Gender again. Sorry!

[Ian H]

I'm sure, if she had, you'd already be across the fact and entered it into some spreadsheet or small black book. The 'what' denoted a guess. Obvs.

I think I can follow the main plot, which seems to be a sort of Groundhog Day. But all these sub-plots and minor characters are confusing; I lose track. Time for a whisky nightcap & bed.

 

[monkers]

But you have already conceded that hormone treatment is not a pre-requisite to be a transwoman. So yes, we agree that if a transwoman is actually having hormonal treatment, that the risk of rape goes down. For those that aren't the risk is the same as for men.

Which women? The ones on hormones or the ones not on hormones?

Obviously those who take hormones. Those not taking hormones will not have hormonal atrophy. Did I really need to have to say that?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I see you squirming Aurora and icowden when confronted with real data using real numbers.

Lol. It's data from one specific age group in one specific location, which you are extrapolating to attempt show something it doesn't. If I looked at the violent crime rates for the over 60's it would be very low. It doesn't mean we abandon safeguarding for men over 60.

Edit: Here's a 2019 table (most up to date I could find quickly) that shows a very different picture from your claims based on London youth offending. In the UK men are responsible for 84% of violent crime and 98% of sexual offences.

You could probably extract different age groups and get a lesser figure for some ages but as we base access to single sex spaces and services on birth sex not age, it would be irrelevant.

It's really significant, young people are the group responsible for most violent crime, and are also the victims of it too. Trans people are four times more likely to victims of this crime than cis people.

This is how you actually do crime data.

By extracting one age group? By pretending that members of a particular cohort (men) shouldn't be considered part of that cohort for statistical purposes because they don't want to be? That really isn't how you do statistics.

You mean it isn't the only username on cyclechat she's posted under?

I've never posted under another name on CC, as far as I recall. If you have a conspiracy theory about that, feel free to share it with us. I'd love to know all these other aliases I have.

 

[monkers]

Lol. It's data from one specific age group in one specific location, which you are extrapolating to attempt show something it doesn't. If I looked at the violent crime rates for the over 60's it would be very low. It doesn't mean we abandon safeguarding for men over 60.

Nationally, women as a whole are not responsible for 31% of all violent crime. Men however, as a whole, are responsible for around 95% of sex crimes. You could probably extract different age groups and get a lesser figure for some ages but as we base access to single sex spaces and services on birth sex not age, it would be irrelevant.

If I was extrapolating I would be upscaling the data to that of the UK population. But I haven't, so again you show that you are clueless.

I told you that I used that data because the Met are known to be better than most for data collection.

The cohort of people who commit the majority of violent crime are not trans people but young people. If you are serious about tackling street violence then you look to where the problems are and not to some group that you demonise by framing the argument that way by spending all day on google.

Young people are the cohort who are most frequently the victims of violence, young men the cohort that suffer the highest frequency at 60%, young women at 40%. That's 21 000 offences of violence including homicide committed by young women.

In London alone young women are perpetrators of this violence in over 20 000 cases.

On the other hand the prison statistics that you love to quote from FPFW are deeply flawed by inaccurate data presentation.

You also like to refer to the Swedish Report. The lead author of that report had this to say ...

Some anti-trans groups have incorrectly claimed that trans women have ‘male’ patterns of criminality. The main research they cite is a Swedish study which reviewed the long term mortality, morbidity and criminal offence rates of trans people following sex reassignment.

However, as the lead author of the study Cecilia Dhejne notes, the study has been widely misused, misinterpreted and misrepresented. As Dhejne explains, ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989–2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear.

This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.’

But does this stop the likes of Stock and you from saying otherwise - no, despite the words of the lead author being played back to you.

I'll do a you and shout it in bigger letters shall I?

This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.

 

[monkers]

By extracting one age group? By pretending that members of a particular cohort (men) shouldn't be considered part of that cohort for statistical purposes because they don't want to be? That really isn't how you do statistics.

I've pretended no such thing. You are such a liar. I showed the whole table for males, and females, for victims and suspects. I made no attempt to extrapolate those figures across the UK, or for all age groups.

Lies, twisting, mischaracterisation, all over again ad nauseum.

I was clear in what I said; in London, the biggest number of victims and suspects are to be found in young people.

What you can't seem to stomach is that 31% of violent crime from the biggest cohort are female - some 21 000 of them. (setting aside the unknown factor - that some of these suspects may have committed multiple offences).

That's 3 times the number of trans people (trans women and trans men) with a GRC in the UK. (That's not extrapolation before you say it is).

