‘Lots of women therefore treat all men as potentially suspect until proven otherwise out of simple self preservation.’

A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry.

‘When hearing this, lots of men tend to protest – “But I’m not like that!”, they’ll say. Chances are they’re not, but we don’t know, and it pays to err on the side of caution, because erring the other way only has to go wrong once’

And a lot of Muslims say they’re not terrorists and chances are they are not but the State thinks it best to err on the side of caution because erring the other way only has to go wrong once (or so they tell us).

Just how many transgendered people are physically attacked by feminists per year, on average?

“A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry.”

Are you really equating women’s totally reasonable fear of assault by men with racist bigotry?

Shatterface, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make? Are you trying to suggest that it’s somehow sexist for women who’ve been attacked/abused by men, or know people to have, to feel nervous walking home alone? Or sexist for a trans woman who has spent a lot of her time fending off verbal and even physical attacks by cis feminists to feel nervous at a rally?

I’m glad for you if you’ve never had to feel fear of the opposite sex whilst walking home alone at night. But to suggest that noone else should do the same? Your privilege is showing, man.

And in answer to your question – I believe that few trans women are actually *physically* attacked ‘per year, on average’ by cis feminists (like cis people, most of the physical violence trans people have to fear comes from men). But cis feminists have a history of making vicious ideological sallies at the very heart of trans identity. I doubt Jan Moir has ever tried to actually beat up a gay man – but to expect a gay man to feel comfortable at an identity-focused anti-violence event where she was a headline speaker might be pushing it a bit, nay?

I’d like to state, just to get it out the way, that I was there at RTN, and despite the presence of Ms Bindel cheerily downing drinks at the back the event really was trans-positive, as far as I could tell with my cis goggles on. The NUS speaker even mentioned that NUS’ violence against women strategy would now include trans women, and there was a great big cheer.

***That’s not the point, though***. The point is that however trans friendly some of the sisterhood is now trying to be, more needs to be done to heal the hurts of the past and build a strong movement.

I’m sorry I didn’t get to attend TDoR. I didn’t hear that there was an actual vigil on until afterwards

Laurie – that’s fantastic to hear, and definitely a big step in the right direction.

Running into JB could have been … interesting. I believe she once referred to me as “the nastiest trans person”, or something like that.

‘Are you really equating women’s totally reasonable fear of assault by men with racist bigotry?’

Absolutely.

They’re making the same set of stereotypical assumptions about other people.

Shatterface – I think your point is overly simplistic because it ignores the very different nature of the power imbalances in the situations you’re trying to equate. The fear a bigot feels for someone from a racial minority is irrational – as part of the culturally privileged majority the bigot is in a position of power over members of minorities.

In the case of women fearing men, and trans people fearing cis people the fear is entirely rational, because it’s the weak fearing the strong.

….Oh, for Christ’s sake. Anyone trying to talk sense into ‘Shatterface’ would be better off watching paint dry: an equally pointless exercise but one that does eventually end.

Let’s spell it out. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Some men- a small minority- like to abuse this advantage by physically or sexually assaulting women. Such attacks are much more likely to occur at night, when there is a smaller chance of a bystander seeing the assault. A woman walking alone at night is, alas, being rational if she feels afraid when she encounters a man.

I’ve stepped in on a number of occasions to help women being threatened by men, and on three occasions I actually had to lay hands on the man because he wouldn’t stop hurting the woman. Saying that this happened does not make me a ‘bigot’. On one occasion, on the Holloway Road, it turned into a fist fight between me and some guy who wanted to shove a black woman around. The last time I had to intervene was about two years ago, but I don’t somehow imagine that a minority of men have stopped hurting women in the meantime.

Some men like to hit or harrass or, at worst, rape women. Most of us don’t. You don’t have to have seen instances of assault to know this: you just need to read the crime statistics. People who acknowledge these facts are not bigots, and anyone who thinks that some men don’t attack women has either lived a very sheltered life or is a little halfwit trying to show off in a comments thread.

‘Your privilege is showing, man.’

And yet again the Oxford graduate plays the ‘privilage’ card.

‘But cis feminists have a history of making vicious ideological sallies at the very heart of trans identity’

In English, they can get a bit catty when confronted by what they see as a man in drag. A bit different from accusing them of violence but then some of us are able to distinguish real from verbal ‘aggression’.

Look, you are the ones who want to make this about identity rather than issues. Identity politics will always tend towards atomism and biological ‘purity’ rather than solidarity and collective action.

Reclaim the Night is a massively retrograde step for feminism. Sarah accepts the argument that women are at risk from strangers walking the streets rather than – as the evidence shows – from their partners, at home, and buys into the segregationist argument that this Stranger Danger is best fought by women alone -then she runs into the inconveniant fact that many in the sisterhood don’t count her among their number.

Well, welcome to the club.

‘Let’s spell it out. The average man is stronger than the average woman.’

And the average transgendered woman is stronger than the average cis woman so lousy example.

‘On one occasion, on the Holloway Road, it turned into a fist fight between me and some guy who wanted to shove a black woman around’

Very macho, but if RTN had their way you wouldn’t have been around to intervene.

‘Some men- a small minority- like to abuse this advantage by physically or sexually assaulting women. Such attacks are much more likely to occur at night, when there is a smaller chance of a bystander seeing the assault. A woman walking alone at night is, alas, being rational if she feels afraid when she encounters a man.’

And see above for the reasons the Stranger Danger thesis is bullshit.

It’s a fact males are the victim of violence in much greater numbers. My sons are testement and have the scars to prove it. When a woman beats her child or even worse (don’t even mention her partner ) its not classed as domestic violence. This term has been hijacked by the feminist’s to demonise men.

I’d like to use a politer term than ‘moron’ to describe ‘Shatterface’, but none springs to mind.

