Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

So it excuses them, in your mind, being female they can do no wrong. And if they do, they're not as bad as men.

No one has ever said this. The fact that men commit 98% of sex crimes is a fairly good reason why women are wary of all men, especially in vulnerable situations. That you think this is somehow an insult to men and women should apologise for it absolutely beggars belief.

Good men understand women's concerns around single sex spaces and the need for privacy and safeguarding.

Easy enough find, and you were the one that said you've not said anything like that. If that were true, you'd be proving me wrong.

Find my posts if it's easy then. It's you making the accusations but when asked for evidence you never do. It's not my job to answer unevidenced bs from you.

You deny, even to yourself, that women can and are just as bad as men.

Can be, but statistically they aren't. There aren't hundreds of sexual murders of men by women every year. There aren't 70k rapes of men by women every year. You are absolutely deranged if you think female sexual offending is as bad as male. Your claim is borne of a bitter misogyny.

 

[classic33]

No one has ever said this. The fact that men commit 98% of sex crimes is a fairly good reason why women are wary of all men, especially in vulnerable situations. That you think this is somehow an insult to men and women should apologise for it absolutely beggars belief.

Good men understand women's concerns around single sex spaces and the need for privacy and safeguarding.



Find my posts if it's easy then. It's you making the accusations but when asked for evidence you never do. It's not my job to answer unevidenced bs from you.



Can be, but statistically they aren't. There aren't hundreds of sexual murders of men by women every year. There aren't 70k rapes of men by women every year. You are absolutely deranged if you think female sexual offending is as bad as male. Your claim is borne of a bitter misogyny.

Again, is that the charge rate or the conviction rate. Two very different things.

Why the double standards from yourself? Resorting to name calling again.

The unevidenced BS on this thread is coming from yourself. You might think your posts are no longer visible, but I assure you they are.
Seek and you shall find.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1929309231997424025?t=8f6-RPdnb8CiH_v9jEyFqA&s=19

For monkeys

 

[CXRAndy]

Again, is that the charge rate or the conviction rate. Two very different things.

Why the double standards from yourself? Resorting to name calling again.

The unevidenced BS on this thread is coming from yourself. You might think your posts are no longer visible, but I assure you they are.
Seek and you shall find.

Why don't you link to the post/s that you are alluding to. If you've read it, it's a simple task to add quote or screenshot.

Was it you who said I'd been banned from Cycling UK and BikeRadar? If it was you, again you said this without links. There wouldn't have been any evidence as I've never joined those forums

 

[spen666]

It is not wrong, the law is written.
...

Interesting you resort to "the law" as justification now, but then deny "the law" when it comes to the recent Supreme Court decision

 

[AuroraSaab]

Again, is that the charge rate or the conviction rate. Two very different things.

Whichever stat, men still dominate the offending rates. Find me a country in the world where women commit more than 10% of the sex crimes - whether charged or convicted. I've asked you before to provide evidence for your claim that women are just as bad as men re sex offending. You never do.

You might think your posts are no longer visible, but I assure you they are. Seek and you shall find.

Why would they not be visible? Nobody can hide their posts. You post nonsensical allegations and yet it's up to me to prove them wrong ..... I'm not sure your endless late night brain farts are painting you in the best light.

 

[monkers]

Interesting you resort to "the law" as justification now, but then deny "the law" when it comes to the recent Supreme Court decision

I said ''the law is written''. And so it is.


The Supreme Court are not the legislature. In reaching their decision it is clear that they did not achieve what they set out themselves as their terms of reference - to clarify what parliament intended. Parliamentary records are more than clear what parliament intended. It will be shown that in this case the SC have erred, I have posted the evidence previously.

The question was raised in documented evidence and answered by the Chair of the drafting committee the then SG Vera Baird and contained within the evidence bundle available to both houses before they voted on it. There is no evidence that the SC considered that evidence in their report.

Vera Baird: What are the specific exceptions that you are worried about?

Q74 Dr Harris: For example, in Schedule 9 there is the ability of a religious organisation to discriminate, so they could say, “We will allow a woman priest”, that is if they had women priests— Vera Baird: There are not many of them.

Q75 Dr Harris: Yes, indeed, but let us say they did, “But we are not going to allow a woman priest who is in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate, who is a woman”. They would argue that is a permitted exception under gender reassignment. Is that a clash with the sex discrimination provisions?

Vera Baird: Is that right? She is a woman now for all purposes, not a transgender person, a woman.

Q76 Dr Harris: Right.

Vera Baird: That is the point of the certificate, is it not, to make it clear beyond doubt and that is where all her rights come from.

Q77 Dr Harris: So what you are saying is someone with a certificate does not fall within the protected ground and, therefore, exceptions on that protected ground—

Vera Baird: Will fall within the protected ground of sex.

Chairman: I think you have answered the question.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Just because that exchange wasn't specifically mentioned in the supreme court judgement doesn't mean they weren't aware of it or that it wasn't considered. The judges weren't obliged to list every single piece of information taken into account.

