Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Shechemite]

deny your right to exist.

What does this mean? Serious question, as I’m puzzled about the language here.

 

[Athos]

What about the harm from hearing people publically deny your right to exist? We've done all this already, read the thread.

Are a significant number of people really denying trans people's right to exist? Because, that seems like a disingenuous (if oft repeated) characterisation. Saying that your definition of a woman doesn't encompass people born male isn't the same as saying those people have no right to exist.

 

[friendofdorothy]

The case of Christopher Hambrook in Canada is one in which an abusive man posed as a trans woman, to gain access to women's shelters, wherein he sexually abused women. It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it. To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion. Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men.

So Christopher H wasn't a trans woman, he was just pretending to be one? haven't heard of this, any links?

 

[Athos]

So Christopher H wasn't a trans woman, he was just pretending to be one? haven't heard of this, any links?

A sex predator’s sick deception

 

[Magnus McGinty]

What about the harm from hearing people publically deny your right to exist? We've done all this already, read the thread.

Nobody is denying anyone’s right to exist. Stop equating women’s concerns to fascism. It’s getting people’s backs up.

 

[Treacle Toes]

In childhood, Hambrook was diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and never made it through high school.

Wilkie diagnosed him with an anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, determined he was dependent on alcohol and drugs and had multiple sexual deviancies. He was rated as a high risk to re-offend sexually.

Hambrook was earlier assessed as suffering from bisexual pedophilia and exhibitionism.

In his psychiatric assessment, Hambrook provided conflicting information on his gender identity issue. He lied that he had been receiving hormone treatment for many years and lied that he wanted to pursue a sex change. He admitted he only dressed intermittently in women’s clothing and wanted to remain a man and have a relationship with a woman.

Psychiatric reports concluded Hambrook is not transgender.

Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.

 

[Athos]

Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.

Who's doing that? The whole point is that he's not a trans woman. But that there's a risk (albeit, as I said above, very small) that men like him will abuse laws intended to make trans people's lives easier. And that to pretend that it hasn't/doesn't/wouldn't happen is a very poor argument. There needs to be an honest discussion about what risks are weighted against what benefits.

 

[smokedout]

Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.

Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were. This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were. This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.

Well quite. But that is clearly us not taking women's concerns seriously enough, apparently.

 

[Athos]

Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were. This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.

Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.

And what if Hambrook had no previous convictions?

 

[smokedout]

Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.

And what if Hambrook had no previous convictions?

Show me another. There are a tiny handful globally of convictions of men dressing as women to gain access to womens toilets etc. It is an incredibly rare phenomena, and none of these cases was linked to trans-inclusive legislation. In other words tran-exclusive policies will not prevent men from doing this. The women's sector in the states has been quite clear that trans-inclusion is not a problem, I'm sure you read the open letter I linked to earlier in the thread. Meanwhile the network of providers of women's services in Scotland say this (pdf)

Are men likely to put on women’s clothing to gain admittance to women’s refuges?

Sometimes women’s refuges are concerned that abusive men will put on women’s clothing
to gain access to women’s refuges. This concern doesn’t match the experience of refuges
that have adopted policies that accept transgender women. The authors of this guidance
have never heard of a scenario like this happening and believe that it is extremely unlikely
to occur. If this unlikely situation were to occur, we believe that intake staff would be able
to immediately recognise that the person is not sincerely identifying as a woman who has
experienced gender based violence: this would be integral to the broader risk management
of abuser access to safe spaces

 

[smokedout]

So once again you are supporting an argument which has no credibility amongst those people actually working in this field, is not backed up by any credible statistics or media reports, and is simply just a regurgitation of scare-mongering propaganda put out by the kind of terfs you say you oppose

 

[Athos]

So once again you are supporting an argument which has no credibility amongst those people actually working in this field, is not backed up by any credible statistics or media reports, and is simply just a regurgitation of scare-mongering propaganda put out by the kind of terfs you say you oppose

Did you actually read the point I made? I explained that it's counter-productive to simply dismiss women's fears that these things could happen, because there are documented cases of them having happened (albeit cases I explicitly said were very rare, and which you've acknowledged above). The point I made was that there are better, and more honest trans-inclusionary arguments e.g. one based on compassion for trans women, that doesn't necessarily require women to redefine womanhood in a way that makes no sense to them.

