monkers
Legendary Member
There is a single version, but it is for the reader to discern between truth and gish gallop. How much easier it would be if everyone just told the truth.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
There is a single version, but it is for the reader to discern between truth and gish gallop. How much easier it would be if everyone just told the truth.
multitool
Pharaoh
There is the problem, right there.
It's this sort of exaggerated crap that has got us to where we are. Along with your line that women's loos will be flooded with predatory men donning skirts and lippy for an afternoon of rape if we introduce self ID, despite the fact that it is nothing to do with it, nor does it have any basis in the realities of the 40+ countries who already have self ID.
This is whyAS just resorts to repeating her quasi-religious dogma about "men are the danger and we exclude all of them". She won't actually deal in fact and statistically relevant data.
AuroraSaab
Squire
You have no refutation of that research data - all done by professionals, all peer reviewed and published - other than to extract one tiny point (that part of the diagnosis procedure in some cases was to ask kids who they were attracted to) and claim that thus destroys all credibility.
Overall that research shows that 80% of boys will desist from their transgender identity after adolescence. And yes, asking them who they fantasise about/were attracted to is important because it turns out lots of them were just gay.
You have to ask why transactivists are so invested in the idea of the 'trans child'. Perhaps it's because if they can prove children are trans from being young then it validates it as innate. It must be real if toddlers are trans, mustn't it? But if the majority of 'trans' children desist after adolescence, them it's not innate. It's a passing phase or a response to other wider issues like being gay or autistic - both massively overrepresented in those referred to gender clinics.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Where's your data that transwomen are different from other men? It's you making the remarkable assertion that saying 'I am a woman' somehow means we should treat them differently from all other males. What data we do have shows they have a male pattern of offending.
In effect your position is an argument for everything to be unisex. Noone thinks 11 year old boys are sex offenders but we still don't make all the Year 7 boys and girls use the same changing rooms together.
Unless you can show how transwomen are different from other men, the relevant criminal data is the crime stats for men.
icowden
Squire
icowden
Squire
There just isn't. There isn't enough research, enough long term studies, enough data or enough public analysis to determine what the truth is, and as long as we keep hiding stuff and not talking about stuff or preventing stuff from being talked about, it's unlikely to get to a single truth, unless you go for something broad like "we are all human and have to live in the world as best we can". Ultimately it's about the pack vs the outsider, but as we try to accommodate one type of outsider we start to have a problem with other types of outsider pretending to be the first type.
monkers
Legendary Member
It's a simple task for you. Produce the relevant evidence. Let's see the evidence for the UK in recent times that backs up your claims.
Please let's not see carefully cherry-picked stuff from 1989 from Canada where boys as young as 3 years old were asked about their sexual fantasies.
None of this gish-gallop is useful to any conversation.
You need to show why your claims are not purely alarmist invention. So far you have failed. My prediction?
icowden
Squire
Incidentally there are some interesting things about this breaking news story which does appear to bolster the idea that transwomen are sexual predators - except of course that this person is not a transwoman except when they want to be a transwoman:-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65610429
The person in question was arrested presenting as Amy George and the court have been told that they str transitioning to female. Why then is the headline:-
If this person is transitioning and known as Amy George as stated in the article, then the BBC have made an error in deadnaming and misgendering, passing this offence off as a male offence purely on the basis that Amy was willing to be addressed as Andrew and to accept "he" pronouns at the time of her arrest? Should the BBC be cancelled for the appalling attack on the transgender community?
Are we back to choosing a gender of convenience?
10 years ago, we would have said that he was probably mentally ill. Now he is just another woman who has attacked a woman, otherwise we would be guilty of double standards.
That's why this stuff matters.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65610429
The person in question was arrested presenting as Amy George and the court have been told that they str transitioning to female. Why then is the headline:-
Isn't this terribly disrespectful and misleading?
If this person is transitioning and known as Amy George as stated in the article, then the BBC have made an error in deadnaming and misgendering, passing this offence off as a male offence purely on the basis that Amy was willing to be addressed as Andrew and to accept "he" pronouns at the time of her arrest? Should the BBC be cancelled for the appalling attack on the transgender community?
Are we back to choosing a gender of convenience?
10 years ago, we would have said that he was probably mentally ill. Now he is just another woman who has attacked a woman, otherwise we would be guilty of double standards.
