Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Nobody has insulted your family. What you are now doing is claiming they are in order to make the discussion of the issues off limits.

Lol. You're routinely rude to people who don't agree with you, including me. No one on here has asked for special treatment during the debate, except you of course.

When you use these slights and slurs and lies against trans people, you are using them against my niece.

You get called an idiot because you present as one. I don't recall calling anyone else an idiot. It's just you pretending to understand things that you clearly don't.

You are a fool because despite saying you are a feminist but have allowed yourself to be recruited by the hard right. In the USA they are going after women's rights. Posie Parker is being paid to represent their views. The anti-abortion law being pushed through all come from the hard right and Posie Parker is one of them, and doing very nicely out of it. Well done for being part of the movement that is pushing back women's hard won sexed-based rights.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nope. You are using emotive special pleading to shut down the discussion. You are trying to make the topic off limits because of your personal circumstances. No other topic on NACA gets that special treatment.

Ditto your endless personal jibes and allegations that gender critical women are hard right fascists. It no longer works on NACA. There are no moderators here to give in when you turn the thread into a dumpster fire of lengthy personal diatribes. You've abandoned any pretence at argument, or evidence, for personal abuse and it hasn't worked.

 

[monkers]

Nope. You are using emotive special pleading to shut down the discussion. You are trying to make the topic off limits because of your personal circumstances. No other topic on NACA gets that special treatment.

Ditto your endless personal jibes and allegations that gender critical women are hard right fascists. It no longer works on NACA. There are no moderators here to give in when you turn the thread into a dumpster fire of lengthy personal diatribes. You've abandoned any pretence at argument, or evidence, for personal abuse and it hasn't worked.

Nope. I want to shut down dishonest discussion and hold you to truth.

You keep on asserting that trans women have high offending rates, at least equal to 'other men'. See you can't stop yourself from using a slight even when you think you are presenting analysis.

So let's have it. Provide the UK figures for the offending rates of cis men, cis women, trans men, trans women, any other. Let's see the break down of that so that we can understand the rates of trans women assaulting cis women in UK prisons over - let's say, the last four years in which time the prison service has made better efforts in recording.

Forget the assertions and the slights, provide the requested data. You do seem to have so many links at your fingertips, shouldn't take you a jiffy.

 

[Julia9054]

Why not get an actual sportswoman to promote sportswear aimed at women?

You genuinely think that a paid promotion with one trans influencer is Nike's sole marketing strategy? Lol!
Multinational companies don't have "values" except for ones that equate to more sales. Dylan promotes products to her fan base who are now more likely to buy Nike. Her fan base - like most young people - are supportive of the trans community.
Someone will have calculated that getting reactionary old transphobes frothing at the mouth is worth it for increased publicity and increased sales.
They don't care who wears their sports bras and whether they are worn for doing a triathlon, posing in the gym or lounging on the sofa eating crisps.

 

[multitool]

Why not get an actual sportswoman to promote sportswear aimed at women?

Looks like they do...

The truth is you want trans women excluded totally from public life. And we all know what people who want that are called, don't we

 

[AuroraSaab]

Lol. I have no objection to Dylan wearing whatever they like. I do object to Dylan reducing being a woman to stereotypes of femininity and them being platformed as an expert on womanhood when they self declared as a woman in March last year. Dylan is an actor and former game show contestant. I don't doubt that they are enjoying their greatest theatrical success so far.

I wonder if the reaction would be as favourable for someone performing stereotypes of ethnic minorities.

I don't want transwomen excluded from public life. I don't want self declared gender identity to overrule the material reality of sex in law though, which is what has been advocated for in this thread.

 

[monkers]

I don't want transwomen excluded from public life. I don't want self declared gender identity to overrule the material reality of sex in law though, which is what has been advocated for in this thread.

I'm not sure that anyone has advocated for it. There's the no small point that the law has existed since 2003.

Putting you straight on what the law is, is not the same as advocating for it. The Gender Recognition Act is out of date and needs some updating in the view of two all party select committees.

 

[multitool]

I don't want transwomen excluded from public life.

Chinny reckon

 

[Rusty Nails]

The most likely way to get a majority to accept mixed-sex toilets would appear to me to be the compromise of having mixed-sex  plus gender-neutral toilets.

Oops. An issue of Prince Charles fingers.

Should have written "separate toilets plus gender-neutral'

 

[AuroraSaab]

So let's have it. Provide the UK figures for the offending rates of cis men, cis women, trans men, trans women, any other. Let's see the break down of that so that we can understand the rates of trans women assaulting cis women in UK prisons over - let's say, the last four years in which time the prison service has made better efforts in recording.

Forget the assertions and the slights, provide the requested data. You do seem to have so many links at your fingertips, shouldn't take you a jiffy.

It's you who are making the assertion that transwomen are somehow magically different from other biological men. It's really up to you to prove that hypothesis surely? It should be you who has to prove why we should treat them differently from other men, in regards to prisons or anywhere else.

The onus should be on you, but regardless here's the Swedish study (again) that shows male to female transgender people offend at higher rates than their birth sex control group. Also concludes that surgery does not seem to make trans people happier.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/


The UK prison stats give us a bit of a picture for here, albeit an incomplete one. This is from the court ruling that you yourself posted earlier:

81 out of 163 is 49%. So 49% of transgender prisoners were sex offenders.

Whereas the usual % of males serving sentences for sex offences is 20%.

