Thread by @LaraAdamsMille1

A defense and explanation for sharing extreme examples of bad behavior among trans-identified individuals, particularly biological males who enter or seek to enter female-only spaces.

A (hopefully, no promises) brief thread of why the bad apples must be discussed.

When I talk about concerns about women’s safety in vulnerable spaces, someone invariably responds, “That’s like saying black men are a danger to white women!”

There is, of course, the ubiquitous “compare transgenderism to race” fallacy. Stop doing that. A racial difference and a difference in biological sex are two very different factors.

It’s also implied that I’m stirring up unfounded fear by pointing at seeming outliers.

If we were talking about women & TW working together, or attending school together, or sharing public transport, these critics may be right.

But we’re not. We’re talking about intimate spaces, vulnerable spaces, secluded spaces. There’s a high threshold of trust required here.

And if we were speaking purely theoretically, they may have a point. I’d be guessing at what someone *might* do.

But I’m not. I’m talking about male abuse of women, of which we have thousands of years of recorded precedent. It’s accepted fact that women have to be wary of men.

This is where they say, “What do you MEAN? TW are women, and women are safe with women!”

Without diving into that statement, let’s focus on how we should consider TW *for the purpose of assessing risk to natal women.*

We’d want to know if they commit crime like men or women.

A 2011 study of 324 transgender people found the following:

“[R]egarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2).”

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

This means that, for whatever reason, a trans woman is AS LIKELY to commit a crime as a natal male. No more, no less.

This data 100% supports an approach which assumes the threat to women from TW to be similar or the same as what women face from non-trans men.

It’s just math.

So, we have a population of people who, if nothing else, are as likely to be dangerous to women as men are.

That population wants women to surrender the obstacles to male violence that we’ve established to make it safer for women to leave their homes & move freely in the world.

That’s a hell of a big ask. We all agree that being a woman in certain public spaces is fraught. Every woman I know has ducked into a bathroom to get clear of an uncomfortable situation with a man.

A bathroom is a space where a woman is shielded from view, with her guard down.

And let’s not pretend that there is some way to ensure these policies are being utilized in good faith. A man doesn’t have to “dress up like a woman” to exploit the policy.

We aren’t allowed to question anyone’s presence there. There is no dress code or femininity minimum.

Maybe that apparent man who came into the bathroom behind you is early in their transition. Gender-fluid. Non-binary. A gender-nonconforming trans woman. Or maybe he just saw you at the bar and wants to talk to you alone. You can’t ask. You can’t stop him - Your buffer is gone.

And so now, what? Don’t think about it; just hope he’s cool? Trust your gut, leave the restroom, and go home to pee? Use the bathroom, but go into a hyper-vigilant mode the whole time?

Best case scenario, multi-stall public restrooms are now exhausting, one more high-risk zone.

Remember, this is how women learn to see the world: Red, green, yellow.

Home should be green. Your friends’ place, church - green.

Parking lots? Yellow. It’s fine, but watch your ass.

Stairwells, ATMs at night, Walk to your car at night, red: Be fully alert, avoid if alone.

The danger color of a space is determined by how much control you have over who enters it and what they can do there. That’s the entire criteria.

Trans-inclusive policies without meaningful safeguards make a lot more of the world red for us.

Your hospital room shouldn’t be red.

The restroom at your job shouldn’t be red.

Where you go to work out and take care of your health shouldn’t be red.

But, if men we don’t know can be alone with us there, they all become red spaces.

And we shouldn’t even need to add extreme examples for someone reading this to agree that women can reasonably be concerned by policies that turn sex-segregated spaces into unisex spaces.

Men hurt women. Women, in public, have to watch out for that. That should be enough.

But it isn’t. The entire progressive world acts as though that post-transition crime study doesn’t exist, or that these policies won’t be abused.

No, that’s not true. They act as though women should just be good sports about the increased personal risk. Take one for the team.

So I share extreme examples because I’m frankly trying to find the line, the point at which people will begin to say, “Wow, that’s terrifying. Maybe we need to not accept facility access solutions that ignore the impact on the biological women who rely on those spaces.”

I’m still hoping to find that line.

Is it a TW who circulated video of them raping a 4 yr-old girl? Nope.

Is it the hundreds of porn sites devoted to bathroom voyeurism? Nope.

Girls assaulted in changing rooms? Lesbians shot and stabbed by a TW?

Nope.

I share what seem like extreme examples because, while the behavior is extreme, the likelihood of this happening to someone as a result of these broken policies isn’t remote in the slightest.

Predators are opportunists. That’s why you avoid the stairwell, check the backseat.

These policies are turning women’s most vulnerable spaces — guard is down; secluded from view — into opportunities for predators.

I’m not willing to accept that. I’m not going to be a good sport. I’m unwilling to accept a single woman being harmed for the sake of male inclusion.

Women are already raped far too often, beaten far too often, killed far too often. We are living a crisis of sex-based violence, and, rather than trying to remedy that, people are asking us to take on a little more risk.

No.

If this movement is okay with there being increased incidents of violence against women, then it’s an anti-woman movement.

It’s abhorrent to think it’s okay to discuss these policies without addressing how they could hurt non-trans women. It’s anti-woman.

We can’t claim to be feminists if we’re willing to move backwards on something as critical as women’s physical safety and freedom to move about in public.

What is being asked of women right now is too much. We’re willing to share our world, just not these critical spaces.

I talk about the baddest of the apples not because I think that’s all TW - I do it because it’s unacceptable to knowingly put ANY woman in the path of someone like that. As long as we know such a threat exists, we owe her our due diligence. It’s a basic social responsibility.

I don’t want to hear more complaints about sharing stories that could spread mistrust of TW.

If you have complaints about me bringing up trans violence against women, then tell me -

How many rapes and murders are an acceptable sacrifice for women to make for inclusivity?