This is interesting and perhaps at the crux of where people have differing views on this.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that a trans person poses more of a threat to a 'vulnerable' person than a non trans person does?
Obviously vulnerable people need to be protected. What I cannot understand is why somebody who identifies as a female poses more danger? That's the head scratcher for me.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that a trans person poses more of a threat to a 'vulnerable' person than a non trans person does?
No.
You should distinguish between sexes there. I believe trans women in possession of GRC pose less risk than males. I can't prove that with data.
Gender recognition certification does change individuals rights, and is differing to those identifying as trans.
You may want to consider what a trans person is. Is somebody who just identifies as trans, trans? If you are a male, and you decide you are male are you a trans person? No transition? No diagnosis? We define by a feeling, or in the case of bad faith actors because they want to exploit others .
Now as you are now a trans person and you enter a female space do you represent any danger to females dignity, privacy, or safety?
Our understanding of danger may differ here. I as a support worker if I was to identify as woman and provided one to one intimate care would compromise a female service users rights. I don't have that right to self ID, and patients in social care (Not the NHS) under the social care act have rights to same sex care. Identifying as a women does not change my sex.
Somebody who identifies as trans can (not is) be a bad faith actor, a voyeur, a bully to women, violent and use the opportunity to sexually exploit.Obviously vulnerable people need to be protected. What I cannot understand is why somebody who identifies as a female poses more danger? That's the head scratcher for me.
Prisons stats observe that those who identify as trans women display higher rates of sexual offending than male and females. Far higher. Could theses figures be skewed by those who are assuming the identity of trans for their own benefit?
Back to safeguarding. 99% of sexual crime is committed by males. Societies response is to act with vigilance and paranoia. Safeguarding measures are paranoid, they assume that males = A threat to women's right to dignity, privacy and safety on the basis of that 99%, so all males are a threat = Society creates single sex spaces for females.
Now lets do those who identify as trans women. No diagnosis. No gender reassignment. No hormone suppressants. No GRC. The individual has NOT changed their sex which is the determinant in the above safeguarding measure. If we ignore that determinant and decide that those who identify as women can use female single sex spaces, how can this not increase risks?