‘Very macho, but if RTN had their way you wouldn’t have been around to intervene.’
Eh? Reclaim the Night have demanded that men stop walking up and down the Holloway Road? I don’t think so, though I’m sure you’re just about to type the evidence out.

‘the Stranger Danger thesis is bullshit.’
Most assaults on women by men are carried out by assailants who know the victim. And, undeniably, some assaults on women by men are carried out by assailants who don’t know the victim: strangers. Care to explain those women who report attacks by male strangers are ‘bullshitters’? Or maybe you’d just like to stop making a fool of yourself in public.

“And the average transgendered woman is stronger than the average cis woman so lousy example.”

This is a widely believed myth. Any significant length of time on HRT negates any strength advantage we may once have had. Trans women are usually no stronger than any other women of similar build.

The only reason I might be any stronger than a random woman on the street is because I go to the climbing gym twice a week, and even there many of the women are far stronger than I am.

‘I’d like to use a politer term than ‘moron’ to describe ‘Shatterface’, but none springs to mind.’

Stick to ‘moron’. It’s only two syllables and shouldn’t stretch you too much. You could try arguing with me I suppose, but best stick with whatever makes you comfortable.

‘Most assaults on women by men are carried out by assailants who know the victim. And, undeniably, some assaults on women by men are carried out by assailants who don’t know the victim: strangers. Care to explain those women who report attacks by male strangers are ‘bullshitters’? Or maybe you’d just like to stop making a fool of yourself in public.’

It’s bullshit because it gives an entirely misleading impression of where violence comes from.

And it’s a bit rich for someone who just admitted having a fist fight in the street to accuse me of making a fool of myself in public.

Some of us are trained to defuse situations rather than resort to violence, and we certainly wouldn’t boast about failing in that respect.

By the way, you mentioned your damsel in distress was Black. Was this relevant?

‘Trans women are usually no stronger than any other women of similar build.’

The clue is in the term ‘similar build’. I’m not aware of ex-squaddies shrinking a foot when they have the op.

“Shatterface, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make? Are you trying to suggest that it’s somehow sexist for women who’ve been attacked/abused by men, or know people to have, to feel nervous walking home alone? Or sexist for a trans woman who has spent a lot of her time fending off verbal and even physical attacks by cis feminists to feel nervous at a rally?”

Well, would it be racist of an individual who has been mugged or assaulted by a black man, to feel nervous walking through a black neighbourhood?

I’m aware that you’re busy derailing this, and this is getting further and further from the original point of the post, and that the ability to intimidate often has very little to do with absolute strength, but I wanted to address this:

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am not, nor ever had been, a “squaddie”.

I’m 5’9, size 12-14, which is slightly above average height for a woman but of slightly below average build. If you saw me in the street you’d probably find me quite unremarkable apart from my tendency to dye my hair bright red on occasion. The vast majority of trans women of my acquaintance are similarly unremarkable.

By the way, I shrank 2 inches on HRT and lost a shoe size. None of this had anything to do with any “op”, although I did have a nasal polyp removed last year (nasty business, v. gory).

It’s probably best to just ignore Sh*tterface – yet another example of a (presumably cis) guy coming into a thread about women’s issues to throw his weight around about how ZOMG OPPRESSED he is by the EVIL FEMINISTS. Not to mention throwing around “men in drag” and “ex-squaddies” etc. Yawn. Don’t feed the troll.

On the topic of the original post: I also noticed, going past the march, that the vast majority of women at RTN were white. While I agree with the RTN folks that it is crucially important to raise awareness about and action on anti-women violence, it does seem that their particular brand of feminism isn’t speaking to the less socially empowered parts of the female population – BME women and trans women. They seriously need to look at this.

Hmmm, I think we’ve reached the point of ‘feed the troll or not?’ As Sarah notes, ‘Shatterface’ is busy trying to derail the thread, so I think the best thing to do is a reasonable summary of his efforts, such as they are.

1) Shatterface: “A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears (to women’s fears of encountering men alone at night-DH) but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry.”
Response: In any encounter between a lone man and a lone woman with no witnesses present, there is a very small but none the less real chance that the man may become violent; and there is a probability that the man is physically stronger than the woman. Fear in such a situation is not ‘bigotry’: it’s a prudential feeling. If you want to deny this, you have to deny that women are in any danger at all from strange men, which leads us to…

2) Shatterface: ‘the Stranger Danger thesis is bullshit’.
Response: Most women attacked by men are the victims of assault by someone they know. Some women attacked by men are the victims of assault by strangers.

The fact that a woman is statistically more likely to be beaten by her ‘boyfriend’ than by a random thug on the street does imply that most efforts at preventing men-on-women violence should concentrate on assaults within relationships. It does not make attacks by strange men on women ‘bullshit’, and it does not make women’s fears of such attacks ‘bigotry’.

3) Shatterface (in random lunacy mode): ‘I’m not aware of ex-squaddies shrinking a foot when they have the (sex-change) op.’
Response: No one suggested that they did. Does anyone disagree that this guy’s an idiot?

Nick: a far better comparison would be “would it be racist of a BME individual who has been the victim of racist assault by a white man, to feel nervous walking through a white neighbourhood?” People in this thread need to quit equating men with oppressed minorities – we’re simply not. Ditto for cis people.

On topic, a question for Sarah Brown, and Laurie Penny and any others who have been on RTM-style marches:

Do you think that marches like this are an effective way of mobilising support for changing the law, or changing social practices, in a way that will reduce male-on-female violence?

I’ve always been a bit of a sceptic about the effectiveness of marches as a campaigning tool, unless the turn-out is absolutely huge, but maybe I’m wrong.

I’m a cis feminist. I’ll walk with you.

I thought this was a great article. It’s refreshing to see someone being completely honest about their emotions & how they affect their actions, and framing that in a political context. Much better than the average post regurgitating cliched arguments about the philosophical meaning of liberty.

