57 GMT 2
This is what I wrote before you edited your post -
"but you could conclude you are a lot more likely to be sexually assaulted by a transwoman than a male". There would be a little bump up in the figures because I didn't count those who are non-binary and gender fluid when they identify as a woman which would add to the number on any given day. If they have access to toilets, prisons, changing rooms etc is what I admittedly missed out. My error. It was to illustrate but maybe badly done that opening women's spaces to transwomen increases the risk to women because transwomen retain male criminal traits according to that study. If transwomen decreased to that of females then there would be no additional risk, but they don't so there must be an increase of risk.
Interesting you say, "I would also suspect that in general, more trans people do not have the resources to pay for good lawyers (as there is a great deal of discrimination against them, plus that prior to transitioning they frequently have mental health issues that are often serious enough to prevent career progression)."
So trans people have less money and frequently have mental health issues before transitioning. They have less money because they are discriminated against so cannot afford a good lawyer to defend them when they commit a crime. Whilst transitioning do they commit less crimes then? Do their mental health issues decrease? Do they get better paid jobs? Do they commit the same amount of crime but because they have more money they get better lawyers? Do they ever finish their transition? And if so, do they only then commit the same amount of crimes as females?
You say - “It's very much like in the US, where minorities are over-represented in jails...” Nothing to do with proportionally how many crimes they commit but more to do with they cannot afford a good lawyer to get them off?
Also - “...but a big chunk of that is because white guys don't get stuck with overworked, unmotivated public defenders.” Yes, well, if you think so. But those last two are different subjects.
If in the UK, only the same amount of women as there are transwomen objected to opening up all female spaces without exception, then that is balanced and equitable, no? Do the wishes of one transwoman equal the wishes of one female? Or is there an unfair bias in favour of the wishes of a transwoman? A female’s viewpoint has a lesser value than that of a transwoman? I don’t think so unless you happen to be male and believe females are a lesser species.
Adult females in the UK number about 30 million or so, I think even more. If 48,000 (and who says it is all of them anyway), want access and 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, who knows what figure, object, it is still fair and equitable to ignore the wishes of millions upon millions of females so they can? To ignore them? Their wishes, opinions, fears, concerns, objections et al mean absolutely nothing? That is what you want and if it happens it is a dark day for women.
|
|
|
Post by OnlyMark on Jan 29, 2024 22:26:57 GMT 2
As for your edited part added on, re-read Slow's third and last sections. It is not just figures, but also perception. There are no statistics or mention in that article regarding if females are happy with the situation and are fearful something may happen even though statistically it is unlikely. Again, their wishes, opinions, fears, concerns, objections et al are discounted.
"At the same time, transgenders are the victims of sexual abuse more than twice as often as cis women." Why?
"And they are the victims of non-sexual violence at the same kind of elevated rate." Why?
"They are far, far, far more likely to be victims than perpetrators." - not really different to all men and women.
As per what I've said before, 3.3% of women in prison are sexual offenders. 16.8% of males in prison are sexual offenders. But 58.9% of transwomen in prison are sexual offenders. What more can I say? Currently the figures for transwomen are small but growing, but is it any wonder many females don't want them in their safe space?
