Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

I've laid out very clearly the dishonesty in AS's debating tactics. She makes false claims, then when challenged tries to reframe. Plenty of examples upthread. Have a read and come back with specific examples that you wish to challenge. AS's debating strategy is to throw as much crap as she can in the hope that some sticks, which is why she falls apart when you drill down to specifics.

It's fine to voice fears, but what we are doing here is examining whether those fears are justified, and we are doing it by means of precedent. (ie. looking to the experience of other countries with long histories of self ID).

Fear in itself is not evidence of justification of those fears. I know somebody who is frightened of sponges. Her fear is real, but the threat to her from sponges is not. What we are trying to do here is determine whether selfIDing trans women using female spaces is a threat to women. So far, there are arguments that they are, but these are not backed up by evidence. If you have evidence, post it. Argument by assertion (which is AS's sole tactic) is not evidence.

We are a long way away from theclaud's OP. Did you read the report linked to in the OP? Did you listen to the author's recorded discussions? I did. You should too, because the topic of women's refuges is covered in some depth.

I'm not willing to engage with AS for the reasons stated. If you want to have a fact-driven discussion in good faith be my guest.

 

[mudsticks]

I've laid out very clearly the dishonesty in AS's debating tactics. She makes false claims, then when challenged tries to reframe. Plenty of examples upthread. Have a read and come back with specific examples that you wish to challenge. AS's debating strategy is to throw as much crap as she can in the hope that some sticks, which is why she falls apart when you drill down to specifics.

It's fine to voice fears, but what we are doing here is examining whether those fears are justified, and we are doing it by means of precedent. (ie. looking to the experience of other countries with long histories of self ID).

Fear in itself is not evidence of justification of those fears. I know somebody who is frightened of sponges. Her fear is real, but the threat to her from sponges is not. What we are trying to do here is determine whether selfIDing trans women using female spaces is a threat to women. So far, there are arguments that they are, but these are not backed up by evidence. If you have evidence, post it. Argument by assertion (which is AS's sole tactic) is not evidence.

Did you read the report linked to in the OP? Did you listen to the author's recorded discussions? I did. You should too, because the topic of women's refuges is covered in some depth.

I'm not willing to engage with AS for the reasons stated. If you want to have a fact-driven discussion in good faith be my guest.

Thanks for your invitation to debate with you.
I don't need to 'be your guest' this thread and forum are open to all.
I'm not obligated to do the 'homework' you're trying to set me.

However your airily equating a fear of sponges (perhaps pogophobia?)

With the very real and statistically justifiable fear of abuse and violence at the hands of male bodied people shows that discussing such matters with you wouldn't be worthy of my time anyway.

You dismiss the fears of vulnerable women and those who advocate for them as not being based on statistical evidence, so therefore not important in this discussion, that shows a crashing lack of empathy for vulnerable women and their genuine fears.

Women are not fearful of male bodied people for no reason.

I'm pretty big, strong, assertive, articulate and self confident, I go pretty much wherever I choose, and do and say whatever I want, far more so than the 'average' woman - (whoever she is)

But even then, there are still situations where I am fearful, and uncomfortable around male bodied people.

This is not for no reason, this is based on lived experience, and historical behaviour of not all, but statistically enough of the male bodied population.
That's a common experience for the majority of women .

If I don't always feel comfortable with male bodied men in my 'space' it doesn't take a vast leap of imagination to see how much more vulnerable women, in more vulnerable situations could feel far more fearful.

To dismiss these fears as irrelevant, not to take them into consideration when finding solutions to these issues, dismisses large numbers of women.

But hey I guess dismissing womens views if they are 'inconvenient' is the default, so why not just carry on..

 

[multitool]

You realise you are dismissing the views of the majority of women, don't you?

 

[mudsticks]

You realise you are dismissing the views of the majority of women, don't you?

No I'm not 'dismissing' them at all.

Don't try and play that game, after talking about sub 6th form debating skills 🙄

I'm acknowledging the views, and fears of a not inconsiderable number of women.

The vulnerable ones, they're the ones nowhere near this 'debating' space.

Fwiw I'm an advocate for transrights I have transpeople (in both directions) in my circle of friends and colleagues.
I run women + events where transwomen (and non binary) people are explicitly welcomed.

But I can still acknowledge, and speak up for the real fears and concerns of highly vulnerable women, in highly vulnerable situations.

Making it into a statistical 'numbers game' of the 'majority*' of women being happy to accept transwomen into most women only spaces, so therefore it's ok for all transwomen to be in all spaces is highly reductive.

It doesn't acknowledge, or give any voice to those least able to stick up for themselves.