I’m going to the local Reclaim the Night march tonight, but I’ll be on guard for transphobic prejudice. The official publicity says it is “open to all”, but the implication in the local press was that that meant men and women (that could just be the local press forgetting to say “cis and trans” because of their own prejudice/ignorance, rather than reflecting on the organisers).

‘It’s probably best to just ignore Sh*tterface – yet another example of a (presumably cis) guy coming into a thread about women’s issues to throw his weight around’

Fantastic! In one sentence you’ve summed up exactly what’s wrong with identity politics! I’m a (presumably cis) guy so have nothing to contribute to a thread on ‘womens’ issues’ (the apostrophe comes after the ‘s’, by the way).

And yet the women of RTN would actually deny that transexuals are women so it’s not actually *their* issue either, is it? It’s not me who launched an attack on ‘EVIL FEMINISTS’, it’s Sarah – remember? Did I accuse RTN of being violent, of wishing transexuals dead? Did you actually read the OP or did you just assume that Sarah was writing in SUPPORT of RTN?

And I never called transexuals ‘men in drag’, I said RTN regard them as men in drag: ‘In English, they can get a bit catty when confronted by what they see as a man in drag.’ See how English works? And isn’t that precisely the claim that Sarah is making – that they do not regard her as a woman?

And I’m ‘throwing my weight around’ too, not arguing, so again we see the inability to distinguish between the written word and an act of violence.

Dan – if nothing else, I think they provide a focal point for those involved, which can be useful in many ways. If someone else notices and takes action, then all the better.

Nina – thank you. Perhaps it’s worth trying to get a specifically trans-friendly marching group together for next year’s event. I know a few who might be interested.

Shatterface – the apostrophe really does come before the S in “women’s issues”.

‘Response: In any encounter between a lone man and a lone woman with no witnesses present, there is a very small but none the less real chance that the man may become violent; and there is a probability that the man is physically stronger than the woman. Fear in such a situation is not ‘bigotry’: it’s a prudential feeling. If you want to deny this, you have to deny that women are in any danger at all from strange men, which leads us to…’

So would you suggest that a woman who does not take precautions to avoid such an encounter is putting herself in danger, or should she go about her business in the expectation that complete strangers won’t assault her?

The fact that a woman is statistically more likely to be beaten by her ‘boyfriend’ than by a random thug on the street does imply that most efforts at preventing men-on-women violence should concentrate on assaults within relationships. It does not make attacks by strange men on women ‘bullshit’, and it does not make women’s fears of such attacks ‘bigotry’.

’3) Shatterface (in random lunacy mode): ‘I’m not aware of ex-squaddies shrinking a foot when they have the (sex-change) op.’
Response: No one suggested that they did. Does anyone disagree that this guy’s an idiot?’

I was responding directly to Sarah’s claim that transexuals were no stronger than cis women of ‘similar build’. Since they start from a male body which is – on average – larger than a female body of similar age they will remain – on average – larger. Obviously too complicated an argument for you. If you statistics on the average height, weight or build of transexuals close at hand maybe you’d like to publish them here?

But keep up the insults.

Troll attempts to derail thread, troll is challenged on his arguments, troll is unable to refute challenge, troll froths at the mouth and collapses in a welter of incoherence.

Better luck next time, although it’s a really bad idea to become a spelling-and-punctuation troll if you can’t spell or punctuate properly yourself.

Sarah- yes, I can see the point of that. How do you make connections among people worried about an issue? A march could be a useful starting point.

‘Troll attempts to derail thread, troll is challenged on his arguments, troll is unable to refute challenge, troll froths at the mouth and collapses in a welter of incoherence.’

You didn’t answer any of my points, did you? Although you did add a few more ‘trolls’ to the pot. Presumably sally is busy.

To address the main point of this article directly then – do you think Sarah’s fear of ‘assault’ by feminists at a RTN rally is justified or paranoid?

Sarah, I think that’s a great idea, I’m pretty sure I know a few people who would want to come along and I suspect it’s the best way to put the Bindel’s of this world in their place.

#29

Why does it have to be “justified” or “paranoid”?

I think it’s real, understandable, and worth talking about.

(Just a passing etymological query, if anyone knows… the term ‘cis’ to differentiate from ‘trans’ – has that been imported from structural chemistry? Cos that is pretty cool, if so.)

32 – I was thinking Trans-alpine Gaul and Cis-alpine Gaul…

Larry Teabag – AIUI, it’s directly from the Latin from which the chemistry terms were also drawn.

(I wonder if our punctuation-challenged troll has noticed that sarah herself _is a feminist_? *amused*)

Of course Sarah’s fear of being assaulted (regardless of whether it’s verbal or physical) is justified. Fear is an acceptable emotional response particularly when you’re dealing with the type of intolerance that being trans seems to inspire in some people.

…and incidentally Shatterface I think we’ve all gauged that you hold that intolerance close to your heart from that little spell of body consciousness you exhibited earlier.

Nina, Sarah – I’d go for that. I think it’s about showing strength rather than putting people in their place though

I was thinking about it more as a kind of cheering effect rather than a reason to march!

Snakeyjack – that sounds likely – thanks!

Although obviously I wouldn’t be marching myself, would it be an idea to have some kind of visual identifier for marchers in support of trans women being there, like the red umbrellas for those who support sex worker inclusion?

There’s a Swiss/Italian train company named Cisalpino.

Off topic: there ought to be a single word for someone whose arguments have been knocked down, one by one, in detail, who has a taste for weird insults and who still persists in typing delusional rubbish like ‘you don’t answer my points, you just insult me’. Beyond a certain point of obsessive behaviour, ‘troll’ is quite inadequate.

On topic: okay, I can see how a march gives people a focal point to get together on an issue. I still think, though, that the key point is going to be agreeing an agenda for change and then finding a way to get it enacted.

