Closer to? It's the same in the research. If you look at transwomen prisoners in jail for sex offences it's higher than non trans males. I can quite happily say that's because they aren't really trans, but if you are insisting 'you are who you say you are' then presumably you will want them including in the transwomen offender stats.
The gymnastics you guys are prepared to do to prove that transwomen are magically different from other men is astounding.
Can anyone explain why saying 'I am a woman' magically renders someone a reduced risk? And why the person saying 'I am a woman' should be given a free pass on safeguarding that we don't give to others who don't say the magic words?
It's like saying the crime stats show Taurean men offend at the same rate as other men, but because the stats aren't broken down by crime we can't really know. 'Perhaps Taureans are just shoplifters but never sex offenders and therefore they don't require the same level of vigilance around their likelihood of offending as other men' would be nonsense.
My reading of the research as quoted upthread is that, for whatever reason, the offending differed between cohorts.
Do the transwomen in gaol include those who offended as men?
I'm not engaging in either gymnastics or professing some sort of belief in the magic of particular words. Provided the person who says 'I'm a woman' has shown some sort of commitment to transitioning, and even what would be required under the Scottish reform would show such a commitment, then that fact suggests they're less of a risk then ordinary men, never mind a person aiming to get access to women's spaces and bodies for sexual gratification with malice aforethought. As I've said before I know, or know of, three or four transwomen (and one transman).
None of them are the remotest risk to women.
Their not my friends and I'm not trying to be kind. I just don't understand why they cannot be allowed to just behave as the women they've chosen to become.
