Has there been an influx of TRAs to Mumsnet recently?

[ByTheRiverside]

I'm a long time reader. Only recently started to participate.

I very rarely saw any TRAs on here over the years. But in the past few weeks, I've noticed a lot of them coming here.

You can generally tell by the absolute shite coming out of their mouths, such as being avid apologists for sex offenders.

What's their deal with coming here? Are they saying that their 'womanhood' is reliant on us conforming to their belief, so they're trying to get us to agree with them? If that's so, then welcome!!! You're going to have to get used to reality real quick if you stick around.

Has anyone else noticed this, or just me?

"Sex crimes appear at around double the rate in transwomen"

So I should be twice as scared if a trans identifying man comes into a women-only space, than if any other man enters?

It is important to remember that most of the sex offenses women are exposed to are never reported, certainly never prosecuted or recorded.

That report that said 97% of young women experience harassment or assault was probably an underestimate.

We do not want men in our spaces.

Leaving aside that men peeing on the seat or the floor in loos wouldn't even be counted as harassment.

When you have to resort to personal attacks, you are pretty much losing the argument. Sure I have read that on here.

How come the statistics aren't bullshit when they are posted by Henrietta Swan, but when I extrapolate those exact statistics to population level they suddenly become bullshit?

And now we are into the being facetious and deliberately ridiculous.

About rape and sex crimes.

Slow handclap.

I’m scared of any man in women’s single sex spaces. I don’t care if he is trans or not - it’s irrelevant to me.

Eh?

It's a bit more complex than that, isn't it?

A man almost certainly wouldn't believe he was in the right place in the ladies' loo. If a man is there with a particular purpose (helping his very young daughter use the loo, helping his wife who is miscarrying) then they would have an ordinary risk of being an offender at population level. A man in the ladies loo with no reason is probably statistically more likely to be a worry as they would know they have no valid reason (having a wee) to be there.

A trans woman could genuinely believe (erroneously in my view) that they have a right to be there, and in their mind therefore could have a valid reason (a wee) to be there.

One might argue those transwomen are knowingly defying women's boundaries (assuming they are aware of some women's discomfort) and therefore automatically higher risk; however I don't know if the stats bear that out. Most of them really do 'just want to pee'.

What I do suspect is that a trans woman who does not use the women's loo (or other spaces) is likely mindful of their impact on others, doesn't wish to cause worry or upset, and is therefore probably less likely than the statistical average for their cohort to be a sex offender.

Most of them really do 'just want to pee'.

No. They can pee in the gents. They just want to pee in a place adjacent to women, and lacking the urinals that they can use cleanly and conveniently.

They are unwanted. Women's loos are unsuitably equipped for male urination. Witness the mess in train and plane loos, and in homes where the women are not able to instill proper behavior in shared space.

SIT DOWN.

I’m entitled to a single sex spaces

Why do the trans woman’s misunderstanding of their rights trump my sex based rights?

And feign innocence.

Bangs Head.

If they 'just want to pee' why do they need validation?

They can just pee in the gents without using the women in the ladies in the process.

They can legally pee in the gents. If they are harassed they should take it up with establishment.
(Note women are expected to deal with males harassing them in the ladies so they can suck it up).

Women are not support humans who are there for validation purposes.

A man almost certainly wouldn't believe he was in the right place in the ladies' loo.

A trans woman could genuinely believe (erroneously in my view) that they have a right to be there

Your two statements contradict each other. A "trans woman" is a man. So you could just as easily have said the "man" could genuinely believe (erroneously in my view) that they have a right to be there or the "trans woman" almost certainly wouldn't believe he was in the right place in the ladies' loo.

Which is it?

Care to explain the contradiction?

Damn I've been deleted. 😉

They don't. We agree on that.

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Women are entitled to single sex spaces. I agree. My trans daughter agrees. The law agrees.

She is also entitled to present, dress and think of her identity however she wants, and not being denied work, care, or housing because of this. These are her 'gender reassignment' based rights. She can also request whichever pronouns she wants and whichever title she wants. She isn't going to make a scene if you use a different one. It's a preference, not a law.

All men, regardless of any gender identity he may claim to have, know they are not wanted in women’s single sex spaces. Any man who imposes himself in them is therefore definitely one of those men.

Yes. The contradiction is that if I used the term 'cis man' in order to be clearer about whom I was talking, a bunch of people would have said the term cis is offensive and unnecessary and just "man" would do. Typing "men whose gender identity aligns with their sex, or men who do not profess to have a gender identity but are happy to live as, be viewed as, and live their lives as men" every time is a bit wordy.

You are being rather disingenuous here, I don't believe you didn't understand what I meant.

Nevermind 😉

Yeah, I should of added 'worth it' to my post. 😂

Should have.

I mean, there's a reason why using female single-sex spaces (typically, the toilets) used to be a requirement to be recommended for a medical transition path. That's because it was supposed to show that the transwoman was sufficiently determined, that he would force himself to do something very unpleasant in order to obtain what he wanted. And why would it be unpleasant if not because everyone knew that he would be entering a space where he was not wanted, and thus could face open rejection?

So yeah, they've always known.

I really don't understand. A "man" is a man. A "transwoman" is a man.

According to you:

The former ought to know he's not allowed in women's single-sex spaces.

The latter "could genuinely believe (erroneously in my view) that they have a right to be there"

So which is it, because they are both men?

For what it's worth, I just use "non-trans men" when such a disambiguation is necessary.

They can actually be denied work if the job is such that the single sex exemption applies.

they can’t identify into being a woman.

absolutely they can dress and present how they please.

however much they request me to use a particular pronoun or title I am not going to do that. It’s really important to me that we use clear language so that my sex based rights are maintained and using incorrect forms of address and pronouns muddies that

Sorry I can't go along with that, that's like calling females 'non-trans' women, I'll think I'll stick to calling males men.

Well, no, women are women, and men are men, as a rule. I did say that I used that phrasing only when the disambiguation was necessary, as in, when I want to talk specifically about the men who are not transwomen.