I’ll admit to a certain amount of scepticism about RTM because I walked past the last march and there were two groups chanting (or singing) different slogans at the same time. I thought this might just be poor organisation, but I read Penny’s blog and learned that it was a disagreement over sex workers between groups with different views. I’m all in favour of airing disagreements, but surely it’s best to do so before you embark on a public march?

‘…and incidentally Shatterface I think we’ve all gauged that you hold that intolerance close to your heart from that little spell of body consciousness you exhibited earlier.’

Eh? Which bit of intolerance are we talking about here because I haven’t once criticised Sarah for being transexual, just for being paranoid. And paranoid, I might add, about ‘violent’ feminists: ‘trans women have suffered violence at the hands of their “sisters” at such events.’

(If anyone has evidence of such attacks let me know because I’ll bookmark it for next time we have a debate on violence among women…)

And Penny, if you want to publish an article claiming RTN is transphobic as Sarah claims, as well as overwhelmingly White, as snakeyjack points out then you’ll get no argument from me.

I didn’t say they were inclusive, I just said they aren’t violent.

Identity politics leads to intolerance and atomisation rather than solidarity and the fact Sarah feels as excluded as men do rather supports that claim.

Sarah @ 7

The fear a bigot feels for someone from a racial minority is irrational

Not at all. It could be argued that as black youths are statistically more likely to be involved in violent crime, the fear felt is entirely rational.

But the point about fear is that it is, itself, usually irrational. The fact that street attacks on lone women at night are very rare is irrelevant if the woman walking alone at night is afraid but her fear is no more rational than is the fear of flying in an aeroplane.

And I do think that marching to “Reclaim The Night” is likely to do more harm than good- by pandering to the irrational fears involved. Following the defiant expression of group neurosis on the march, are the individuals who have taken part likely to be more or less afraid the next time they walk alone down a dark and lonely street? Is all this marching supposed to have scared off the violent rapist?

Now that’s irrational.

I’m actually not sure that fear is ever irrational, except in cases of mental disorders, perhaps. That’s why I think the “justified/paranoid” dichotomy is not useful.

The issue is what to do about fear, and whose responsibility it is to do something about it. (The answers to both questions obviously differ from case to case.)

‘I thought this might just be poor organisation, but I read Penny’s blog and learned that it was a disagreement over sex workers between groups with different views. I’m all in favour of airing disagreements’

And again – and on topic – this is a result of the struggle for ideological purity rather than representing a broad church. Sex-workers represent the most vulnerable group to stranger-violence but for some feminists they are seen as either pathetic victims devoid of agency or else collaborators. The fact that sex-workers themselves may disagree with each other on the best ways to minimise harm can be overlooked.

That goes for gay sex-workers too, who have more in common with female sex-workers than female sex-workers have with female bankers, estate agents, etc. And that’s before you even start to look at transexual sex-workers.

Not that ‘irrational’ to be scared of stranger assault. Even on RTN march.

http://noblesavage.me.uk/2009/11/22/unsafe-but-undeterred/

Just to add a few cents on the ‘lonely streets’ bit: every time I have seen a woman being harassed or assaulted in the street, bar two, there were plenty of people around besides me. Usually it was daylight, or if not it was reasonably well lit. Twice another guy came and helped me get rid of the attacker. (Once, in Paris, we both grabbed the guy by one arm and marched him over to the police, as he’d actually punched a woman in the face. I think we came fairly close to getting arrested ourselves.)

On all other occasions, I had to step in myself because most people will freeze if they see acts or threats of violence. If you look menacing, you can get away with an awful lot. My sister was threatened with violence by a bunch of yobs on a crowded tube train and no one did a thing: fair enough if they didn’t want to step in and risk a fight, but there’s a communication cord you can pull to alert the driver, and no one did that. A police officer told me that people almost never pull the cord, because they ‘don’t want to get involved’ or don’t want to risk the fine for improper use.

(It’s almost the same if someone collapses or is injured in the street, particularly if they look like they might be homeless or drunk: most people will step by them.)

I think that the guy in Paris knew the girl he’d hit, and I once was asked by a girl to help because her boyfriend was threatening to hit her. The others were being hassled or hurt by male strangers – usually drunk, though one was a guy trying to rob a prostitute behind Brick Lane.

So the ‘stranger danger’ idea is emphatically not ‘bullshit’: anybody who claims that women are never attacked by strangers is either ignorant- or is stupidly showing off in a comments thread.

It seems very likely that things like darkness increase the ease with which sadistic men can attack women, so no doubt things like the better provision of street lighting will reduce a certain amount of violence against women.

But violence against women can take place in daylight or indoors as well as on the streets. Given that, ‘Reclaim the Night’ as a slogan seems a little reductionist and simplistic to me. We ought to be thinking in terms of preventing all male-on-female violence- or if not, finding and convicting the assailants. Do people think I’m being unfair? Is ‘RTN’ advancing a wider agenda than its name suggests?

Shatterface, when you feel violent pain do you think it is necessarily a result of physical aggression? When you feel violent dislike does that lead to an act of physical violence? I don’t think you’ve grasped the definition of the word or the meaning of the example. Sarah is referring to the feeling of menace that women experience when they are isolated with a stranger who may be stronger than them and the way that feeling relates to having less privilege than a potential attacker.

You discussed trans women as being physically male and then you said “‘I’m not aware of ex-squaddies shrinking a foot when they have the (sex-change) op.’” Regardless of the fact that this is callous and ignorant Sarah responded to you politely but you didn’t respond to Sarah in the same direct, polite manner. In fact you later went on to say that on average men were bigger than women, a fact that matters very little since averages and a small number of individuals tend to be statistically quite different. However since you like averages let me give you some: the average height of a supermodel is around 6′, the mean height of UK citizens is 5ft 9in which is the height of Sarah and my mother both of whom are taller than my grandfather was. You have made your position quite clear, you don’t need to criticise anyone individually because you’ve been rude enough for all of us to get the message. You chose to make a series of comments that were not only gung-ho but prejudiced. You have not approached the responses logically and you have not apologised for getting things wrong. That lack of apology is the most significant action you’ve taken and it marks you out as a troll so if you don’t want to be a troll you need to consider your actions, your use of language and you need to behave in a more thoughtful way. It really is that simple. Now I’ve finished talking to you, I really think that you need to address yourself rather than anyone else so please don’t expect any further response from me.

