The fraud of pantypopo, and/or ‘she may not have intended harm, but it’s a problem that so many forwarded this rubbish’

On our Facebook page recently, a commenter quoted from a trans-critical blog of a few years’ age, OUT OF MY PANTIES, NOW!!! by blogger pantypopo, which purports to give startling statistics about trans males’ sexual offending and criminality.

Here are the reasons for STC not endorsing this blog (there may be other potential reasons as we have not read it all):

1.   The blogger appears to invent her figures, or to derive them from combining figures from inappropriate sources – often works whose meaning she has not taken the time to understand.

2.   She appears not to care about the effect of her actions on the reputation of the gender abolitionist cause.

3.   Her actions help stigmatise a population sector which already includes some very vulnerable elements. While trans* males are as likely to offend sexually as other male-born people, trans* males in some social sectors – especially youth and racialised – can be especially victimised. Female-born trans* people are adversely affected by a crude conflation of ‘transgender’ and ‘sex offender’ which is based on a reading (correct or not) of male statistics. Girls and women tend to be propelled into transgenderism by the mistreatment of our sex (hoping to be treated better as males), and so we cannot afford this kind of crudeness which reduces transgenderism to sex offending.

In this 2013 (and still frequently circulated) article, ‘When is 90% not Substantially ALL?’, she begins:

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)


Scrolling down to see what reference number 1 is to check who provided the 88% figure, we find:
Now, one does not normally work out percentages by combining the figures given by two different organisations, who presumably used different survey or calculation methods. That in itself would normally be enough to consider a result worthless.

But the next question – where the 88% comes from – is quite a puzzle. I noticed that if I subtracted the lower transsexual population figure from the lower total transgender population figure – .25% from 2% – I reached 1.75% as the proportion of the US population which is non-transsexual but transgender. That is 87.5% of 2%.

Perhaps that explains the 88%, but this only perplexes one more – why would those lower figures be the ones to select?

And the problems don’t end there. How does any of the above mean that the (very vaguely) referenced organisations believe that USA non-transsexual trans people are “males with a psychosexual disorder”? This was the first we’ve heard of a gender breakdown in these statistics.

After this 88% claim, pantypopo continues:

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3)

 

Again, I feel I am up shit creek without a paddle. I found a 2013 account of the USA population – 316.5 million – and calculated 1.75% of that, assuming that pantypopo was concerned about the non-transsexual (totally all male) transgender section of the population. But I reached approximately 5.54 million.

Could I work backwards? Dividing 13,946,348 by 316,500,000, I reached 4.4% of the US population. No clue as to where that was from. Could she mean that she feared the legislation then planned would enable a larger proportion of male fetishists or offenders to do this in females’ facilities (i.e. she was no longer referring to transgender or cross-dressing males)? Given how broad some pro-trans legislation is, that seemed plausible. But the references at the end were of little help:Just for the hell of it, I searched for that 13,946,348 figure at Gender Identity Watch, and came up empty-handed save for a reference to this same piece by pantypopo.

Moving on! (Yes, there’s more.) Our blogger continues:

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia [sic] is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia [sic], in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

This reference takes us to:
What we find here is not, as promised, a breakdown of the proportion of convicted sex offenders who have some transgender-related paraphilia. We have, instead, a study, published in 1988, solely of paraphiliacs who reported their own acts of paraphilia but are not all stated as having been convicted of such acts. While this study is unclear on that, it is certain that this is no research on how many convicted sex offenders have a trans or cross-dressing paraphilia.  Therefore there is no claim in the article similar to pantypopo’s that “Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism”.

Is she, perhaps, correct that “60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphilia”? Not according to this source, at least. The authors distinguish between transsexualism and transvestitism. They stress that they do not consider the former to be definitely a paraphilia, and have partly included it within this study in order to shed light on whether it should be classified that way in future, and to explore other correlations:

pantypopo 5 non-paraphilia.PNG
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 16, No.2, 1988. P. 156. (Or p. 4 of linked pdf of this study)

Their tables indicate that some participants demonstrated both transsexualism and transvestic behaviour.