I have no trouble whatsoever in saying that I don't think all these offenders are genuinely body/gender dysphoric. I think they are gaming the system to get a softer time in jail.

Similar outcome in Canada, which has self ID.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/toront...wcm/96997ecf-e4f8-415d-af9f-cee3d4ba5524/amp/

If you are going to say that 'You are who you say you are' and accept every man who says he is a woman, I think you have to accept that the available data shows that (those who claim to be) transwomen offend at least at a similar rate to other biological men.

You need to make a good case for why they should be treated differently from other biological males. I don't think you have so far.

 

[multitool]

I called out your bullshit on this when you tried it last time, when you didn't realise what "female to male" meant.

That Swedish study does not say what you says it does. It says that TW conviction rate is not higher than male rate (unlike TM rate, which is higher than female). 'Not higher' does not mean 'equal to.' Nor does that study talk about "happiness".

You really are quite crap at reading studies. No wonder Monkers takes you apart so effortlessly with you cackhanded attempts to interpret law.

 

[monkers]

It's you who are making the assertion that transwomen are somehow magically different from other biological men. It's really up to you to prove that hypothesis surely? It should be you who has to prove why we should treat them differently from other men, in regards to prisons or anywhere else.

The onus should be on you, but regardless here's the Swedish study (again) that shows male to female transgender people offend at higher rates than their birth sex control group. Also concludes that surgery does not seem to make trans people happier.

View attachment 3751
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/


The UK prison stats give us a bit of a picture for here, albeit an incomplete one. This is from the court ruling that you yourself posted earlier:

View attachment 3756

81 out of 163 is 49%. So 49% of transgender prisoners were sex offenders.


View attachment 3755

Whereas the usual % of males serving sentences for sex offences is 20%.

I have no trouble whatsoever in saying that I don't think all these offenders are genuinely body/gender dysphoric. I think they are gaming the system to get a softer time in jail.

Similar outcome in Canada, which has self ID.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/toront...wcm/96997ecf-e4f8-415d-af9f-cee3d4ba5524/amp/

View attachment 3757

If you are going to say that 'You are who you say you are' and accept every man who says he is a woman, I think you have to accept that the available data shows that (those who claim to be) transwomen offend at least at a similar rate to other biological men.

You need to make a good case for why they should be treated differently from other biological males. I don't think you have so far.

This isn't the data I asked for.

I'd like to see UK data for the last few (say four years).

I'd like to see if there is high vulnerability of attack from trans women on cis women in UK prisons.

 

[multitool]

The authors of that Swedish study go to great lengths to point out its limitations, and it certainly should not be used for the ends that Aurora is attempting.

 

[monkers]

The authors of that Swedish study go to great lengths to point out its limitations, and it certainly should not be used for the ends that Aurora is attempting.

One of the authors of the Swedish study has complained with some anger about the manipulation and misrepresentation of the data as presented to the all party select committee by Kathleen Stock.

 

[classic33]

Nope. You are using emotive special pleading to shut down the discussion. You are trying to make the topic off limits because of your personal circumstances. No other topic on NACA gets that special treatment.

Ditto your endless personal jibes and allegations that gender critical women are hard right fascists. It no longer works on NACA. There are no moderators here to give in when you turn the thread into a dumpster fire of lengthy personal diatribes. You've abandoned any pretence at argument, or evidence, for personal abuse and it hasn't worked.

And you haven't been using anything similar!

You're sole way of getting your message across is akin to scaremongering, nothing else. You use irrelevant examples, with the impression that they'll have the same effect in this country.

You not wanting "them" to be near you, without you knowing is what's driving half of your posts. You don't actually word it as simple as that though. Instead you hide behind women's dignity, women's privacy. I don't think you have an ounce of care about anyone but yourself on this matter.

Maybe the tribunal panel(Their ruling is as legal as any issued in a court) got it wrong when they told the council that a one size fits all assessment isn't what's required under the Equalities Act. And that all assessments, for reasonable adjustment, are to be on an individual basis. As the person(s) asking for such adjustments will be requesting different levels of adjustment in order to use a facility. But that won't apply/count for you as it was said on the disability side, therefore has no relevance to what you want. This despite you now using disability to try and further your argument.

The dignity and privacy you demand works only one way. When I mentioned what went on at a cancer clinic, your response was to say it's a women only issue, the 1% of men who are diagnosed with breast cancer each year don't matter. You don't see the hypocrisy in your own answer. "Maybe I understand how women feel now". A few vocal minority demand I be removed and it's my fault. Cancer doesn't care who it gets or where it gets them. To you it was just a bit of a joke. That's how I've taken your response's from me raising that. You couldn't care less about anyone there that day who'd been told they had it. Just used it as another example of how men "invade" women only spaces. You chose instead to blame the medical staff, who in my opinion were brilliant, for others mouthing off.
As far as "intimate care" goes, it's the nature of the care system. According to you. I should have asked to be seen by someone of my own sex, placing demands upon a system that is stretched at the best of times. Risk infection, while I wait for someone of the right sex to do the work became available. Am I really that important, that I can demand who I want to be seen by?
A popular term heard these days is 'white coat syndrome" which might affect some test results. I don't think I suffer from this as I've been seen and examined by that many healthcare professionals over the years. I'd say the split goes in the favour of women over men. With some intimate places being examined/treated by them.


The one thing you could get correct though is the acronym for the site name. It's been News, Current Affairs & Politics (NCA&P) since it was started.