*I'm in that majority too.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You realise you are dismissing the views of the majority of women, don't you?

You have hardly established that most women are happy to give up single sex spaces. Though of course, even if some women do consent to males being present that does not mean they can consent on behalf of the other women who use the same services.

I've already given you surveys that show people are broadly supportive of trans rights but not of males in single sex spaces. Most don't break it down by sex but the You Gov one does and the result was that the plurality of women disagree with access when they knew 'transwoman' included those who had kept their penis (which is the vast majority).

I've explained to you why it is difficult to collect data from countries that self-ID. It's because they self-ID and crime records don't record birth sex. We are left with having to collate individual stories of trans individuals as and when they come to light.

In the countries that we can get data for, and which use English which makes it much easier, ie Ireland, the US, and the UK, I have given you examples of how self-ID harms women and that the crime rates for transwomen are way above the female rates, and arguably well above male rates.

And of course, relentlessly, I have to remind you that it's not just about rapes in toilets. I know you regard anything less serious than that as 'moving the goalposts' but there you go. It's not just about who's in what lavatory.

Seld-id in Ireland. Another 'outlier' of course, but somebody is paying the price.

 

[icowden]

You dismiss the fears of vulnerable women and those who advocate for them as not being based on statistical evidence, so therefore not important in this discussion, that shows a crashing lack of empathy for vulnerable women and their genuine fears.

Yes I think @multitool is saying that we should try it first, collect data on the number of rapes and assaults, and then consider doing something about it. It's very important that women get attacked first so that we can make sure we protect them afterwards.

 

[newfhouse]

statistically justifiable

I think this is part of what @multitool has been asking for. Is there reliable evidence from countries where self ID is established that might answer the fears one way or the other?

 

[newfhouse]

Yes I think @multitool is saying that we should try it first, collect data on the number of rapes and assaults, and then consider doing something about it. It's very important that women get attacked first so that we can make sure we protect them afterwards.

Are they? I thought they were suggesting we should look for evidence where it already exists.

 

[multitool]

Yes I think @multitool is saying that we should try it first, collect data on the number of rapes and assaults, and then consider doing something about it. It's very important that women get attacked first so that we can make sure we protect them afterwards.

You've a poor track record in thinking so please, I implore you to not diversify into interpreting the thoughts of others.

Itll only end in your tears.

 

[multitool]

No I'm not 'dismissing' them at all.

Don't try and play that game, after talking about sub 6th form debating skills 🙄

I'm acknowledging the views, and fears of a not inconsiderable number of women.

The vulnerable ones, they're the ones nowhere near this 'debating' space.

Fwiw I'm an advocate for transrights I have transpeople (in both directions) in my circle of friends and colleagues.
I run women + events where transwomen (and non binary) people are explicitly welcomed.

But I can still acknowledge, and speak up for the real fears and concerns of highly vulnerable women, in highly vulnerable situations.

Making it into a statistical 'numbers game' of the 'majority*' of women being happy to accept transwomen into most women only spaces, so therefore it's ok for all transwomen to be in all spaces is highly reductive.

It doesn't acknowledge, or give any voice to those least able to stick up for themselves.

*I'm in that majority too.

Earlier in the thread we had AS discounting the views of other women (theclaud) then trying to claim her views represented the majority of women. You could at least acknowledge this.

I don't discount the fears of anybody. But I do want to know if those fears are justified. Do you?

 

[mudsticks]

I think this is part of what @multitool has been asking for. Is there reliable evidence from countries where self ID is established that might answer the fears one way or the other?

Are the 'stats' whatever they 'statistally' prove or disprove, really going to allay the understandable fears that vulnerable women, have around male bodied people?

It's easy to dismiss fears that you have never faced, and are unlikely to ever have to face as 'irrational' .

Women have been accused of being 'irrational' and 'over emotional' over their (well founded) fears of male bodied people, as a means of belittlement and control and oppression for centuries.
Yet many many women are and have been abused, and traumatised by male bodied people, it's all in the 'very hard' statistics.


Whilst at the same time we're also told to 'be careful out there' 'dont go bringing trouble on yourself' by making yourself vulnerable to attack.

How on earth are we supposed to navigate this, and stay sane, and safe, whilst pursuing our own self fulfilled lives ??

A bit of a 'silly' thought experiment for you.

(Yup that's right I'm supposed to be doing something dreary 🙄)

Imagine for instance that in a parallel world there was in existence another type of human.. Not man or woman, as such, but a bit more like a genderless, or even all gendered human-bear, still very human, a lot of the time just fine, very nice even, they are part of normal society, bear-people have relationships with either sex of non bear people, and most of the time things are fine.
We all get along ok.