There's no point just telling women that men don't pretend to be women to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes. Some do. And it follows that the easier you make it for trans women to enter women's spaces, the easier it will be for such men to do so by claiming to be trans women.

Personally, as I've said before, I think that small risk is outweighed by the harm of trans exclusion. But at least be honest that it is a risk, and something women have a legitimate interest in discussing.

In any event, the network's claim that they'd be able to immediately recognise fakes with bad intentions is a bit dubious. After all, their Canadian counterparts didn't spot Hambrook.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.

A man can put on women's clothes without going to the trouble of officially changing their gender identity. I don't doubt there are cases like those you describe, but I question the idea that making life more complicated for ordinary trans folk would prevent them from happening.

 

[smokedout]

Did you actually read the point I made? I explained that it's silly to simply dismiss women's fears that these things could happen, because there are documented cases of them having happened (cases I explicitly said were very rare, and which you've acknowledged above). The point I made was that there are better, and more honest trans-inclusionary arguments. There's no point just telling women that men don't pretend to be women to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes. Some do.

You'll be posting some evidence of the other cases for us to see then?

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transwomen accessing women's spaces all over the world every day. There are millions of publc toilets cis predatory men could already dress up and enter regardless of the law. There are also appallingly millions of rapes, and none of them carried out by men dressed as women in women only spaces. As such the tiny handful of incidents that have occurred, over several years, would be regarded as statistically insignifiant in any less heated (and prejudiced) debate. You might as well argue not to go outside in case it starts raining frogs.

There is nothing in life where freak occurences might not occur. There are sometimes violent cis-women in refuges who have assaulted people. It is not undermining people's fears about a relatively new social phenomena to point out that statistically the chance of a man dressing as a woman to enter women only spaces to sexually abuse people is virtually non-existent - and that trans-inclusion or exclusion does nothing to change this anyway.

There's one analysis here: PolitiFact NC: Virtually no cases of sexual predators benefiting from transgender anti-discrimination laws

The liberal group Media Matters For America has studied the bathroom issue for several years, largely under the guidance of Carlos Maza.


Maza, a Wake Forest University graduate, tweeted after North Carolina’s new law passed that “A man has never used an LGBT non-discrimination law to sneak into a bathroom.”


Maza has also polled public school systems that allow transgender students to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. In a June 2015 article, he wrote that in 17 districts with a total of 600,000 students, officials hadn’t reported a single incident of “harassment or inappropriate behavior” related to transgender students and bathrooms.


But we still weren’t satisfied, so we kept digging, looking for examples of proven criminal behavior. We were likewise unable to find any examples in the United States, though we did find a case in Canada.


In that case, Christopher Hambrook posed as a woman to gain entry to women’s shelters, where he attacked several people before being caught. Hambrook was sentenced to an “indefinite” jail term in 2014 that could lead to his spending the rest of his life in prison.


Hambrook committed the crimes in Toronto, which has an ordinance protecting transgender people. That appears to be the first, and so far only, incident of its kind in North America.


After spending hours combing through conservative blogs and family values websites dedicated to news about transgender bathroom ordinances, we were able to confirm three cases in the United States in the last 17 years in which a biological male was convicted of a crime that involved him in a women’s bathroom or locker room and dressed as a woman.


It’s unclear if any of the three identified as transgender women, but none of those cases happened in cities where it would have been legal for a transgender woman to use the women’s room anyway. And none involved sexual assault or rape.


In 1999, Patrick Hagan was convicted in Tampa, Fla., for punching a woman in a bar bathroom during an argument. In 2010, Norwood Burns was convicted in Gordon County, Georgia, for exposing himself in a Walmart bathroom. In 2011, Thomas Lee Benson was convicted of trespassing in a Clackamas, Ore., women’s locker room and trying to talk to children.


Again, though, none of those crimes occurred in places where biological men would have had any legal claim to be in a women’s room by virtue of being a transgender woman.


The blogs did identify a few examples of alleged criminal activity having taken place under the guise of transgender-friendly bathrooms laws, but we couldn’t find proof of any convictions in those cases.

 

[Athos]

You'll be posting some evidence of the other cases for us to see then?

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transwomen accessing women's spaces all over the world every day. There are millions of publc toilets cis predatory men could already dress up and enter regardless of the law. There are also appallingly millions of rapes, and none of them carried out by men dressed as women in women only spaces. As such the tiny handful of incidents that have occurred, over several years, would be regarded as statistically insignifiant in any less heated (and prejudiced) debate. You might as well argue not to go outside in case it starts raining frogs.