Nina

Do you work with small children by any chance?

Seconded Nina’s remarks. In any case, it’s not height but muscle strength which determines how physically strong you are, which points up the utter stupidity of our troll’s remark. Muscle strength is determined by a number of factors, including hormones- so yes, HRT will indeed have an effect on physical strength.

@45
‘The fact that street attacks on lone women at night are very rare’

I absolutely agree, if you really want to be beaten, raped, totally f..ked up and murdered, you stand a better chance by entering into a ‘loving relationship’ with, statistically, one in four men.

No but I have been online since the early 90s which basically does the same thing to a person.

Obviously one can compare the fear that [some] women have towards men with the fear that [some] people have towards, say, ethnic or religious minorities. But in both cases, our objective should be to lessen the fear. It is fear that stands in the way of a more peaceful, happy and safe society. Fear of Muslim terrorists is, in that sense, quite comparable to fear of male rapists. Not all terrorists are Muslim, not all rapists are male, and it’s unreasonable to expect innocent members of those groups to have to answer for the crimes perpetrated by a reviled minority. I do think it’s worth bearing in mind that when people say that “the Muslim community” must be responsible for stopping terrorism, that makes as much sense as saying that “the male community” must be solely responsible for preventing rape. I wish I had a more useful conclusion than that, but as a man who hasn’t raped anyone and hasn’t knowingly associated with men that have done so, I’m not sure what I (and by extension, other men) can do about it purely by dint of being men. As members of society, there probably are things that we can do collectively to make the streets safer and to spell out the view we take of the behaviour of rapists.

On the original topic, I can’t really understand why any feminist would hold particular antipathy towards trans women, but it’s not really a community that I know well. Those feminists who seem to think deeply about the roots of their feminism seem, to me, to often explain it in terms of power imbalances and undeserved inequalities of social status, which must surely apply to trans women as much as anyone else. In fact, the same principle applies to any person who suffers unduly due to their membership of a particular group.

53. I have seen statistics to the effect that women in a stable ‘loving relationship’ with a member of the opposite sex are a lot less likely to suffer violence than those without such a relationship.

56
Perhaps you could advise where those statistics can be sourced.

Nina @54 lol!

Shatterface: I’d like to make it very clear that I do not hate you or find your views irrelevant because you’re cis, or because you’re male, or because you’re white. I don’t have any empirical evidence, in any case, that any of those things are true.

On the contrary: I hate you and I find your views irrelevant and anodine because you are an arsehole, a bigot and a troll. Good day.

“Nick: a far better comparison would be “would it be racist of a BME individual who has been the victim of racist assault by a white man, to feel nervous walking through a white neighbourhood?” People in this thread need to quit equating men with oppressed minorities – we’re simply not. Ditto for cis people.”

I didn’t say a white man. I said an individual. It could be a BME individual walking though a black neighbourhood. There are after all more than one type of minority. Is it racist of them to feel insecure, nervous just because the neighbourhood is a black one and they or their friends have had bad experiences with black people?

Incidentally, I think everyone has every right to disassociate or feel nervous about associating with ANYONE for any reason. Women from men, whites from blacks, blacks from asians, asians from jews, paranoid schizophrenics from anyone wearing a scary uniform.

What is it with the anger, people? Get it under control.

Whether you disagree with Shatterface or not, he has come across as calm, not not made adhominen attacks.

In contrast, several here have attacked him personally and responded in a ridicuously emotional manner?

Why is that?

Why can’t you just refute his arguments in an adult manner.

“Just Visiting” – it may have escaped your attention, but this is quite an emotional piece. I am, after all, writing about being frightened.

When offensive stereotypes about “squaddies” are pulled out, it’s hardly surprising that people get “emotional”, because the poster responsible is being gratuitously offensive.

Emotion is not a dirty word.

Just Visiting if you want to contribute it might be worth directing your comments to the people who you feel are out of control, have attacked Shatterface (though he would probably feel he hasn’t been attacked since he implied that attacks are physical and no one here has had that opportunity afaik) and have responded ridiculously emotionally? When you address the ‘people’ it’s a little unclear what you’re actually talking about.

(though he would probably feel he hasn’t been attacked since he implied that attacks are physical and no one here has had that opportunity afaik)

Well, I’d probably say he’s right about that. Nobody has made a credible threat of force against him (or even an incredible one, for that matter). If you’ve been online since the early 90s, I’m sure you will have seen plenty of far more, um, ‘robust’ disagreements than have taken place on this thread. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see anything threatening in what has been said by anyone. I’ve seen plenty of pretty stupid stuff, but that just makes me think less of the people saying it. This is the internet after all, and one of the best things about the internet is that we can all have a no-holds-barred argument with each other one minute and be best friends the next. The real world is just a step away from the keyboard. I can appreciate that people get upset by what they read online, but to equate that with physical violence is a gross exaggeration.

I think what has been missing from most of the comment replies is a sense of how they look to most neutral observers. Shatterface’s debating style is a fairly obvious reductio ad absurdum – drawing parallels with equivalent situations involving groups other than those mentioned in the OP to argue that the logic of the arguments doesn’t always hold for all groups, opening up a debate about why that might be. Why do we think that a white person nervous about black people is bigoted but a women nervous about men isn’t? It’s a reasonable question. Just Visiting is right enough in saying that it can be tackled without the need to call the person asking the question a ‘troll’. Likewise, Shatterface stepped over the line with the ‘squaddies’ remark amongst others. There was no need for it and it just caused a pointless diversion from the real issues. If he wanted to win people over to his way of thinking, he could start by not knowingly causing offence.

