monkers
Legendary Member
As predicted: you've failed.
1 You said ''offending''. These are not offending rates.
2 The majority of transgender people are not trans women, they are men.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
As predicted: you've failed.
1 You said ''offending''. These are not offending rates.
2 The majority of transgender people are not trans women, they are men.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
The issue is that such men are male.
You need to present a compelling argument why they should be treated differently from other men.
What you seek is exceptionalism - that a subset of men should be treated differently from other men based merely on their say so.
I think they should be treated the same as other men in those limited circumstances where sex matters.
You didn't like the evidence so you pretend I didn't produce it. Trans identifying men offend at the same rate as the rest of the male population; some stats suggest they offend at a higher rate.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/almost-t...QF-OLJKXbSYvxqmQsECgyEugAmy_blQ_&guccounter=2
Canada official stats:
"Almost two-thirds (64%) of these offenders committed a current sexual offence while 88% were convicted for prior sex offences".
Far higher than women's sexual offending rate.
You need to prove that the current status quo - of excluding men from women's spaces in certain limited circumstances - should be changed to allow a certain subset of men (and only them) access. You haven't provided a single compelling piece of evidence for this.
You need to present a compelling argument why they should be treated differently from other men.
What you seek is exceptionalism - that a subset of men should be treated differently from other men based merely on their say so.
I think they should be treated the same as other men in those limited circumstances where sex matters.
You didn't like the evidence so you pretend I didn't produce it. Trans identifying men offend at the same rate as the rest of the male population; some stats suggest they offend at a higher rate.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/almost-t...QF-OLJKXbSYvxqmQsECgyEugAmy_blQ_&guccounter=2
Canada official stats:
"Almost two-thirds (64%) of these offenders committed a current sexual offence while 88% were convicted for prior sex offences".
Far higher than women's sexual offending rate.
You need to prove that the current status quo - of excluding men from women's spaces in certain limited circumstances - should be changed to allow a certain subset of men (and only them) access. You haven't provided a single compelling piece of evidence for this.
monkers
Legendary Member
If you really want to make this about prison stats ...
Of the 51 prisoners in the female prison estate, 48 of them are trans men. Only 1 of them is a trans woman.
Of the 10 trans prisoners with a GRC, the breakdown of that number into trans women and trans men is not given.
monkers
Legendary Member
You wish to use class errors as evidence. This make you either a moron or a c.unt frankly.
There is currently only one trans woman in the female prison estate in the UK.
Insistence on the correct interpretation of the data is far from ''seeking exceptionalism''.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
They are imprisonment rates. On what grounds are they falsely representing offender numbers?
Now we're back to the 'they aren't really trans' argument. This is the free pass that allows rejection of any argument against men in women's spaces.
The sincerity of their beliefs is not the issue.
It's being male that's the issue.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
You could at least try to punctuate a sentence properly when it includes calling someone a moron.
So? It's because such men can no longer be held in women's prisons. It's irrelevant to the argument on offending rates. These men comit sex crimes at a higher rate than non trans men, and at a far higher rate than women. Telegraph article in Yahoo link:
There are no good arguments for treating these men differently from other men.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
1 The police do not get involved with civil matters which account for some kinds of offences.
2 Perpetrators of crimes are not always found.
3 Some criminal incidents are recorded with no further action.
4 Some arrests result in a caution.
5 Women are more likely to receive a caution than be charged.
6 Those arrests that lead to a charge do not always lead to a prosecution by the CPS..
7 Not all prosecutions lead to a prison sentence.
8 Women are less likely than men to receive a prison sentence on a like for like basis especially where they have children and/or are carers.
9 The number of trans women currently in the female prison estate is just one.
The absolute offending rate of any cohort of people is unknowable; therefore the only conclusion is that any claim is bogus especially using prison numbers as the source of evidence.
What we do know is that in the majority of cases sexual or violent offences against women and girls is very high, out of control, and predominantly carried by people who are legally men, are treated by the system as men, and when they are jailed go to male prisons.
You willfully choose to portray trans women as group with high offending rates by abuse of statistical data.
The total number of prisoners in the last release of data shows that there are just 10 trans prisoners. The trans men are housed in the female prison estate. Just one trans woman is housed in the female prison estate. This suggest that the likelihood of any trans women prisoners convicted of violent or sexual offences against women and girls is likely to be zero.
The total number of trans women and trans men who are prisoners is 10, how many are trans women or trans men is not given in the data.
Ian H
Legendary Member
Is it the stains down the front of their trousers?
monkers
Legendary Member
If you weren't just a shitposting moronic shithead it wouldn't be necessary.
monkers
Legendary Member
And now anybody paying attention to your bullshit knows you are a bullshitter.
So pay attention. The Supreme Court have heard the appeal ... For Women Scotland and others vs The Scottish Ministers.
The challenge is that the 2004 GRA created a legal fiction, that trans women can not be women, and that trans men can not be men; that biological sex is binary and immutable. They argue this is contrary to common law.
The Inner and Outer Courts of Session have already ruled on this. This is their final court of appeal in the UK. The case is presently awaiting judgement.
Therefore under the law, transgender women are legally male, but trans women are legally female. That is not me trying to make an exception; that is UK law making the distinction.
The Telegraph article that you have chosen is a work of fiction, and you know it. The Telegraph is known for its anti-trans stance, and like you it willfully misrepresents the truth and the law. Trans women are not legally male, they are legally women, and legally female. That is the whole basis of the complaint of the For Women Scotland argument. If you disagree with them, then you'd better write and tell them.
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Senior Member
This is woke agenda, that created this crazy set of laws trying to accommodate male sexual perversion at the expense of women and girls.
Thankfully a few prominent defenders of the female sex have almost defeated this craziness.
Thank goodness for Trump too, binning the whole trans movement in the USA
Thankfully a few prominent defenders of the female sex have almost defeated this craziness.
Thank goodness for Trump too, binning the whole trans movement in the USA
AuroraSaab
Shaman
All that applies to every other offence. We don't dismiss those incarceration rates as meaningless because of it.
Pro rata, they offend at least at the same rate as other men in every country that keeps records.
Your other post is the usual pretence that they now only count as transwomen if they have a GRC. This is a complete about face from what you have said previously and what Stonewall and transactivists demand.
Given that there is no discernible difference between a man with a £5 certificate and one without one, and that you cannot tell whether a man in front of you has a GRC or not, this is just another attempt to have us pretend that there is some magical difference between some men and other men.
monkers
Legendary Member
Shithead.