There is nothing in life where freak occurences might not occur. There are sometimes violent cis-women in refuges who have assaulted people. It is not undermining people's fears about a relatively new social phenomena to point out that statistically the chance of a man dressing as a woman to enter women only spaces to sexually abuse people is virtually non-existent - and that trans-inclusion or exclusion does nothing to change this anyway.

There's one analysis here: PolitiFact NC: Virtually no cases of sexual predators benefiting from transgender anti-discrimination laws

What have I said with which you are arguing? I agree with what you've posted, here: I've said such attacks are very rare; I've said that, in my opinion, the very small risk arising from trans inclusion is outweighed by that of exclusion; you're right that we should point that evidence out to allay women's fears.

All of that is consistent with what I said at the outset of my exchange with SpookyFrank:

"It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it. To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion. Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men."

Again, it's about the difference between engaging with women and dismissing them.

 

[smokedout]

'women'

By which you mean some women. The experts in this sector, those who actually do this work, largely seem to disagree and strongly support trans-inclusion. Why would you dismiss these women?

“These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”

 

[Athos]

'women'

By which you mean some women. The experts in this sector, those who actually do this work, largely seem to disagree and strongly support trans-inclusion. Why would you dismiss these women?

“These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”

No, as I've said before (on this thread), all women should be allowed to engage in that debate without abuse or intimidation.

I don't dismiss the views of women who work in this field, at all. They don't disagree with me; we both believe the risk is minimal.

Seriously, what are you arguing against? I agree with all you've said. The only things I've said that you haven't is that women should be allowed to have this discussion, and that the discussion should be honest. Is that what you disagree with? Either of those positions? Both? I'm sure I've asked you about the first of these before, but you ducked it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it. To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion.

Measures can and should be in place already that would have prevented this attack. The system didn't work as it should have - be angry about that if you must. But one case, in the whole world? This kind of stuff rightly gets shot down as reactionary shite when we discuss other sectors of society, such as mental health users.

 

[Athos]

Measures can and should be in place already that would have prevented this attack. The system didn't work as it should have - be angry about that if you must. But one case, in the whole world? This kind of stuff rightly gets shot down as reactionary shite when we discuss other sectors of society, such as mental health users.

Yes, as I've said at length, it's not a position I find persuasive! It may well be reactionary. It should be argued against, honestly.

 

[smokedout]

Yes, as I've said at length, it's not a position I find persuasive! It may well be reactionary. It should be argued against, honestly.

And the way to argue against it honestly is not to overstate the case, or say things like this:

Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.

But to point out that the experience of trans-inclusive women only spaces has been that these fears, understandable as they are in a world which is only just getting used to transpeople, but is more than familiar with endemic male violence, have not proved to be grounded. That is the argument those supporting trans-inclusion absolutely must make. It is the argument you should be making if what you say is sincere. Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.

And by the way, the social harm from this to trans-people outweighs any fucking stupid shit some cunt says on twitter about terfs, or a scuffle over a camera in Hyde Park.

 

[smokedout]

Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.

And by the way, the social harm from this to trans-people outweighs any fucking stupid shit some cunt says on twitter about terfs, or a scuffle over a camera in Hyde Park.

And that is my position, since you asked on the other thread.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

No, as I've said before (on this thread), all women should be allowed to engage in that debate without abuse or intimidation.

How very generous of you.

 

[Athos]

And the way to argue against it honestly is not to overstate the case, or say things like this:


But to point out that the experience of trans-inclusive women only spaces has been that these fears, understandable as they are in a world which is only just getting used to transpeople, but is more than familiar with endemic male violence, have not proved to be grounded. That is the argument those supporting trans-inclusion absolutely must make. It is the argument you should be making if what you say is sincere. Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.

And by the way, the social harm from this to trans-people outweighs any fucking stupid shit some cunt says on twitter about terfs, or a scuffle over a camera in Hyde Park.

The post of mine you quoted is true. You acknowledged yourself that there's a very small number of documented cases. That doesn't overstate anything.

I've already agreed with you that pro inclusion arguments which put the figures into context should be made. I've simply said that it's a poor tactic to dismiss women's fears by dishonesty claiming that such incidents have never occurred. It's better to acknowledge those facts, fears, and a very small risk, but to argue that it is outweighed by other factors, in my opinion.

