Self ID of gender...can we discuss this?

Galaxy Wow, you really do appear to despise and distrust men - it's as if you believe that 97% of men will carry out a violent crime against a woman. Or a least that's the impression I get. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is it not more accurate to see that of all the attacks on the relatively small number of women who are attacked at all, 97% of them are carried out by natal men?

To keep presenting that figure without context is very misleading and if I identified as a man I think I would be pretty disturbed by the assertion.

No and being called a man hater is fairly boring to be honest. I can give the usual disclaimer if you like that I have a DH 2 sons a brother etc etc. I dont believe all men are a risk but I know that it's impossible to tell which males pose a risk and which dont.
I think everyone gets very upset about people talking about Male violence against women Nell. It is very uncomfortable for people. I think it depends on your definition of small numbers, 1 in 5 women have experienced some form of sexual assault.

As someone who was sexually assaulted by a cisgender man, I think it’s pretty clear that trans women aren’t the problem here. I do think that there’s a level of misandry and gender essentialism carried over from second wave feminism that if anything lets men get away with bad behaviour because it’s what society is supposed to accept from them.

Men aren’t the problem - toxic masculinity is.

We did a 'Me Too' thread on here a while ago. It was illuminating.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that most violent attacks, a huge %, are committed by men. It isn't man hating to state a fact.

Galaxy I know it's not rare, I'm one of those women - I have no discomfort at all in talking about it. I have both been violently assaulted by men and worked with other women who have, so I feel I've earned my stripes on this topic. Plus, as mentioned before I've worked with violent men both in and out of prison.

I'm even responsible for creating some of those statistics, which is why I will always ask for context. If we fail to use statistics in context, the statistics lose meaning.

I certainly didn't call you a man hater, I said that you give the impression of despising and distrusting men and asked you to correct me if I was wrong.

As for the statistic you quote - the 1 in 5, yes that stands but it has zero relevance to trans people and self ID and shouldn't be used in this context. Until you can state that any of those statistics specifically relate to violent attacks by trans women on other women they mean nothing. Sorry Galaxy, but that's how statistics work - in context.

I cant remember if it was here or on MN that I saw a me too thread it was horrific and very sad.

GagaJo

We did a 'Me Too' thread on here a while ago. It was illuminating.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that most violent attacks, a huge %, are committed by men. It isn't man hating to state a fact.

I didn't say it was, which is equally a fact. I asked for accuracy regarding statistics within their context.

I think men deserve a fair representation too.

I dont think the statistics will narrow down to small men or blond haired men for example, for me the statistics refer to the Male sex and you cant change sex. It comes down to the crux of the matter as I have said before and it is why we go round in circles, I dont believe you can change sex. Some people believe transwomen are women, (well I think they do, I am not sure how much of it is just something that is said) and if you believe that I can see why you wouldnt understand why I am talking about men.

Some statistics relating to sexual violence against women, in their proper context, just to clarify my point

www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

I categorically believe that trans women are women in every way except for their gender assignment at birth and capacity to therefore give birth.

If women being able to give birth is the only real, currently demonstrable argument against self ID, then the women making the argument are insulting an awful lot of natal women too. Like those who've had hysterectomies, those who can't conceive at all, those past menopause.

Hear hear!

Julie Miller is a transwoman.

The plural of anecdote isn’t data.

I categorically believe that trans women are women in every way except for their gender assignment at birth and capacity to therefore give birth.

But simply because you categorically believe something doesn't make it true. Unfortunately the business of giving birth is a straw man argument that doesn't really deal with the main objections.

For instance, what is your view of people who have gone through puberty as males, using their male strength to win trophies which were allocated to women, who compete separately from men because we already know men are stronger? Do you think that's just the women's hard luck if trans women beat all the women's world records by miles? Because personally, I consider it very unsporting, and in the case of some sports like rugby football, dangerous to the natal females who take part.

I think prisons will quietly wth minimal fuss change the policy. The concern coming from those running prisons is beginning to get louder. The issue is most people just dont care about women in prison. Are there legal cases coming from some women prisoners? I think there might be but the number of legal cases is hard to keep up with.

Hmm. I don’t think so, and even if they do the campaigns will continue.

Amberspyglass - good phrase Toxic Masculinity'.

One of the safest places I've been was Sitges (Spain) with its own special all inclusive population with many men. Yes mixed loos too.
People do have chromosome or hormone differences happening in the womb. Sorry can't do links but the info is out there - not just on the web either.
Sometimes intersex people have surgery as a baby but (hopefully not as much now) the wrong sex is assigned to them.

Dragonella

*I categorically believe that trans women are women in every way except for their gender assignment at birth and capacity to therefore give birth.*

But simply because you categorically believe something doesn't make it true. Unfortunately the business of giving birth is a straw man argument that doesn't really deal with the main objections.

For instance, what is your view of people who have gone through puberty as males, using their male strength to win trophies which were allocated to women, who compete separately from men because we already know men are stronger? Do you think that's just the women's hard luck if trans women beat all the women's world records by miles? Because personally, I consider it very unsporting, and in the case of some sports like rugby football, dangerous to the natal females who take part.

Said in response to another poster saying something along the lines of 'if that's what people truly believe and not just something they say' - it wasn't a commandment, or a demand of others. It's a personal statement of my belief, and my attitude towards and treatment of trans people is filtered through it. So no straw man, just solid argument.

I would argue that the main objections are the straw man.

I will come back to the sport question, but I want to find the relevant science to back up what I want to say, so please bear with me and I will answer it.

I think that whst you believe or I believe is irrelevant in many ways, it is what the law states that matters.

I was just discussing the differences in belief systems and in my experience many people who say trans women are women behave completely differently towards transwomen as they do towards women.

And I think that is frequently to the detriment of transwomen, so there are many concerns about the health risks involved in the treatment offered, in the governance and running of the organisations that support transpeople but somehow when these are raised they are brushed aside as nothing. Because for some maintaining the idea is more important than the wellbeing of transpeople.

Galaxy

And I think that is frequently to the detriment of transwomen, so there are many concerns about the health risks involved in the treatment offered, in the governance and running of the organisations that support transpeople but somehow when these are raised they are brushed aside as nothing. Because for some maintaining the idea is more important than the wellbeing of transpeople.

Not true in my case, I believe I was the one who brought that concern to this thread.

Your suggestion that I'm not genuine in my treatment of women is pretty offensive though. But I wont take it personally as you have no comparison to draw on.

And which law that states what? I'm not aware of any that negates my belief.

The equality act allows for sex segregated spaces which under certain circumstances can exclude transwomen.
I didnt say you are not genuine in your treatment of women, how would I know? I said that many people who say transwomen are women behave in a completely different way towards transwomen as they do to natal women, I am not even sure if they realise they are doing it. I think for many being right is more important than thinking is this the right thing for everyone.

And of course it's possible that that also applies to me but I hope not.

But the Equality Act doesn't state that trans women aren't women, so to use it to support that assertion is a comprehensive misinterpretation of what the Equality legislation actually achieves. Given that it protects trans rights against discrimination on equal terms as it protects everyone from sex discrimination I would stay it's inclusive and not exclusive. The exclusions are caveats that allow for discretion in extenuating circumstances and allow for the discretion of professionals in the assessment of risk. Those exceptions do not evidence the tenuous arguments of natal women, and neither do they undermine the case of trans women being women. They exist to manage risk, where clear risk can be identified and proved.