AuroraSaab
Squire
The point is that trans identifying men offend at the same rate as other men. There is no reason to regard them as different from other men in terms of safeguarding.In a world population of some 8 billion or so, the GCs between them trawl the internet to find cases. But as Multitool observes, the number of women being attacked by trans women in public spaces - that is to say those recognised in law as women - is vanishingly small in the UK.
Hindu men actually offend at lower than average rates than other men in the UK. Nobody would say that means Hindu men should have access to women's spaces because we all know it's nonsense to pretend some men are different from others re being in women's spaces. We all know that it's their sex which is the issue and not simply how lovely or harmless any particular man is.
A man with a GRC is a man with a GRC. It confers some accommodations, that's all.Without traducing the horror of any attack, I find it necessary to point out to you that the legal rights of trans women, and the legal rights of those without a GRC are much different. There are reasons for this which I detailed in the past.
The benchmark for women's and girl's safety and privacy should not be 'being raped with a penis'. That is a very low bar for what constitutes harm.When I point that some trans women have had surgery, so can not possibly be within a cohort that can be accused of rape, and those without surgery but have taken hormones instead are no longer capable of rape due to penile atrophy and impotence, you make inappropriate remarks.
You don't need either surgery or hormones to get a GRC as you well know, and the idea that the presence of a man in women's spaces is rendered harmless by him having erectile dysfunction is rubbish.