Now, the 60% – where was this from? The closest I could find was this table:

pantypopo 4 paraphilia occurrence.PNG
ibid, pdf p.8

But as can clearly be seen, this table does not display primary paraphilias, but denotes what percentage of each category of paraphiliac had specifically one paraphilia, how many had two, how many had three, etc. Therefore, the ‘Transsexualism’ line tells us that 51.7% of transsexuals had no other paraphilia, 31% had another, 13.8% had two others, and 3.4% had three others.

It is true that if one adds the ‘transsexualism only’ and ‘transvestitism only’ figures then one reaches 58.2% (yes, nearish to 60%). But this says neither that 60% of sex offenders have a trans-related fetish, nor that 60% of paraphiliacs do. What it does is specify the percentage of study participants who are transsexual or ‘transvestitic’ (according to this now unfashionable designation) and have no other paraphilias. Pantypopo might do well to consider the meaning of that.

As far as the claim that “Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia [sic], in addition to their primary disorder” goes, my best guess is that pantypopo assumed the second column to mean not “has more than one paraphilia”, but “has it as secondary paraphilia”. And duly added the Transsexualism and Transvestitism figures in that column (31.0% and 29%) in order to total 60%.

Frankly, I feel this pantypopo is a menace when allowed near figures, as she doesn’t seem to have allowed her lack of interest/ concern in what exactly the figures represent to have daunted her undoubted enthusiasm for combining them in a near-random fashion.

Her following claim, “40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders”, is apparently reached via the same method.

I believe this gives us the interesting feat of an article on the correlations between sex offending and transgenderism comprising claims which are – every single one of them – wrong.

Since responsible commentary on this research from pantpopo is unlikely, I will add here that:

  • It shows that 52% of transsexual subjects had no paraphilias (transsexuals mainly being included in the study for interest’s sake, as the authors warned).
  • 24% of transsexual participants had another studied condition which the authors specified was not a paraphilia, but was also included for interest’s sake: “ego-dystonic homosexuality”. (This is another outdated category designating being homosexual but not having accepted that.) What this adds up to meaning is that of the studied transsexuals, 52% had no paraphilia and a further 24% mostly had trouble accepting their homosexuality. That’s right. So much for the grand, lurid claims by pantypopo of a huge trans-paraphilia correlation.

    64.5% of ‘transvestic’ participants fitted into three or more categories, i.e. definitely engaged in behaviours beyond fetishistic cross-dressing and homosexuality.

  • This is, as we said before, a 1988 study. Since transgenderism is very much socially created, the two studied constructs here of ‘transsexualism’ and ‘transvestism’ (obviously, a male-centred practice) do not perfectly align with modern transgender identities. Individuals who have had SRS are more likely these days to identify as ‘transgender’ rather than ‘transsexual’, and individuals without SRS are less likely to “cross-dress” in private while identifying themselves as men in public.

    So regardless of pantypopo’s irreverence towards the practice of reading, the study’s conclusions should still not have been applied too incautiously towards currently trans-identifying male individuals.

Pantypopo then concludes, on the basis of these claims, that “Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behaviour”. The nett effect of her false claims has been to portray trans people (not even trans males more narrowly) as the most likely sex offenders. 

Pantypopo’s article then moves to what appears to be links to media reports of trans criminal offences. While one would hope that she would find this less difficult, I think we can agree that anything provided by her is best if double- or triple-checked. And, hopefully, used as a lesson in not assuming that anything with a ‘%’ sign next to it is a valid contribution to one’s cause.

 

Stop Trans Chauvinism Statement Against Feminists Collaborating with the Right Wing

womenslib_white-on-red

Is it a good idea for gender-critical feminists to make alliances with the Christian Right on issues we might agree on? Stop Trans Chauvinism collective maintains that this is a disastrous strategy.

We understand that feminists who have chosen to work with right-wing Christians are sincerely trying to accomplish something positive for women. But we believe this is a terrible mistake and urge them to reconsider their actions. We hope to engage in a principled discussion of the implications of these alliances, which does affect how the public views all feminists, and all gender-critical feminists in particular. This is an important discussion we must have.