What I can’t understand is why nobody until Nina just calmly pointed out that that kind of language isn’t appreciated or helpful. Bingo! Instant moral high ground, neutral observers will think that you’re the reasonable one. Extra points if you manage to win the argument about the actual issue at hand, too. Instead, most of the comments seem to focus on painting Shatterface as a troll, on the basis that anything a troll said can be safely ignored without needing a rebuttal. I’m sure this makes sense in your own head, but it makes you look pretty weak to a neutral observer.

Rob, it’s just not true that we haven’t addressed his ‘arguments’.

‘Shatterface’ claimed a) that women’s fear of attacks by strangers was ‘bigotry’, b) that the idea that some women were attacked by strangers was ‘bullshit’ and c) that gender change didn’t affect physical strength (the strange ‘squaddies’ remark). I’ve answered him in detail on all three points and he just doesn’t have a cogent reply.

Someone who starts raving about ‘bullshit’ and bigotry’ is looking for a row, not a discussion, and cannot complain when he gets one. His own comments have been liberally seeded with personal abuse, on this thread and elsewhere, so it’s a little sad if he can’t take it himself.

@63
Your post is reasonable, but violence against women/transgenders/transexuals is an emotive issue, particularly if those debating the issue have, themselves, been victims.
‘Why do we think that a white person who is nervous about black people is bigoted but a woman nervous about men isn’t?’
This is easy to answer, see post 53 – more than half of all female homicides are carried-out by a partner or ex-partner, this equates to l female death per week. 1 in 4 women are physically abused by their partner and domestic violence is recognized as the main cause of psychological problems within children.
A large number of men are a danger to women, in fact, men are also responsible for the majority of violence against other men, and, of course, including murder.
I would suggest it is quite reasonable for women to be nervous of all men, regardless of race,until they know differently.
Black people and other ethnic groups are more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators.

Dan

64 – there you go again, Rob had brought things to a positive note and back to the issue at hand – but instead you chose to go back to proving that somehow everything Shatterface has said has been without merit.

Move on people, move on, there’s nothing to see here.

JB: 65
“Your post is reasonable, but violence against women/transgenders/transexuals is an emotive issue, particularly if those debating the issue have, themselves, been victims.”

Quite true.
I have some friends themselves the victims of a violent attack in the street just 2 nights ago – the second attack on them in my small market town in 10 months: they are young Afghanis, studying here.

But the fact that it is an emotional issue, is the very reason to take an adult approach and really take care to stay away from the emotive.
And instead to stick to the issues.
That is if you want a rational debate, and to influence the group by expressing your views in the most digestible way for all – including the neutral lurkers who are listening and not chipping in (like me until my last post).

But if instead you want LC to be a place to gang up together with those of exact like mind as each other and have a hysterical ‘isn’t it all terrible’ angry session…well, IMHO that’s a shame as LC does at it’s best have some real insight shared, and highly rational debate

>> Why do we think that a white person who is nervous about
>> black people is bigoted but a woman nervous about men isn’t?’
> This is easy to answer, see post 53…snipped…Black people and
> other ethnic groups are more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators.

This is not so rational JB – you _didn’t_ answer it.
Instead you introduced a new concept which is tangential (likelihood of being a victim vs likelihood of being a perpetrator).

So, back to the case:
If the prison population of violent criminals who are skin-colour-Z is say X% higher than the skin-colour-Z population in general: then it is the _exact same_ logic that says we should be more careful round Z-skins: as to be more careful round men.

I’ve used ‘be more careful around’ instead of ‘be fearful of’.

Certainly in Switzerland, a friend in the prison service there told me that something likw 75% of the prison population are foreign: so very logical to take more care around foreigners in that country.

Most rapes are committed by men. (not all, somebody said earlier…. ?) so sensible for women out alone to be more careful around men.

In the same way that in the 70′s, the police intelligence were sensible to target Irish (due to Irish IRA bombing): most bombers were Irish, but not all.

As they are now sensible to target Muslims – most terrorist offences are committed by Muslims, but not all.

Dan @ 64:

Rob, it’s just not true that we haven’t addressed his ‘arguments’.

‘Shatterface’ claimed a) that women’s fear of attacks by strangers was ‘bigotry’, b) that the idea that some women were attacked by strangers was ‘bullshit’ and c) that gender change didn’t affect physical strength (the strange ’squaddies’ remark). I’ve answered him in detail on all three points and he just doesn’t have a cogent reply.

a) ‘Bigotry’ is basically the stubborn refusal to believe that your own opinions might be wrong. It’s possible to have bigoted beliefs about anything provided you’re prepared to ignore the possibility of your own incorrectness. We just tend to reserve the word for people who hold politically incorrect views, e.g. racist views, but I would say that ‘men are dangerous’ is a bigoted view in that it ignores all of the men who are not dangerous (viz. most of us).

b) I think he described the focus on stranger attacks as bullshit, given that they make up a very small proportion of attacks overall. Since most men are strangers to most women, ‘stranger danger’ narratives can create grossly unnecessary fear amongst women of perfectly harmless men. This may cause more harm than good. Focus on abuse within relationships narrows the aim to those men who are definitely abusive, can be proven to be so, and are known to be so by those they have abused – there’s actually something that can be done about this. ‘Bullshit’ wouldn’t be my word, but it’s not an unreasonable point of view.

c) I don’t know anything about this. I totally accept the facts as they’ve been stated in this thread, that trans women do not retain any of the strength advantages they may have had in their former male existence, but this is something that is way outside of most people’s experience. I think Shatterface’s prejudice is a fairly common one (it’s one of those beliefs that, absent any personal experience or particular scientific knowledge, feels somewhat intuitive). Obviously, it’s also an incorrect belief and deserves to be corrected. I don’t think holding an incorrect belief about something that the vast majority of people are (reasonably enough) ignorant of makes someone a troll, which is a character trait rather than a state of knowledge about particular topics.

