Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

The law balances risks.

Yes, and men are the risk. Regardless of how they identify and because in certain situations having them present makes women uncomfortable.

Until such time as you can, in any statistically relevant way (and screenshots of the same 6 year old local news headline in Oklahoma does not count as this) that the risk you perceive translates into reality then you really should pipe down* because your efforts are collectively making things worse for everybody...women, TW, everyone.

There is literally not a thing that would give you pause on this issue. Not men in women's prisons, not men in women's sports, not crime stats. Nothing.

I posted a Twitter feed on cycling. There are 40 transwomen in US cycling who compete in the women's category. Not enough to worry about according to you, yet it's happening all the time.

Last weekend Trans-identified male cyclist Lesley Mumford was first in the women's 40-49 age group (out of 14) and 6/33 for women overall on the 100 mile course. The women in 2nd and 3rd didn't stick around for the podium pics.

There are literally 40+ control experiments all around the world proving you wrong, every day, and it isn't theoretical/ideological like your arguments, it's reality.

*and I know full well I'm setting you up to go for your standard crap retort of silencing women.

There's evidence but you dismiss it. You just have a problem with women saying No.

I don't feel silenced on here, and I've never said women are silenced on here. I think your abusive tone, constant personal remarks, and aggression is a way of attempting to disuade posters because most people wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of your endless personal comments.

Your behaviour doesn't really help your argument much though. It certainly doesn't do much to persuade me to want to share private spaces with men.

 

[multitool]

Yes, and men are the risk. Regardless of how they identify and because in certain situations having them present makes women uncomfortable.

There is literally not a thing that would give you pause on this issue. Not men in women's prisons, not men in women's sports, not crime stats. Nothing.

Some actual data would help. Not endless cherry-picking and ideological assertion. I asked you earlier if you knew what confounders and self-selecting samples meant. You don't. And your views make this clear.

posted a Twitter feed on cycling. There are 40 transwomen in US cycling who compete in the women's category. Not enough to worry about according to you, yet it's happening all the time.

Last weekend Trans-identified male cyclist Lesley Mumford was first in the women's 40-49 age group (out of 14) and 6/33 for women overall on the 100 mile course. The women in 2nd and 3rd didn't stick around for the podium pics.

As I have said, rules around TW in sport is an evolving issue. Doping used to legal. Now it isn't. An evidence-based campaign to change rules would have my support. Women grumpy because they lost isn't evidence.

I've never said women are silenced on here.

Lie.

I think your abusive tone, constant personal remarks, and aggression is a way of attempting to disuade posters because most people wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of your endless personal comments.

Pointing out your lies and distortions is not "abuse". You attempting to present it thus is another example of your dishonesty. MANY posters have said the same about you and left the thread as a consequence.

Remember when you said I was "Shilling for rapists"?

You are a hypocrit as well as a liar.

Your behaviour doesn't really help your argument much though. It certainly doesn't do much to persuade me to want to share private spaces with men.

Try not lying, then.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I gave you 4 examples, 2 in the UK and 2 from the USA. If, in the second example from the UK, the perpetrator stated that she was a woman, isn't that sufficient for self-ID to apply to her? I thought that that was one of the clear tenets in play? Can we be sure that just because they look like a man and have a penis and ballsack that they are not in fact a woman?

Or is this one of those grey areas that really should be looked into to make sure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect women and indeed genuine transwomen?

I'm sure I've explained multiple times in this thread how self ID on the proposed Scottish mode works.

You cannot, even if the law was liberalised along those lines, simply get up one morning, say "As from today I'm Martha not Arthur" and be Martha for all purposes and recognised as such by law.

On the other hand, under the law as it is now, you have to live in your acquired gender for two years before you can get the change recognised by a Gender Recognition Certificate. One would have to be Martha in terms of, presumably, dress and which loos etc you used.

@monkers of this parish has explained in suitably graphic detail what happens to a penis and 'ballsack' if one takes hormones. Kiddy fiddling is an offence whether you dress in knickers or Y fronts/boxers etc.

 

[multitool]

You are wasting your breath, Brompton.

They are ideologically captured by a cult.

 

[Bromptonaut]

You are wasting your breath, Brompton.

They are ideologically captured by a cult.

I'm evidently not going to persuade @AuroraSaab but thought based on their other posts that @icowden was amenable to facts/logic.

 

[icowden]

You cannot, even if the law was liberalised along those lines, simply get up one morning, say "As from today I'm Martha not Arthur" and be Martha for all purposes and recognised as such by law.

So this isn't true then>:-

Obtaining a GRC and a replacement birth certificate are no longer the only methods available for transgender people to record and validate their transgender identity. All commonly-used identity documents, including passports and driving licences, can now be issued according to an individual’s self-declared gender identity. Medical records, utility bills and membership cards can all be updated to reflect a lived identity instead of birth sex. In fact, a birth certificate is the only remaining official document that records legal sex and cannot be changed based on self-identification alone.