The Republican Party in the USA is a coalition of Christian Fundamentalists, the extreme alt-right, the KKK, and more moderate conservatives, all supporting Trump. Given that the Trump administration is moving the USA towards fascism, anyone making an alliance with any section of the right is in effect making an alliance with fascists. It is particularly the Christian right that takes a special interest in opposing transgender causes, and which has teamed up with some feminists.

*Feminist Problems with the Left and Liberals*

We recognize that gender-critical feminists have been under a McCarthyist-style siege for many years now. We are no-platformed, banned, blacklisted, and have had our property damaged or destroyed. We have been doxxed, and even fired from our jobs.

The Left is almost entirely enmeshed in the trans chauvinist narrative. Speaking up with any criticism of the anti-feminist positions of transgender activists gets one kicked out of groups and shunned as “transphobic.”

Some left and liberal groups embrace the trans chauvinist narrative fully, and place trans chauvinist issues as central to their purpose. They have swallowed the postmodernist line – if only on gender issues – that material reality is inconsequential and that feelings are more important than actual exploitation.

Other left and liberal groups simply give lip service to the trans chauvinist narrative. Organizers may not feel strongly about the issue, or may even secretly agree with gender-critical feminists, but won’t take a stand, because they know that to do so means to face the same attacks and ostracism that feminists face. They won’t take on that battle. They are cowards.

All of these groups have rejected and undermined the collective open discussion, debate and tolerance for differences of opinion, which the oppressed require in order to advance our cause of liberation. They have contributed to the climate of fear for anyone who doesn’t toe the line, and to conformity, non-questioning and lack of reason. We must learn to view debate and disagreement as positive, as helping our movements to grow. We must not be so quick to label those who disagree as “haters.”

In face of this rejection by the Left, as there are few avenues for feminists to get out our message, some gender-critical feminists have turned to right-wing Christians as allies. Out of desperation, out of isolation, out of misplaced idealism, and/or out of naïveté. We know these feminists are trying to accomplish something in the face of hardship, but we feel they are making a grave error. We hope that they will re-examine what they are doing by making alliances with the Christian right, and reconsider.

True, the right wing agrees with us about not letting male-to-transgenders (MtTs, or ‘transwomen’) into women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. The right wing agrees with us that no one is able to actuall change their sex. But the right wing are not our friends.

*RIGHT-WING CHRISTIANS ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS*

They are anti-feminist. They are anti-lesbian and anti-gay. They are against gender non-conformity. They are anti-abortion. They are patriarchal. They are for male domination over women. They are racist. They are capitalist. They are imperialist. They are climate change deniers. They are for ravaging the environment.

They pass laws that result in women being arrested for having a miscarriage. They are the people who have doxxed names and addresses of abortion doctors and scientists who work with fetal tissue to anti-abortion groups – and such tactics have led to people being murdered. They are for replacing public schools with vouchers so religious schools can be federally funded. These are the people working for religious exemptions laws that allow pharmacists to refuse Plan B to rape victims. We could go on and on. For feminists to ally with the Right is to ally with the Patriarchy DIRECTLY. That is terrifying! This is especially harmful at this point in history in the USA, given that president Trump is making concrete moves towards fascism. Feminists who make alliances with the right wing, especially now in a period approaching fascism, are making a mistake that they will regret for many years.

*Gender abolitionists and the Religious Right are NOT aligned on transgenderism*

The right wing is anti-transgender because it wrongly perceives transgenderism as threatening the rigid gender roles so beloved to the right-wing Christians and because it associates transgenderism with homosexuality which it condemns.

In contrast, gender-critical feminists say that people should not have to conform to the gender norms.

Gender critical feminists believe that women and girls should not be coerced into being passive, nurturing, feminine, or wearing dresses; and that men and boys don’t have to be domineering, aggressive, masculine, or forbidden from wearing dresses.

Gender-critical feminists believe that being a lesbian or gay man is fine. Children deserve the chance to work this out themselves, and that minors should not be subjected to surgeries and to hormones which can result in permanent changes to the body and sterility. Medical transition should only be made by legal adults (which is not to say that we endorse this) and children should never be told that their body is wrong.