Someone who starts raving about ‘bullshit’ and bigotry’ is looking for a row, not a discussion, and cannot complain when he gets one. His own comments have been liberally seeded with personal abuse, on this thread and elsewhere, so it’s a little sad if he can’t take it himself.

I honestly haven’t seen anything particularly abusive. As I said before, I’ve seen some things that were wrong and deserved correction. By leaping in with the ‘troll’ accusation, you just make yourself look silly and incapable of winning an argument by facts alone.

Also, I’m really not concerned with defending Shatterface as an individual since I don’t know him from Adam, and I don’t really have any worries about his ability to take abuse if it’s directed at him. I’m just fed up with character assassination being the default mode of argument when there are perfectly good factual disagreements to be had.

Rob, you don’t appear to have actually read what was written upthread, so while your comments are very reasonable in their tone (thanks for that) they’re not that relevant to the discussion we’ve had. I’ll recap the main arguments, which presumably won’t stop ‘Just visiting’ from his sixth form debating trick of saying that no arguments have been made:

a) On ‘bigotry’: a white person who fears black people because they are black is clearly being prejudiced, because there is no rational reason that any white person should be scared of any black person regardless of the context. If you’re going to say that women like Sarah are ‘bigoted’- and compare them to white racists, as ‘Shatterface’ did- then as I argued above, several times, you need to look at whether there is any rational foundation to women’s fear of strange men in certain situations. Which, as I also argued above, leads us to:

b) On ‘stranger danger’ being ‘bullshit’: I repeatedly stated that most incidents of male-on-female violence are by male assailants known to the female, but that *some* incidents of male-on-female violence are by strangers. As I stated repeatedly above, most men do not attack or harass strange women, but some do. The crime stats bear this out (and anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve seen stranger attacks on women): ergo Sarah’s statement that women can feel fear in the presence of male strangers is something based, as she and Laurie Penny argued, in a rational response to their own experiences and the experiences of other women who have been harassed by strangers. As I pointed out, average male strength is well above average female strength, meaning that a hostile male stranger is likely to be able to hurt a female if there is no-one around to intervene. Which leads us to…

c) The claim that trans women have the same strength as men. Sarah quite calmly explained in the face of ‘Shatterface’s insults that hormone replacement therapy for trans women tends to reduce their physical strength, and that this had happened to her. ‘Shatterface’ made his ridiculous claim about ‘squaddies not shrinking’ and was told a) that height is not the determinant of physical strength and b) that muscle strength is and hormones are a major factor in deciding muscle strength.

And I entirely agree that we should have civil discussions with people who talk in a civil way. The very first comment on a thread told Sarah that her ‘bigotry’ made her equivalent to white racists (Shatterface: ‘A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry’). Subsequent comments were in exactly the same vein, leading up to the weird ‘squaddies’ comment.

Sarah wrote a very thought-provoking and reasonable post. It was possible to have disagreed politely with her, or to have questioned her views: some of us did. But this guy ‘Shatterface’ was not interested in a discussion: he wanted to bully Sarah and call her a ‘bigot’ and compare her to racists. The bully got put in his place: tough.

Either we sort the online bullies out or ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ becomes like another blog where ‘Shatterface’ likes to comment: ‘Harry’s Place’. Let’s not go there.

On ‘bigotry’: a white person who fears black people because they are black is clearly being prejudiced, because there is no rational reason that any white person should be scared of any black person regardless of the context.

As pointed out earlier, a purely rational white person would fear black people more than average if they believe the crime statistics. However, this relies on the assumption that all black people are alike, and that a statistical effect caused by a relatively small number of people behaving very badly tends to attract exaggerated levels of attention (the ‘availability heuristic‘). The reason we engage our moral and other senses is because a purely-rational information-processing approach often fails. Our ability to see other people as human beings and suspend the statistical stereotyping is a good thing.

If you’re going to say that women like Sarah are ‘bigoted’- and compare them to white racists, as ‘Shatterface’ did- then as I argued above, several times, you need to look at whether there is any rational foundation to women’s fear of strange men in certain situations. Which, as I also argued above, leads us to:

But we’ve just demonstrated that it’s pretty easy to come up with a rational basis to fear others in many circumstances. Is it rational to fear a randomly-selected man in certain circumstances? Depends on the circumstances, I guess. Absent any particular threat, I’d say ‘no’. I think we should encourage people to be less afraid and regard those who want to promote continued fear as bigoted, yes. I’m morally uncomfortable with the comparison to white racists because I don’t think that the motives of women like Sarah are remotely comparable. But when we’re judging effects, motives don’t matter.

b) On ’stranger danger’ being ‘bullshit’: I repeatedly stated that most incidents of male-on-female violence are by male assailants known to the female, but that *some* incidents of male-on-female violence are by strangers. As I stated repeatedly above, most men do not attack or harass strange women, but some do. The crime stats bear this out (and anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve seen stranger attacks on women): ergo Sarah’s statement that women can feel fear in the presence of male strangers is something based, as she and Laurie Penny argued, in a rational response to their own experiences and the experiences of other women who have been harassed by strangers. As I pointed out, average male strength is well above average female strength, meaning that a hostile male stranger is likely to be able to hurt a female if there is no-one around to intervene. Which leads us to…

I could make some very nit-picky arguments against this, but most of it is hard to disagree with simply because you’re not saying anything controversial. Some men attack or harass women. Most don’t. Women who have experienced harassment are likely to fear further harassment. This is all fair enough and represents a good case for measures to increase public safety and so forth. But I think it also argues in favour of a better understanding of the risks and the likelihood of such harassment occurring. It would be better if men and women could behave better towards each other such that harassment was less likely to occur; women could feel happier and more confident around men and men would feel more friendly towards women. An adversarial approach just makes life difficult; innocent men will protest that it’s not their fault, and guilty men will continue to behave as they are. This becomes clearer in the context of Sarah’s original point – the relations between men and women were just an analogy for the relation between cis women and trans women. There the case for common understanding seems even stronger, but if it works there then why not everywhere?

c) The claim that trans women have the same strength as men. Sarah quite calmly explained in the face of ‘Shatterface’s insults that hormone replacement therapy for trans women tends to reduce their physical strength, and that this had happened to her. ‘Shatterface’ made his ridiculous claim about ’squaddies not shrinking’ and was told a) that height is not the determinant of physical strength and b) that muscle strength is and hormones are a major factor in deciding muscle strength.