If you think the judgement will be overturned based on a 30 second exchange between participants at the drafting stage of the Equality Act in 2009 you are absolutely grasping at straws.

 

[monkers]

Just because that exchange wasn't specifically mentioned in the supreme court judgement doesn't mean they weren't aware of it or that it wasn't considered. The judges weren't obliged to list every single piece of information taken into account.

If you think the judgement will be overturned based on a 30 second exchange between participants at the drafting stage of the Equality Act in 2009 you are absolutely grasping at straws.

Do you seriously think that this would not have been compelling evidence and not worthy of mention?

This was the then govenment's own Solicitor General spelling out to both houses of parliament - who a trans woman with a GRC is and that her rights as a woman grounded in the protected characteristic of sex are put beyond doubt.

It sets out absolutely that parliament was clear that the 2004 Act and the 2010 Bill were aligned. That Bill became an Act of Parliament.

This position was held by the EHRC up until the political appointment of Falkner who tried to read the law differently. Her staff did not agree with her. Falkner was criticized and reported to the UN who 'were concerned'. Falkner was bailed out of an investigation by Badenoch before the investigation was allowed to be completed. There was an exodus of staff due to the blatant transphobia of Falkner spoken at meetings.

Melanie Field, the Lead Writer of the Equality Bill, left saying that her position had become untenable.

The Supreme Court did not permit evidence from Dr Stephen Whittle who was in the room at the time of the parliamentary drafting committee sessions - he would have provided the evidence and given witness testimony.

Political interference is writ large over the whole sorry saga. It isn't over.

 

[icowden]

For monkeys

You have misspelt morons.

This is why I keep telling you not to bother with the Telegraph. They will publish any old crap.
This is the actual detail. The Telegraph's "scoop" is just an article made out of unvalidated twitter posts.

The boxing events in Paris for the 2024 Summer Olympics were managed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Paris 2024 Boxing Unit.[36] The IBA had been suspended by the IOC in 2019 due to governance issues under prior leadership; since then, Olympic boxing has been overseen by an IOC task force.[46][47] The IOC cleared Khelif to compete in Paris, confirming that she complied with all necessary eligibility and medical regulations for the event.[34][48] The IOC stated that all athletes competing in Paris comply with the competition's eligibility and entry regulation, and that Khelif "was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport".[4][7][49] Later, the IOC confirmed receiving the letter from the IBA in June 2023, and stated that "from the conception of the test, to how the test was shared with us, to how the tests have become public, is so flawed that it's impossible to engage with it".[50]

During the IBA press conference in Paris on 5 August 2024, the organization's position and its president, Umar Kremlev, regarding the nature of the conducted tests changed and became contradictory. Initially, the IBA claimed that sex verification tests were conducted. Still, at the conference, Secretary General Chris Roberts spoke of "chromosome tests", while Kremlev asserted that the tests aimed to determine testosterone levels in athletes. The situation was exacerbated by Kremlev's statements, who repeatedly criticized IOC President Thomas Bach, declared his intention to initiate legal proceedings against him, and expressed dissatisfaction with the Olympic Games opening ceremony, calling it "humiliating".[51][52][53][54] The IBA claimed to have used laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for testing, but WADA denied involvement in sex verification, stating it deals solely with anti-doping matters.[53]

The outcome is that

On 10 February 2025, the IBA mentioned Khelif and Lin Yu-ting in a statement that they were filing a complaint against the IOC regarding the eligibility of these athletes to compete. Khelif responded by accusing the IBA of making "false and offensive" accusations.[80]
In May of 2025, World Boxing announced the implementation of sex verification testing for all athletes competing at events which are sanctioned by World Boxing. Khelif will be barred from competing until she takes the test and it proves the absence of a Y chromosome. [81] [82] [83]

As @monkers has pointed out, the problem with sex verification testing is that it is very complicated and usually affects anyone who is intersex.

• In 1986, Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was dismissed and publicly shamed after failing a chromosomal test. She fought the ruling against her, arguing that she could not have a competitive advantage because her intersex variation resulted in her having no functional testosterone. Two years later, the IAAF gave Martínez-Patiño the green light to compete again. Her plight brought attention to the issue of gender testing, which helped lead to the end of mandatory tests a decade later.[7][59]

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

The problem is Aurora is your defence of women as an innocent group doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

But she does have a point that especially violent rape is more of a men trade then a womens, and @classic33 nit picking about a 84% rise in 10 years doesn't really help with that concept. if you put the numbers next to it like aurora did.

Your claims that too many women and girls are subjected to forms of sexual abuse from minor to unwanted sexual attention all the way to rape and murder are fully justified. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

Agreed however i would also argue the current not spoken but seemingly unspoken repeated silent claim which seems to come down to ''transpersons are friendly cool persons they have been to such a struggle to get to where they are they can't possibly ever do any harm'' (and just to be clear that's a general tone i get from some in this topic, not a qoute from anyone)
I think that's dangerous and i think law regulations and protections mechanisms should be aimed at preventing not responding to situations once they escalate.
Even if we have no recorded trans-person sexual commited offences as of now, what wrong whith laws that protect all groups?