That's why this stuff matters.
monkers
Legendary Member
Nobody has been silenced. Everybody has had an opportunity to speak the truth, and continues to speak the truth. I keep inviting AS to speak the truth, but she doesn't. Why? Because she can not produce relevant facts to support her claims.
When it came to producing evidence for violence against women in toilets, your googling produced the four results that you posted. Of those none was a case of a trans woman with a GRC assaulting anyone in the toilets in the UK. Given all the negative daily publicity in the media, why do you think that is? Could it be that it just isn't happening?
icowden
Squire
No - you keep inviting her to speak your truth and deriding any research that she presents which back her point of view. Incidentally I have no issue with your picking of holes in the research mentioned nor explaining why you feel it doesn't support what AS think it supports.
No, I gave you the first 4 results that I found that pertained to your exact example of an attack by a transwoman on a woman in a toilet. It's quite specific. There are more attacks (see the article today on the BBC that is pretending that the perp isn't a transwoman) that happen outside of toilets, and I didn't trawl the whole internet to find every toilet based attack.
The point is they happen? A better question is - did they happen because the person was trans or would they have happened anyway? Was the person really trans or are we dealing with a secondary class of fetishising men using trans as an ideology to behave wierdly?
monkers
Legendary Member
It's horrible.
But this is not a case of a trans woman with a GRC assaulting a woman in a space deemed a space for women. This is a man abducting a child in the street wearing women's clothes. He identified himself as Andrew Miller to police. It will be recorded as male crime. I hope he receives a custodial sentence in a male prison. That is already what the UK system provides for, in terms of the law.
Keep trying.
monkers
Legendary Member
Actually you didn't. Just to pick the one that sticks most in my mind as not relevant, one was a case of assault against a male in a male toilet - so really not a case of assault on a woman in a women's toilet.
monkers
Legendary Member
Yes this.
Sorry chum but again I have to tell you that you are allowing AS to distract you. I'll say it again until the penny drops.
What GCs are calling for and Kemi Badenoch is supporting are changes in the law. KB has called upon the Commission to see how this is possible. You can read their reply one of two ways. In saying 'it is difficult' (to paraphrase them) they seem on one hand to be saying this is not easy. On the other hand they are saying that it would require the repeal of the 2004 Act and amendment of the 2010 Act. Parliament could do this. But as I have said this is a contravention of convention rights and would be fought in the European Court of Human Rights, where they already will know that they will lose since the 2004 Act came about as a directive of the ECtHR.
The aim is to repeal the Gender Recognition Act, remove 'gender reassignment' from the EqA and redefine sex in law to mean only biological sex. This is attack on trans women who have a GRC or aim to have a GRC.
You can post BBC reports about men abducting girls on the street and taking them back to their house. These men might be dressed as women, they might call themselves Amy, they might use different pronouns. The law is equipped to deal with these people as it stands - it doesn't require a change in the law. Andrew Miller is legally a man. He did not abduct a girl from a women's space.
This ongoing conversation is with the context of how the law needs to be changed to protect women from trans women in women's spaces in the UK. So far neither you or AS has produced an example, let alone multiple examples.
To be relevant examples need to be in the UK and cases of trans women with a GRC assaulting women in women's spaces. These are the only cases that justify changes in UK law.
monkers
Legendary Member
This is not how the convention rights work. It's not how scientific enquiry works either.
Any or every person is innocent of a crime unless or until they are found guilty. Every person is entitled to a fair trial.
You are attempting to condemn all trans women on the basis that you think they might be dodgy.
This is tantamount to saying that all male car drivers should be treated as killers because some women and girls are killed in road incidents on UK roads. At the same time there is no recognition that female drivers who kill boys in the same way should be treated the same.
Let's lock up all boys and young men who happen to have a black skin because of knife crime shall we?
None of what you say stands any scrutiny as evidence, or otherwise in the ordinary way of things that is just or fair.
Your approach has a perfectly satisfactory name in the English language, it is bigotry. I am not going to refrain from saying this just because you don't like it.
Debating etiquette and convention says that if you make a claim, you must be able to substantiate it. It is not for other to have to prove you wrong. It is perfectly proper for people to doubt you and ask for evidence. Without it your words are gibberish nonsense.
Last edited:
classic33
Me
Are you able to prove that trans men are different to other women?