As I said, I’m no expert. All other things aside, greater height is generally considered a physical advantage, but… bleh. I can see why people would assume that trans women are likely to be stronger than cis women, but I can certainly accept that this is just a myth.

And I entirely agree that we should have civil discussions with people who talk in a civil way. The very first comment on a thread told Sarah that her ‘bigotry’ made her equivalent to white racists (Shatterface: ‘A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry’). Subsequent comments were in exactly the same vein, leading up to the weird ’squaddies’ comment.

I don’t think that causing offence was the motive behind the racist analogy. I mean, I think it’s reasonable to ask why Group A behaving in a certain way to Group B is unacceptable, but if Group X behaves the same way to Group Y, it isn’t. An analogy with the logic of racism isn’t the same thing as calling someone a racist, which would be pretty offensive to someone who isn’t. I also don’t think that there was any claim of equivalence to white racists; white racists have killed and enslaved millions of people over the centuries and are rightly reviled, but the logic they use to justify continued racism is just a thought process. I think we can compare thought processes dispassionately without implying moral equivalence between groups that are obviously very different.

Sarah wrote a very thought-provoking and reasonable post. It was possible to have disagreed politely with her, or to have questioned her views: some of us did. But this guy ‘Shatterface’ was not interested in a discussion: he wanted to bully Sarah and call her a ‘bigot’ and compare her to racists. The bully got put in his place: tough.

Either we sort the online bullies out or ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ becomes like another blog where ‘Shatterface’ likes to comment: ‘Harry’s Place’. Let’s not go there.

Meh. I guess bullying is in the eye of the beholder. I’d have more time for your argument if you didn’t respond to the ‘bully’ by counter-bullying, because this suggests that bullying is OK if you’re doing it for a good cause. I’ve no problem with you being offensive to Shatterface if you want, I just don’t like the accusation of ‘troll’ since it’s an attempt to shut down the debate. A troll can’t be beaten in argument, which is why they need to be excluded, but I’m fairly sure that Shatterface could be beaten in argument if you really wanted to do it (and if you happened to be right and he happened to be wrong).

Rob, your tone remains polite, for which many thanks, but your comment is frankly a mess.

If you are going to argue that saying ‘A lot of people regard encounters with Black people with similar fears but we call them racists rather than pander to their bigotry’ is an attempt to start a rational conversation rather than insult someone, and that sneering about ‘squaddies’ is a polite way to discuss gender change with a trans woman, go ahead. But you won’t have many people agreeing with you.

…As for ‘I’m fairly sure that Shatterface could be beaten in argument if you really wanted to do it’: you know that I’ve argued against ‘Shatterface’s arguments, because I’ve set them out for you at length, and you’ve responded to my arguments. If you say that you disagree with my arguments, fine, but it’s not coherent for you to then say that I (or Laurie or Sarah) haven’t made any arguments.

‘Bigotry’ does not mean ‘stubbornly refusing to accept your beliefs might be wrong’, not according to any dictionary in the English language. I have relatives who insist that the right way to stop bleeding is to hold the wound downwards and run it under the cold tap, and the fact that I’m qualified to treat traumatic injuries means nothing to them. They are stubborn, but they are not ‘bigots’ (‘cuttists’, perhaps? ‘Cold waterists’?). Your argument in this regard consists of simply taking a well understood term for offensive prejudice- ‘bigotry’- and arguing that it actually has an inoffensive meaning which you yourself have magically defined, ergo accusing someone of ‘bigotry’ is not offensive. Schoolboy stuff, I’m afraid.

I’ve given reasons why the *minority* of male attacks on women that are carried out by strangers, coupled with men’s greater strength, means that women’s fear of strangers when they are otherwise alone is prudential rather than bigoted. . You mention that circumstances are important, but you ignore the fact that I also said that they were important when I talked about women feeling fear if there was no obvious third party for them to turn to. You have ignored the fact – it is a fact, check the crime statistics- that some attacks on women are by male strangers. You do not address the point I (and Sarah, and Laurie) make that this, and the gender imbalance in physical strength, means that there are *rational* reasons why a woman might feel fear of male strangers when she is in an isolated setting. You have simply waffled.

On physical strength, you simply say that you don’t know anything: fair enough, but could I suggest some research? Again, not directed at you, but the things that were said to Sarah by ‘Shatterface’ on the subject were downright offensive. If you think that it is okay to speak to a trans woman in such an insulting manner when she has only been polite herself, fine: but I’m afraid your standards are not my standards, and they are not the standards of anyone I can respect.

The Oxford dictionary defines bigot as ‘an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc’.

I can’t see an iota of intolerance in Sarah’s post or subsequent comments, and as for obstinacy she seems very willing to discuss matters with someone intent on abusing her, so the word really doesn’t fit. It was a nasty, unnecessarily vicious piece of abuse to chuck into the first comment on a good post.

“What I can’t understand is why nobody until Nina just calmly pointed out that that kind of language isn’t appreciated or helpful. ”

It’s because the language is less important than the ideas that Shatterface espouses and the argument against him should rest on those ideas. The politest person on earth can hold the most deplorable views which is precisely why Dan, Laurie and Sarah made a series of points that were politically and socially far more important.