So you don't need a GRC to be Trans, nor a diagnosis. So if you decide to be Martha and not Arthur, the logical conclusion is that you can, and should be recognised as such.

Liberty human rights agrees:

To be protected from discrimination on the basis of your trans identity, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your affirmed gender. You can be at any stage in the transition process, and you do not need to have a Gender Recognition Certificate (‘GRC’).

 

[multitool]

I'm evidently not going to persuade @AuroraSaab but thought based on their other posts that @icowden was amenable to facts/logic.

Honestly, Aurora's posts read like some sort of catechism.

 

[Milzy]

Am I? How?

That cartoon depicts icow and AS's panic-mongering that self-ID will lead to men, who fully resemble men, exposing their genitalia to women in women's spaces and anybody complaining will be prosecuted for discriminatory behaviour.

Firstly, and most importantly, that possibility that men would do this would already be in evidence in the 40 countries with Self ID, and we'd know all about it from AS. The fact that she is silent on this should tell you something.

Secondly, there is an assumption that there is a law in place that would lead to the woman being prosecuted, and that the law is so inflexible that it would not allow for the possibility of indecent exposure.

It’s more of if the woke lot and looney liberals get their way.

 

[multitool]

So this isn't true then>:-



So you don't need a GRC to be Trans, nor a diagnosis. So if you decide to be Martha and not Arthur, the logical conclusion is that you can, and should be recognised as such.

Liberty human rights agrees:

In which case, Self ID would make ZERO difference to all the things you have been saying it would.

Keep going, icow, you are having a light bulb moment.

Welcome, icow. Welcome back to the sane and rational world.

 

[multitool]

It’s more of if the woke lot and looney liberals get their way.

That's weird, Milzy.

I didn't have you down as the sort of person who would drink the Kool Aid

 

[icowden]

You cannot, even if the law was liberalised along those lines, simply get up one morning, say "As from today I'm Martha not Arthur" and be Martha for all purposes and recognised as such by law.

Let's continue the logical experiment though.

Lets take Arthur, who has just been arrested for aggravated assault and rape. Arthur states that he is a woman and should be addressed as Martha. Our arresting officer takes him to the station, processes him, records his name as Martha Smith but that all of his bank cards and ID identify him as Arthur Smith. They record that she is a woman and trans as per her rights as Martha.

They decide that there is a need to do a strip search. What I think I have learned from @monkers is that the Police have the right to assess whether Martha can be searched by a WPC as per her request or whether the risk involved trumps her rights as a transwoman. In this assessment they send in PC BrickShitHouse to do the search. Martha is not happy, but as long as process has been followed and she has been clearly informed, everything is fine.

Similarly when Martha appears before the magistrate, Martha is sent down for a year in prison. A further risk assessment is carried out and instead of the woman's prison Martha had hoped for, she is roomed with Big Bill in Scrubs.

Thus, although Martha can claim to be trans and exercise her rights as a transwoman, it doesn't make anything any better for her, and when Big Bill makes her his prison wife, he detransitions to be Arthur again.

End of story

But not quite. 10 years later researchers start working to determine why crime has risen amongst women. Because Arthur was identifying as a woman, his crime is recorded as perpetrated as a woman. Thus research on women and crime becomes distorted. Of course this could be negated by ensuring that a flag is recorded indicating that the person is not their biological gender. I'm not sure if that is allowed of course (it might be too sensible and thus infringe on trans rights).

 

[icowden]

In which case, Self ID would make ZERO difference to all the things you have been saying it would.

I think I already pointed that out. I do think that your conclusion is flawed and your research poor. I have never stated that I have a problem with transwomen (or transmen) using bathrooms.

Keep going, icow, you are having a light bulb moment.
Welcome, icow. Welcome back to the sane and rational world.

Have you done your homework? It's a school day tomorrow.

 

[icowden]

NO THERE IS NOT AN INCREASED RISK, BECAUSE IF THERE WERE WE WOULD SEE IT IN THE 40+ CONTROL EXPERIMENTS.
WERE ANY OF YOUR (NON) EXAMPLES EVEN FROM COUNTRIES WITH SELF ID?

I didn't say that they were. You really are having difficulty with words today. What I said was that I think that that is the point that AS was trying to make.

Your "increased risk" is in your head. It's ideologically driven. Why, because self ID exists in 40+ countries and nobody is reporting an "increased occurrence".

Again. Words. Read them. Understand. Then reply.

It's bullshït, icow.

Stop being rude to people or it;ll be bed with no supper.

This is why you GC people are so akin to every other conspiracy theorist out there. You've no grounding in reality.

From the 12 year old in the room.

 

[multitool]

Have you done your homework? It's a school day tomorrow.

Mooooooooooo!

(Labelling theory in action)

 

[multitool]

I didn't say that they were. You really are having difficulty with words today. What I said was that I think that that is the point that AS was trying to make.

Again. Words. Read them. Understand. Then reply.


Stop being rude to people or it;ll be bed with no supper.


From the 12 year old in the room.

You haven't addressed the point in hand, but instead resort to childish ad hom