The majority of children who are diagnosed as having gender dysphoria will, if left to themselves, grow up to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. Right-wing Christians almost ALWAYS omit this fact. And conservatives do not care one bit that lesbians are being targeted by the Gender Industrial Complex and socially coerced into transitioning.

The right wing can and will use the excesses of trans rights to dismantle gay and lesbian protections and women’s rights.

For example, they could exploit women’s reasonable fears of male violence by trans in public restrooms to oppose lesbian and gay civil rights and frame overly broad gender identity laws as “LGBT rights,” and stir up antagonism towards gay and lesbian rights among “liberal” women.

They could also use “protection of women” to oppose civil rights protections for lesbians and gays, as overly broad gender identity laws are tied to lesbian and gay civil rights bills which are necessary in the U.S. Because lesbians and gays do not have protection under federal law, unlike trans people, who do. This is happening already and working like a charm.

*Funding*

Some feminists have accepted funding from right-wing sources.

While it is true that feminism is underfunded and we women are underpaid, taking money from the enemy is not going to work. Once they pay you, they own you. Once you become dependent on their money, you are at their mercy. You can neither publicly criticize them nor fight against their policies or actions. They will make demands. Some feminists might see right-wing institutions as an easy source of funding, but in reality the right wing are expert con-artists and swindlers. They will use us to their own ends.

*News Media*

Left and liberal news media ignore or distort reports of MtT violence. They report MtTs as “women,” giving the impression that women are committing violent crimes. Or they ignore these reports completely. Some news reports on MtT violence can only be obtained from right wing sources. This is a serious problem and we need to call out and pressure the left and liberal news media on this.

However, sharing news from right-wing sources, who believe a woman’s destiny is to be a mother and housekeeper, and a man’s is to lead the family, only undermines our credibility as feminists. When we share these articles, we are bringing more traffic, and more advertising dollars, to these right wing sites.

Feminists should not write for right-wing media. When feminist articles appear next to anti-abortion articles, next to racist articles, next to articles promoting prayer in the schools, it puts feminist writing into a very bad context.

Our own feminist news media needs more support. We need to give them our talents, our money, our time, our reading, and help promote them.

*Misplaced idealism*

Some feminists idealize working with conservative women. They don’t see it so much as a ‘necessary evil’, but as a fine tactic with few adverse consequences. The right-wing women these feminists work with may be friendly and personable, and may avoid saying comments that would offend feminists in front of them. But feminists aren’t teaming up with “nice women” –they are teaming up with women who have a very set political agenda.

Right-wing women are oppressed as women, and sometimes as members of other oppressed groups. They suffer from the violence of patriarchy, and deserve our support on that basis. However, right-wing organizations are male supremacist. Most of those run by women have parent organizations controlled by men. Their right-wing agenda hurts people – it is sexist, racist and anti-worker. We are not helping right-wing women by allying with these capitalist and bigoted organizations.

We can be sisterly to individual right-wing women we know, showing them solidarity in the challenges they face as women, and educating them on feminist principles if it appears they are open to listening. We can do that without making alliances with their despicable organizations. Women who are firmly committed to the politics of these right-wing organizations do not, however, engage genuinely with women’s needs (which include reproductive justice, workers’ rights and anti-racism). They do often know how to talk a good game.

*Single-issue coalitions*

It has become popular amongst some feminists to assert their support for coalitions with the Christian right on a single issue, as though they automatically advance women’s rights.

We cannot afford a blind faith in these coalitions, but need to put in the work necessary to figure out whether they do in fact benefit the oppressed at the time they’re undertaken. It is too tempting to simply assert that the feminists in these coalitions are retaining their independence, rather than looking at what’s really happening. For instance, if feminists simply happened to agree with a conservative group on one piece of legislation, that would be one thing. It’s quite another when feminists enter coalitions with far more powerful and resourced extremists and are pushed into further and further public alignment with them, and into making little public critique of them. That’s not a sign of political independence. When gender abolitionist feminists do this, it creates the impression that we believe gender identity legislation is a bigger threat to women than the right-wing attacks. That’s a fast way to appear extremely out of touch.