You ducked my question, again. It's getting a bit embarrassing, now.

Do you believe women should be free to discuss what a woman is, without fear of intimidation and abuse?

 

[Athos]

How very generous of you.

Seemingly, it's more than some in this thread think.

 

[smmudge]

Athos you bring up the Hambrook case, saying we need to address the risk, however small, of men pretending to be trans to maliciously gain access to women's spaces. Then when faced with evidence that this has been addressed, you argue that it is simply dismissing those concerns. When it's untenable for you to take this line - as it becomes obvious it's not been dismissed, but actually seriously considered by people who are best placed to consider and tackle the issue, that is, people who organise and run women's spaces - you state that you agreed all along...and in any case that's not your point, your point is that women should feel free to discuss what it means to be a woman without fear - something that's completely irrelevant to your original argument, and not something I have seen anyone in this thread questioning in the first place!! I would say it is you who is being disingenuous and ducking where it suits you!

 

[Athos]

Athos you bring up the Hambrook case, saying we need to address the risk, however small, of men pretending to be trans to maliciously gain access to women's spaces. Then when faced with evidence that this has been addressed, you argue that it is simply dismissing those concerns. When it's untenable for you to take this line - as it becomes obvious it's not been dismissed, but actually seriously considered by people who are best placed to consider and tackle the issue, that is, people who organise and run women's spaces - you state that you agreed all along...and in any case that's not your point, your point is that women should feel free to discuss what it means to be a woman without fear - something that's completely irrelevant to your original argument, and not something I have seen anyone in this thread questioning in the first place!! I would say it is you who is being disingenuous and ducking where it suits you!

I disagree with your interpretation of what's gone on in this thread generally, and my posts in particular.

Many people dismiss women's concerns that changes to the law will enable men to pose to trans women to gain access to women's spaces for the purposes of offending, on the basis that such things have never happened (and so won't in the future). The inconvenient Hambrook case (however rare) undermines that position.

Because of such cases, women have every right to discus these fears. Of course, part of that discussion should be considering the evidence and expert opinion. And I hope that, a result of that discussion, the trans inclusionary position is more widely adopted.

But, increasingly, it's being suggested that the act of engaging in that debate is transphobic. And women are being intimidated from engaging in it.

 

[bimble]

Hambrook case as written up in that article you posted is interesting for how everyone relied on the final opinion of the psychiatrists who determined that despite what he said (and what gained him entry presumably to the shelter) he was not a real trans person. But we want to remove the psychiatrists from the process don't we?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Are a significant number of people really denying trans people's right to exist? Because, that seems like a disingenuous (if oft repeated) characterisation. Saying that your definition of a woman doesn't encompass people born male isn't the same as saying those people have no right to exist.

Assigned male at birth is not the same thing as born male.

'It's nothing personal, but my definition of the thing you are doesn't include you.'

- It sounds a lot worse when you think of it from an individual's perspective don't you think? Of course people should be free to express opinions, but they don't have the right to say things and be immune from consequences, or from those opinions being challenged. The right to express yourself does not come with carte blanche to cause harm to others by doing so.

 

[Athos]

Assigned male at birth is not the same thing as born male.

'It's nothing personal, but my definition of the thing you are doesn't include you.'

- It sounds a lot worse when you think of it from an individual's perspective don't you think? Of course people should be free to express opinions, but they don't have the right to say things and be immune from consequences, or from those opinions being challenged. The right to express yourself does not come with carte blanche to cause harm to others by doing so.

'Assigned male at birth' is a bit of sophistry. In all but a tiny minority of cases (i.e. intersex people) sexual diamorphism is a biological fact; people aren't 'assigned' male, they 'are' male - dicks, chromosomes, etc.. That's not to say they must necessarily perform the gender role society assigns to their sex, though. But it's disingenous to suggest that sex isn't real, even if you believe that it ought not to underpin gender.

I accept that some of those opinions are hurtful (similarly some women feel hurt by being required to define what they are differently i.e. to widen the definition), and I have no issue with opinions on either side being challenged in debate. I only have an issue with women (including trans women) being bullied and intimidated out of discussions. Two very different things.

Is it your opinion that a belief that a conception of women as adult human females is harmful to trans women, such that it ought not to be expressed?