Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Well Norman, women are not a separate entity. Nor are men...

"Yes" would have been shorter. Personally I don't think we have reached the point where women do not need some protection from men. We must agree to differ on this point.

 

[classic33]

A closer religious analogy would be 'I demand that you call people who believe in Jesus, Christians and those that don't cisChristian'. And 'I demand that Christians be allowed to go into mosques whenever they want, and to go to groups aimed specifically at Sikhs if they want to'. Also 'Having a soul is innate. Everybody has one even if they think they don't'.

You can identify as what you like but on occasion that will clash with others. There are certainly times when people's right to practise their religion as they see fit clashes with the rights of others. Nobody dismisses these clashes and says religious adherents must be allowed to do as they please.

The NHS call gender identity an 'innate sense of their own gender'.
The UN call it 'a person's deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender'.
Council of Europe say 'Gender identity refers to the gender to which persons feel they belong.....'

None of these are saying gender is innate. They say some people feel a strong sense of an internal gender. It's no different from people who very strongly feel the presence of an internal soul. It's not a good basis for legislation.

It is permissible for a person of another faith to pray inside a Mosque, as long as there is no introducing of idols or related outward polytheistic activity and the sanctity of the Mosque is maintained and not compromised.

They already have that bit covered.

 

[monkers]

"Yes" would have been shorter. Personally I don't think we have reached the point where women do not need some protection from men. We must agree to differ on this point.

Except the answer to your question was 'no'. Women are not a separate entity. Not that women don't matter, but from a human rights perspective it's a false paradigm.

We do not differ in the view that we need to do more to tackle violence and sexual assault. Most violence and sexual assault happens within households. This could be for any number of reasons, but it's important to note that it is not correct for the state to intrude into homes in order to survey potential for harm.

We have an emasculated police force, and judiciary, and parliament under an abusive government. In fact it seems that the more essential our public services are, the more disarray they are in. The increasing chaos, is due to the political choices of a government voted in by people who used their vote to support a regime determined to diminish human rights rather than reinforce them. However the signs are that the public are awakening (becoming more woke?)

As an increasing number of families are struggling financially, there are increasing tension. The data I've previously seen is that the biggest single cause of domestic violence are rows about money. Mix increasing numbers of people dealing with their own mental health issues due to insufficient available service provision, with the likelihood of people using alcohol and/or recreational drugs as part of their coping mechanisms, you have a recipe for a social disaster.

The government is not interested in the rights of people, they are interested in achieving an obedient low paid workforce.

'This is not a country run in the interests of billionaires' (to paraphrase) - says a near billionaire Prime Minister. Yeh, right.

Times are changing though, the public have learnt from this abuse. Next general election they will not use their vote to diminish the rights of demonised groups, they will use their vote to retain and reinforce their own rights.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most violence and sexual assault happens within households.

And who's doing most of this domestic violence and sexual assaulting? And who's mostly on the receiving end of it? Society can't safeguard every single person in their own home but it can do what it can to safeguard those most vulnerable from those most likely to harm them whilst outside the home.

This could be for any number of reasons, but it's important to note that it is not correct for the state to intrude into homes in order to survey potential for harm.

Just because there is a risk of harm in the home doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to mitigate that risk elsewhere. The law does it all the time.

 

[multitool]

And who's doing most of this domestic violence and sexual assaulting?

Trans women?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Men. No evidence that that risk subsides because they don't identify as men.

 

[monkers]

And who's doing most of this domestic violence and sexual assaulting? And who's mostly on the receiving end of it? Society can't safeguard every single person in their own home but it can do what it can to safeguard those most vulnerable from those most likely to harm them whilst outside the home.

Just because there is a risk of harm in the home doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to mitigate that risk elsewhere. The law does it all the time.

Yup, those hordes of trans women rampaging UK streets beating up men.

The ONS also outlined the groups most likely to be victims of violent crime. The TCSEW showed that in the year ending March 2022, men were more likely to be victims of violent crime than women (2.2% compared to 1.6%), although it argued that this likely underestimated the number of female victims. Younger people aged 18 to 24 years (3%) and 25 to 34 years (2.9%) were more likely to be victims than older people (those aged 65 and over). In addition, those living in the most deprived areas of England were more likely to be victims than those living in the least deprived areas (1.2% to 0.5%).

Oh nos the data doesn't fit the Aurora narrative.

All violence is wrong regardless of the sex and gender identity of the victim or the assailant. Much more needs to be done, but portraying trans women as the perpetrators is nonsense, especially as they are such a small proportion of the population.

If you really want to tackle the problems, and you think there is inaction, then you need to attack the political choices that are made, and the politicians who are making them.

You are more likely to be assaulted by a Met police officer than a trans woman in London.

 

[monkers]

Men. No evidence that that risk subsides because they don't identify as men.

And no real evidence to the contrary.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Oh nos the data doesn't fit the Aurora narrative.

Looks like you've misinterpreted the stat you're quoting.

 

[monkers]

Looks like you've misinterpreted the stat you're quoting.