|
|
|
Post by Scrubb on Jan 30, 2024 0:13:24 GMT 2
Oops, double post as I quoted instead of editing
|
|
|
Post by Scrubb on Jan 30, 2024 0:17:14 GMT 2
I think the answer to those women who fear trans women is education. Their perception of risk in this situation is skewed. Plus, my point about over-representation was that there are many more men who are sexual offenders who are not in prison because they have the resources to avoid prison. It's entirely possible that bias plays against trans people in court, too. What I'm getting at is: - it's very well known that many women don't report sexual crimes against them --- reasons are many, but include not having proof, fear of not being believed, being poorly treated by the police, being poorly treated by the justice system, being "blamed" in court and subjected to scrutiny of what you were wearing, your sexual past, etc., etc., etc., - it's well documented that of sexual crimes that are reported, very few end up being charged - it's well documented that of sexual crimes that are charged, only a very few end up being convicted. (I think the stat I read is that either 3 or 6 convictions result from every 1000 sexual crimes committed) I'd really like to find out if sexual crimes performed by transgender people are reported, charged, and convicted at the same rate as sexual crimes performed by men. There are certainly reasons to believe that is not the case - there is well documented bias against trans people in most parts of society, so why not in court? Of course, it's very hard to find out the first (reported). Once again, democracy cannot allow the tyranny of the many. Cis women shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against trans women, just because there are more of them. I simply do not agree with your framing of it as "women's rights being trampled". I know that not all women feel the same way about this, which is why I said above that I think education is important. I have tried unsuccessfully to find data on cis women being threatened, harassed, or attacked by trans women in public facilities, but can't find it anywhere. Is that because it isn't an issue, in reality? Highly likely, but I have no proof. Given the enormous amount of public discussion about this issue, you'd think that the people wanting to refuse to allow trans women into women's spaces would be heavily promoting the data supporting that it is a risk, if that data exists. But in all the discussions I have read about the issue, I have not even seen anecdotal information about it. It seems to all be anticipating that it COULD be bad - even though there has not been any uptick in reported harassment or violence in places where access is allowed. It seems to be about unrealistic fears. And as I mentioned before, there are simple ways to allay those fears - things like changing the design of bathrooms and other facilities so that people don't intersect or have options not to intersect. As to why trans people are the victims of violence more often than anyone else? There are lots of reasons, most of which are connected to the fact that many live in poverty. Poor people are much more subjected to violence everywhere. They live and work in more vulnerable situations. Domestic violence against trans people are also high. Here's one brief summary of some of the issues of intimate-partner violence:
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Jan 30, 2024 0:33:49 GMT 2
"i can think of quite a few groups that do that, namely some of the AFD/Querdenker/etc. type ones ..." There is a lot more common sense in Germany regarding trans and gender issues and due to the language things like, e.g. not abolishing Ärztin or Kellnerin and many others for a gender neutral alternative. I doubt a female doctor will demand to have the 'in' part dropped and I've never heard of a Kellnerin demanding to be called a waiter or a Schauspielerin an actor. If this has happened I've missed it and I'd be interested to be corrected. So other issues are more prominent like the AFD and that being due to Government policies being, they believe, to have been too open on refugees for one thing. Querdenker though completely puzzle me. Basically it is different circumstances and what is seen as priorities. bit off-topic (and i am too tired just now to write on-topic - will see if i manage to write my thoughts in the next days), but the discussion about "gendering" in language (about female endings and generic masculinum etc.) in german goes in the opposite direction than in english - but it is definitely something that is discussed a lot and very controversely and unfortunately often not in a friendly way. in some ways, it'd be a lot easier if german was like english in that respect ... the way german works right now, gender neutral is difficult, though there are some forms that are becoming more popular (studierende, forschende etc.) ...
|
|
|
Post by OnlyMark on Jan 30, 2024 13:49:27 GMT 2
I have always had trouble with remembering genders in German.
I agree there is more violence against transgender people proportionally than against male or females. I would like to know from the perpetrators as to why because it is more complicated than saying it is because they are transgender. What particularly is it about them that promotes it. I don’t feel violent and need to assault them so I don’t understand the details of why.
I agree that transwomen shouldn't be able to participate in some sports but to be fair, there is a backlash that is unwarranted in some of the sports, like a recent one concerning snooker/pool/billiards. The excuse is men have a longer reach and more spatial awareness. I think that is clutching at straws. But that means a line has be drawn and any line opens up the probability that it will be fought against, which doesn’t satisfy transgenders who wish to compete. I’d expect they will feel their ‘rights’ should allow them to. If you close off anything at all you keep the door open to the more extremist elements doing what they are now currently doing. They would only be satisfied if everything without exception is open to them. How many transwomen agree with the sports issue of being banned from certain ones? I’ve no idea, I can only have an opinion based on their previous actions.
I think it is up to females to decide and not me or males as to where transwomen have a right to be concerning traditional spaces where males would not normally be and I think they should all have a say in this. If the majority of females are happy with that, then so be it. If not, then there is no dictating or tyranny, just simply the wishes of the majority outweighing the wishes of the minority. Isn't that what being democratic is? Otherwise you can label any decision where the majority win as tyranny.
I have reservations about opening up everything without exception for the reasons stated, especially if all it takes is a male to self-identify that day. That’s all. I’ve had my say and expressed my opinion and I’ll leave women/females to reach an amicable and hopefully consensual solution to a thorny problem.
|
|