Feminists who have aligned with right-wing Christians have made the tasks of opening up discussion, and acceptance of gender-critical thought amongst the oppressed – our far more ‘natural’ allies – so much more difficult. Gender-critical thought is going to be seen by the public as a right-wing ideology. It will be harder for feminists to dissuade them of this impression.

We feminists always need to retain an independent voice. Anything that threatens this is not worth it.

*What does it mean to have an Independent Feminist Movement?*

Despite its often severe shortcomings, the left wing of politics always has been and remains better for women than the right. We can and must continue to criticize, pressure and harangue the left for its failures in supporting women. However, saying that the left wing is as sexist as the right wing is hyperbolic, and often serves as a cover for opportunism. And, as we mentioned, it is especially dangerous now in a period when the US government is dangerously close to fascism.

The line that “we have to deal with either the Left or the Right” is an opportunist dodge which takes us away from where we need to focus women’s energy and resources: not on bourgeois politicking, but on building up the political strength of a women’s movement that is as independent as possible of all the social hierarchies and their enabling institutions.

“Left wing versus right wing” is vague about whether or not we’re working with the oppressed, or if we’re sending resources the way of our oppressors! Especially given that many of those employing this framing include billionaires in the ‘Left’ column, and skate over the fact that the right-wingers they want to work with are probably not working-class conservatives. It is very hard to justify this framing, except if one has undue illusions in what a small group of feminists, in partnership with a far more powerful group calling the shots, can achieve via capitalist politics.

Obviously, transgenderism is a far better generator of profits than feminism – with its opposition to fetishizing femininity and to pathologizing any rejection of sex stereotyping. In addition to this, ultra-right forces will continue reinforcing the anti-woman environment in which desperate young people look towards transgenderism as the solution to their problems. So the rationality of funnelling one’s resources into working with these anti-woman extremists is befuddling. An anti-capitalist, firmly feminist response, is the only one which makes sense.

Women will and must be the agents of our own liberation. We need to build up our own political and organized strength as women and as workers. There are plenty of useful projects that don’t need big funding from the right wing. Feminists have been able to accomplish substantial gains without funding from conservatives, and without alliances with right-wing groups. We can do it too.

 

 

 

Transwomen aren’t safe in women’s bathrooms.

We’ve killed too many of them.

It’s time to make amends and insure that transwomen have a safe space to pee.

So please copy this poster and paste on every men’s bathroom you can.

Only you can stop the madness

Liberate the men’s room

brill

Memes and soothing people into agreement

Some thoughts (on behalf of this admin only) on the memes which say something like “we support the rights of trans people to live their lives in peace; we just want to keep female spaces”.

I can see more point for having used these about 15 years ago. But these days, the male transgender identity/purpose is socially constructed as being more about staking further claims on women’s lives, time, energy, services, territory and bodies. This doesn’t make us the ones who don’t want to let “trans” people alone, but it does mean their identity is constructed antagonistically to female bodies, lives and spaces.

In the ‘transsexual era’, a large part of the trans identity was about pursuing safety for gay and gay-perceived men. This remains the case to varying extents around the world, but it is proportionally dwindling. I am certainly not arguing that we should use crude expressions that deny female transgenderism, nor the extremely coerced transgenderism where men cannot openly be gay. But I can’t see any purpose in making arguments which suggest that proponents of the trans movement genuinely think we want to stop trans-identifying people from living a peaceful life so long as they treat others right. That we can straighten out this mess with a simple meme about our intentions.

The issue is in fact that proponents of this movement – and I do not mean trans people only, but the many others who are invested in it, including the many non-trans males who just love the opportunity to heap on “TERFs” – have politics which are based on male rights over females. Are based on disallowing females our own spaces, bodies and freedom. [For a whole range of reasons – for instance, pro-trans pharmaceutical interests simply treat females as collateral damage in the fight to maximize their profits.]

