citation needed
Some examples:
- Janiah Monroe, a man who murdered his male cell mate, was transferred to a women's prison, and raped a female inmate there [1]
- Ramel Blout, a man who was housed in a women's prison and raped a female inmate just after she'd finished showering [2]
- Karen White, a man jailed for rape, who sexually assaulted two female inmates while in a women's prison [3]
The problem isn't trans people in general, it's these new policies and laws that are obliterating female-only spaces, and thus allowing men who would never previously be permitted to be in proximity to commit abuses like the above.
[1] https://www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-felon-who-killed-m...
[2] https://reduxx.info/transgender-inmate-convicted-of-raping-f...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-...
Did you know that among transgender community, rate of attempted suicide is 40%? [0,1] If being inclusive of people regardless of their identity can help us mitigate that number, I believe we should do so, even if it lets three "perverts" mask their intentions. Citing three cases happening in the prison system and asking all trans women to be banned from all women's restrooms everywhere is... quite a strong ask.
Moreover, the three cases you mentioned all happened in prison, where you are already locked up and under tight supervision (supposedly). How many cases are there where such a thing happened in a general gender neutral bathroom? To argue that "we should not be respectful of people's gender identity because there is harm in to negate the overwhelming positive impacts of it", you have to show the proofs.
[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031
My view is that with something as complex and multifactorial as suicide, we have to be cautious in ascribing a particular cause or mitigation, and the available data must be examined with caution.
The first abstract you linked describes a 41% attempted suicide rate, but I'm not clear how this was determined or exactly which population it applies to. It seems to be for a poster at a psychiatry conference, the full copy of which isn't available online, as far as I can see. Do you know how this figure was arrived at? I would be interested to see the original source.
In the second paper you linked, which concerns transgender people in India, it sounds like there are many other correlative factors that involve poverty and lack of access to education and employment, with many living in slums, begging and working as prostitutes. Access to the bathroom of their choice or other opposite sex spaces seems to be the least of their issues, and it's not mentioned in this paper. The section discussing resiliency sounds promising though, with correlations to higher income, better support structures, and being employed in a mainstream job. Perhaps these are the factors best addressed by policy, in India at least?
No, that seems to be either an incredibly biased reading of my comment or an attempt at a bad faith argument. I am claiming: rallies that announce "all trans people are child molesters" are inevitably followed by physical violence against some trans person for "molesting children". More often than not, people who hold such rallies are aware of such implications, and are intentionally holding such rallies to cause harm. Thus, words, for all intents and purposes, can be a direct cause of physical violence and thus should be regarded as such in very extreme cases.
> there's a reason why the things you're claiming result in violence are not found on that list.
Sometimes the laws simply have not caught up with the times. Quick example: how long have gay marriage been federally legal in the United States? Law follows common sense and consensus, not the other way around, which is why I do not agree with your suggestion that we should forsake common sense and consensus to blindly follow the letters of the law.