You think?

Rates of violent crime have more to do with the age of victim and assailant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You could say the same 'no evidence' for tall men, or men from a particular county, or men born in June, or men who are left handed. No evidence the risk subsides because of any of those things, because the common denominator is being male.

All violence is wrong regardless of the sex and gender identity of the victim or the assailant. Much more needs to be done, but portraying trans women as the perpetrators is nonsense, especially as they are such a small proportion of the population.

They are part of the 50% of the population who are responsible for 95% of the sex crimes reported.

If you really want to tackle the problems, and you think there is inaction, then you need to attack the political choices that are made, and the politicians who are making them.

Excellent idea. In the meantime we can continue with the protections that have worked pretty well for a century - keeping men out of women's single sex spaces and services when appropriate.

You are more likely to be assaulted by a Met police officer than a trans woman in London.

Both of whom would be male. Being male is the risk. Not aware of any female Met officers being charged with sexual of violent offences whilst serving. There probably are some but vastly outnumbered by the males charged.

There is no evidence whatsoever that transwomen are somehow intrinsically different to other males and should therefore be treated differently than other men when it comes to women's dignity, privacy, and safety.

At this point please don't do the floppy penis essay for the 3rd time as some sort of proof of their safety. It is utterly irrelevant.

 

[monkers]

At this point please don't do the floppy penis essay for the 3rd time as some sort of proof of their safety. It is utterly irrelevant.

There was no floppy penis essay.

There was a factual piece written by me concerning the atrophying effects of female hormones on male genitals, penis, testes and scrotum.

There was also a throwaway comment from me calling you out for being such a dick about it still maintaining that these women are rapists.

It was obvious to other readers that atrophied genitals without the capacity for erection of people with lowered libido are not really going to be likely perpetrators of rape as you are so willing to portray.

You have zero evidence that they are; but that never stops you because you are such a dick. That one 'floppy penis' remark was a pointer to your ongoing idiocy. 'it is utterly irrelevant', you say in an attempt to keep this nonsense going - but it so obviously isn't.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There was no floppy penis essay. There was a factual piece (there were two..) written by me concerning the atrophying effects of female hormones on male genitals, penis, testes and scrotum.

Oh well then that's totally different to 2 tracts on floppy penises ...

There was also a throwaway comment from me calling you out for being such a dick about it still maintaining that these women are rapists.

You made a crass joke about oral rape. Men don't need to be rapists to impinge on women's need for privacy, dignity, and safety.

It was obvious to other readers that atrophied genitals without the capacity for erection of people with lowered libido are not really going to be likely perpetrators of rape as you are so willing to portray.

Once again you set the bar for what women should endure in single sex spaces before it's a problem at actual rape. Not sure everyone agrees that men with low libidos are as safe as houses.

You have zero evidence that they are; but that never stops you because you are such a dick. That one 'floppy penis' remark was a pointer to your ongoing idiocy. 'it is utterly irrelevant', you say in an attempt to keep this nonsense going - but it so obviously isn't.

Apart from the ridiculousness of how you would work out which transwomen have erectile dysfunction and which don't in order to assess their risk, it's a fact that lots of men have erectile dysfunction. We don't give them a free pass. I mean heck, we don't give blind men a free pass into women's spaces and they are likely zero risk in terms of assaulting someone.

Both the functionality and libido are irrelevant to privacy, dignity, and safety.

 

[monkers]

Both of whom would be male. Being male is the risk.

Actually no. Splendid isolation of facts to a special compartment in your head makes you believe this is true. Age plays a bigger part overall than sex.

By far the biggest number of victims are young males. The assailants of them are about two thirds male, and one third female, and no evidence to show that any of these people are trans.

The evidence shows that trans people are four times more likely to victims of assault than cis women are.

This narrative of yours about trans women being perpetrators without any recognition of the fact that they are much more likely to be victims, shows your game.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Actually no. Splendid isolation of facts to a special compartment in your head makes you believe this is true. Age plays a bigger part overall than sex.

??? Little kids and old people don't comit much violent and sexual crime. We know. What about the ones who do comit these crimes? Do they have anything in common? A single factor that makes them more likely to be a perpetrator than other people who aren't that thing?

By far the biggest number of victims are young males. The assailants of them are about two thirds male, and one third female, and no evidence to show that any of these people are trans.

It shows that the problem is male violence. No evidence that transwomen are any different from other males in terms of risk. I'd be genuinely surprised if a third of recorded violence in the UK was down to females. Please give a link.

The evidence shows that trans people are four times more likely to victims of assault than cis women are.
This narrative of yours about trans women being perpetrators without any recognition of the fact that they are much more likely to be victims, shows your game.

Who is assaulting them? Other males. Men can be dangerous, we agree. I acknowledge that they are more likely to be the victim of physical assault than women. So are black men. So are gay men. So are men in general. That in itself does not override concerns about men's presence in single sex spaces or services - these are not refuges for vulnerable males, nor does their vulnerability mean they should have access.