Trans politics being based on male supremacy over women means various things, including the denials and bodily affronts to trans females – but also that Western male trans identity is constructed around male-socialized expectations about their rights over women. Even more so than 15 years ago, when many ‘trans’ males only expected to be treated as women on a ‘passing’ basis, and accorded those rights, if they had had very impressive surgery in many places.

Which means that gender abolitionists need to work by discussing male socialization. And the reality of what the male transgender identity now means, in many countries. Yes, we need to be careful not to discuss it too crudely or deny the variations. But we need to talk about it rather than pretending trans supporters are just confused about our intentions. They’re not going to respond with “oh you just want female spaces, that’s all? Well carry on, then”. It’s the spaces and autonomy they oppose.

Gender abolitionists need to promote discussion of the realities of male predation on females (including what statistics really say about where predation occurs, and to whom), and the likely impact of ‘gender identity’ legislation in the context of male supremacy. We need to focus on the real predators on trans people, and on the capitalist interests which push ‘gender identity’ as commodity and therapy, while selling hormones and pills and sex stereotypes and misery.

We need to push facts out there. A “there, there” calming attitude towards aggressors is not going to fix it, because their aggression is motivated by trying to control us. They have not “lost control of their anger” due to misunderstanding the situation. The anger is calculated. Sometimes it’s a woman who fears that if she does not make a show of distancing herself from us, she will come under attack next. We need to understand that, and distinguish it from a man who is acting not out of similar fear, but in order to continue using the trans phenomenon to maintain his social position. Regardless of the conscious intentions of ‘owners’ of identities, their social construction means they serve particular material interests. So we also need to develop the ability to discuss this in a way that distinguishes social purpose from known individual purpose.

Rape culture involves making targets feel bad about their boundaries

don't want you to make me uncomfortable.jpg
Meme being circulated by those in favour of making multiple-stall/cubicle restrooms and changing rooms either ‘gender-neutral’ or open to anyone on the basis of self-asserted ‘gender identity’

 

FYI, if you support forwarding this meme, you support rape culture.

An inherent part of rape culture is trying to put on the defensive those who raise concerns about predatory behaviour happening in front of or to them (or policy which enables it), or are in the classes of people most predated on (women and children), who might also conceivably object. The aim is to make them feel as though they are doing something wrong.

Accordingly, those invested in rape culture need to make targets and potential targets feel upfront – even ahead of time – that their boundaries and concerns are wrong. Preparing ground by ensuring that potential targets know to feel badly about thinking critically of them, and don’t gather allies against predation (but maybe even distance themselves from likely allies), is a common activity of predators.

Predators and their enablers achieve this quite easily when they apply a ‘reversal’ to what’s really going on, by making the targets/ targetted classes sound like the predatory ones.

Those who’ve been studying and opposing rape culture know why – it’s because the targetted classes are those least likely to be automatically believed and supported. Whereas men, who are the bulk of predators, usually get automatic acceptance of whatever they say.

These reversals about predatory behaviour are so standard that many will recognise common forms: women seeking to set sex-based boundaries will be jeered at as “wanting to do panty checks”. Men who did not get the outcome they wanted in propositioning women may jeer about them as “thinking every man wants them”. The goal is to prevent any possible broader agreement with the women’s “no”, and sometimes to punish her for that “no”. Either way, she learns that a “no” will get her negative and isolating consequences.

Predators and their enablers also work to focus sympathy on the perps. Where these are male (as they usually are), this is especially easy, given our society’s expectation that women devote our time disproportionately to welfare work and, especially, to supporting males.

It is marked how trans supporters work overtime to promote the narrative that anyone concerned about ‘gender inclusive’ policy changes to restroom/locker-room usage is really calling all trans people predators. The narrative serves its purpose of making critics (mostly women) look bad, while keeping attention diverted from the real problems of allowing males to be in females’ facilities purely on the basis of their self-declared ‘gender identity’.

Making women’s supporters work overtime repeating basic facts about the numerous reports of male predation in female restroom/ changing facilities, and about the far more limited justification for the claim that male-on-transwomen predation in male facilities is common, is part of rape culture. This information is easily available via googling.