But also at the same time 'statistically' those bigger 'bear people' (as a group) show a statistically significant tendency towards an inability to self regulate when angry.
As a group, if not as individuals, they have a much greater than average appetite for forced sex and violence towards all other humans.

In situations where there are very vulnerable (non bear) people, say where you'd had to take refuge from an abusive bear-person, would you be happy to be sharing space with another bearbodied person (if they self ID'd as not-a -bear-person) or would you rather have a refuge where you felt safe from other potentially abusive bearpeople. ?

OK, I must get on with some paperwork 😐

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've a poor track record in thinking so please, I implore you to not diversify into interpreting the thoughts of others.

Itll only end in your tears.

Most people on this forum manage to be civil to each other, even on contentious issues. You're not going to shut down the debate by being rude to people.

Earlier in the thread we had AS discounting the views of other women (theclaud) then trying to claim her views represented the majority of women. You could at least acknowledge this.

I don't discount the fears of anybody. But I do want to know if those fears are justified. Do you?

I don't discount other women's individual views but I'm seeing no evidence of mass support amongst women for self-ID, either in real life or in research. I've shown you surveys. And even if Claude thinks men should be allowed in women's prisons (I don't know if she does) she can't consent on behalf of all women, nevermind the women in that prison.

I've shown you plenty of examples but you dismiss them as outliers. Well every single outlier is a real and meaningful case to somebody. Every man in a woman's sport event displaces a woman. Every male in a women's prison is distress to those women. Every raped woman being expected to call her rapist 'she' in court is a real and detrimental effect of self-ID.

It doesn't show on the stats so for you this 'lived experience' is irrelevant and must be ignored in order to facilitate the demands of the 0.12% of the male population who officially identify as women.

 

[icowden]

You've a poor track record in thinking so please, I implore you to not diversify into interpreting the thoughts of others.
Itll only end in your tears.

Wow. Have you considered reading this?
https://amzn.eu/d/dEuiRUx

Alternatively have you considered that not everything can be accounted for by statistics which can only be compiled after an event?
Or perhaps you would prefer these stats from the MOJ:

2. Ministry of Justice 2020 Data The question of whether transwomen match male or female patterns of criminality is specifically addressed by the 2020 FOI referenced by Fair Play For Women (who have submitted evidence to the Committee). This is first time there has been official data to compare the rate of sex offending in 3 different groups. Men vs women vs transwomen. The hyperlinks below link to the FOI spreadsheet. MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis). Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending rates in men and women over the same period. Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners): 76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9% 125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

So we are housing a lot of convicted sex offenders (read rapists) in womens prisons. Any issues there?

 

[classic33]

You have hardly established that most women are happy to give up single sex spaces. Though of course, even if some women do consent to males being present that does not mean they can consent on behalf of the other women who use the same services.

I've already given you surveys that show people are broadly supportive of trans rights but not of males in single sex spaces. Most don't break it down by sex but the You Gov one does and the result was that the plurality of women disagree with access when they knew 'transwoman' included those who had kept their penis (which is the vast majority).

I've explained to you why it is difficult to collect data from countries that self-ID. It's because they self-ID and crime records don't record birth sex. We are left with having to collate individual stories of trans individuals as and when they come to light.

In the countries that we can get data for, and which use English which makes it much easier, ie Ireland, the US, and the UK, I have given you examples of how self-ID harms women and that the crime rates for transwomen are way above the female rates, and arguably well above male rates.

And of course, relentlessly, I have to remind you that it's not just about rapes in toilets. I know you regard anything less serious than that as 'moving the goalposts' but there you go. It's not just about who's in what lavatory.

Seld-id in Ireland. Another 'outlier' of course, but somebody is paying the price.

View attachment 2857

The bigger issue appears to be the age difference. One is playing outside of the age range, Junior(under 16) league.

Almost ever other picture of the minor in the picture has her face pixelated. Only twitter hasn't required it.

and the opposing team. With two male trainers, no females

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't think it's an age thing, Classic. 'Junior' in this sport refers to it being amateur, I believe. Regardless, a middle aged male still able to be competitive at 44 (as I recall) amongst young women suggests an innate male unfair advantage surely. Would a 44 year old woman be able to secure a place in this team? I wouldn't have thought so, unless they were ex-pros. Male upper body strength is something like 30% higher than females.

Here's self-ID Canada's Anne Andres. Took up powerlifting in 2019. Has won 8 out of 9 competitions so far.

And yes, there are women who are tall, heavy, and strong but they don't lift as heavy as men of similar height and weight.