While it is true that by far the biggest number of assaults are against women are carried out by men is undeniable. It is also undeniable that the numbers of sexual assaults carried out by women is not an insignificant number.

Especially since sterioid abuse seems to be more normalised, but traditionally sexual assault by women goes a little bit different, you almost never here of a strong women overpowering men and pulling them into a alleyway to rape them right?

The point I will continue to make is that there is no evidence, and I have repeatedly called for you to show it, that there are any trans women prisoners in England & Wales with a GRC convicted of sexual or violent assault against women. The data from the prison service just does not show this to be true.

I would argue it better to control then escalate and thus the system should be setup in such an way transpersons or better worded a rapist monster who thinks ''hey i can abuse that trans law thingy to get closer to women'' will have no change to do such thing. Because the rules/law doesn't allow him to.

From we can know from available prison service data is that the only cohort of prisoners that do not show as offenders, but are themselves victims, are trans people. And yet this is the cohort you target.

How about offenders and victims? a person who is both an offender and a victim? And also i again reiternate my point law should prevent crime not predict it.

Not only does it not make rational sense as an argument, it demonstrates that is a carefully constructed false argument born of prejudice.

The victimhood of trans people with a GRC is effectively denied while painting them as perpetrators.

You are an unreliable witness to the actual data, while you show that you can be nothing other than a bad faith actor.

i don't agree victimhood does not make one imume for common laws and rules to make this an other persons protected against the terror's of a smaller group perpetrators

In addition to what I have said above, there is not evidence that a system of self-Id works against the safety of women.

If we look at the prison data for Ireland, the official data shows two trans women in prison. They are held in an isolation unit effectively in solitary confinement. There are also two cis women held in the same unit under the same conditions because risk assessment shows that they render other women prisoners unsafe.

If self-ID was detrimental as you have repeatedly said, the data from Ireland would by now be indicating that effect.

But if i understand self-id correctly and men self-id-ing as women would be registered as women in the crime stats, so then automatically you don't get numbers for offences committed by trans persons right?
Also whats the obsession with having numbers of offenders and evidence of abuse? wouldn't it be better to prevent instead? Shouldn't Self-id have mechanisms in them to prevent abuse by sexual monsters?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do you seriously think that this would not have been compelling evidence and not worthy of mention?

This was the then govenment's own Solicitor General spelling out to both houses of parliament - who a trans woman with a GRC is and that her rights as a woman grounded in the protected characteristic of sex are put beyond doubt.

It sets out absolutely that parliament was clear that the 2004 Act and the 2010 Bill were aligned. That Bill became an Act of Parliament.

This position was held by the EHRC up until the political appointment of Falkner who tried to read the law differently. Her staff did not agree with her. Falkner was criticized and reported to the UN who 'were concerned'. Falkner was bailed out of an investigation by Badenoch before the investigation was allowed to be completed. There was an exodus of staff due to the blatant transphobia of Falkner spoken at meetings.

Melanie Field, the Lead Writer of the Equality Bill, left saying that her position had become untenable.

The Supreme Court did not permit evidence from Dr Stephen Whittle who was in the room at the time of the parliamentary drafting committee sessions - he would have provided the evidence and given witness testimony.

Political interference is writ large over the whole sorry saga. It isn't over.

And .... we're back to the law and judges being right when they agree with you and wrong when they don't. And it's all a political cover up or conspiracy or something.

The supreme court didn't take individual submissions of evidence. That's not the protocol of how they work. Representatives from groups were chosen to submit evidence and the side representing the Scottish government got an equal opportunity to present the arguments. The sc wasn't obliged to hear from individual persons, including Whittle, and no individuals were called from either side.

 

[monkers]

But she does have a point that especially violent rape is more of a men trade then a womens ... if you put the numbers next to it like aurora did.

I have posted the numbers a few times. I'm not scraping this whole very long thread to count the number of times for your amusement.

I haven't been in dispute with Aurora about rape data. The scale of the problem is truly horrific.

There is the wild claim that women with a GRC are making violent and sexual attacks against women. I just point out that there is no evidence of it being at the hands of a woman with a GRC in a public loo, or indeed anywhere else - because there isn't any such evidence. And yes I have put carefully considered numbers from available data against this - often.

 

[monkers]

Agreed however i would also argue the current not spoken but seemingly unspoken repeated silent claim which seems to come down to ''transpersons are friendly cool persons they have been to such a struggle to get to where they are they can't possibly ever do any harm'' (and just to be clear that's a general tone i get from some in this topic, not a qoute from anyone)
I think that's dangerous and i think law regulations and protections mechanisms should be aimed at preventing not responding to situations once they escalate.
Even if we have no recorded trans-person sexual commited offences as of now, what wrong whith laws that protect all groups?

Your 'feels' don't trump the data.

 

[monkers]

Especially since sterioid abuse seems to be more normalised, but traditionally sexual assault by women goes a little bit different, you almost never here of a strong women overpowering men and pulling them into a alleyway to rape them right?

Do you have evidence that women with a GRC are steroid abusers?