The number of trans women in the UK is a small number, the number of them that are offenders is a small percentage of that.

You are guilty of deliberate alarmism, and I know why that is, it's bigotry.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The cohort of people who commit the majority of violent crime are not trans people but young people.

The cohort who comit the majority of violent crime are men. That's the biggest determinant, not age or how you identify. Ditto sex crimes.

I'll do a you and shout it in bigger letters shall I?

You realise it's not in big letters when read on a phone, surely?

I've pretended no such thing. You are such a liar. I showed the whole table for males, and females, for victims and suspects. I made no attempt to extrapolate those figures across the UK, or for all age groups.

Why not find the national figure then? It gives a more accurate picture as the number of crimes counted is far, far larger than just the London youth stats.

I was clear in what I said; in London, the biggest number of victims and suspects are to be found in young people.

Which is irrelevant because we live in the whole of UK not all 60 million of us in London.

What you can't seem to stomach is that 31% of violent crime from the biggest cohort are female - some 21 000 of them.

Only in your London youth crime stats, not nationally with all ages taken in to account. Then it's only 16% of violent crime that is done by females, and 2% of sex crimes. And that's from national stats using much larger amounts of data and therefore a far more accurate picture.

That's 3 times the number of trans people (trans women and trans men) with a GRC in the UK. (That's not extrapolation before you say it is). The number of trans women in the UK is a small number, the number of them that are offenders is a small percentage of that.

Lol. A GRC makes no difference to how you assess risk. It's a piece of paper. Neither does how you identify. Safeguarding simply doesn't work like that or we'd allow every adult who has had a CRB check to bypass safeguarding and go where they liked. The safeguarding risk is that they are male. Transwomen aren't a special subset deemed safe as houses because you claim they have a low offending rate. So do orthodox Jewish men. So do blind men. Nobody thinks that gives them a free pass.

You are guilty of deliberate alarmism, and I know why that is, it's bigotry.

And you are guilty of endless emotional special pleading that transwomen are a special class of men to whom the rules mustn't apply.

 

[monkers]

The cohort who comit the majority of violent crime are men. That's the biggest determinant, not age or how you identify. Ditto sex crimes.

This is why you can not be trusted with data. You can not understand how to use it.

When it comes to levels of violence (OK I'm using London data as it seen as the most reliable data set) we find that people are at higher risk of violence from young women than middle-aged men.

You are yet to accept the risk of harm comes from risk assessment rather than your instinct for bias.

The guff you say about trans women in prisons is just dog-whistling transphobia. It is not based on reliable data, and is based on willful misuse of the available limited data.

You proved last evening that you do not understand about data extrapolation. Data extrapolation can be meaningful if applied correctly - only I hadn't used any.

Incorrect use of data extrapolation using unreliable data is exactly the criticism of the prison stats used by FPFW and used by Stock in her presentation of the Swedish Report.

Truth doesn't matter to you, only any material that reinforces your bias, regardless of how dubious the source. This is the very definition of confirmation bias. To hear you then claim that you follow the science is laughable.

In both cases of FPFW and Stock's treatment of the Swedish Report the treatment of data is laughably poor. That you can't see it affords you no credibility.

I took the trouble to explain to you how a long-serving former prison officer I'm in touch with told the truth about data collection; he was in the room, and yet you claimed to know better.

You really are too much

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is why you can not be trusted with data. You can not understand how to use it.

When it comes to levels of violence (OK I'm using London data as it seen as the most reliable data set) we find that people are at higher risk of violence from young women than middle-aged men.

It's not as reliable or accurate as national statistics of prosecuted crimes that are based on a vastly larger amount of data. It's a local snapshot that you selected because you imagine it bolsters your suggestion that women are as dangerous as men when a) it doesn't, b) national stats show a very different picture.

We aren't talking about people though. We are talking about women and the need for single sex spaces. We aren't talking about middle aged men, we are talking about men in general.

You are yet to accept the risk of harm comes from risk assessment rather than your instinct for bias.

The biggest risk to women is from men. We all know this and the stats show it in every country that keeps records of violent and sexual crime. Being male is the common characteristic, that far outweighs age or location. This whole 'teenage London girls are violent too' as a supporting argument for males in women's spaces is nonsense.

 

[monkers]

And you are guilty of endless emotional special pleading that transwomen are a special class of men to whom the rules mustn't apply.

You couldn't identify truth if it rode in on a horse and poked you in the eye with a sharp stick.

I have made no special pleading.

I certainly have not claimed that trans women are a special class of men.

I certainly have not said that rules mustn't apply.

Each of those is your invention. Each of those is a lie.

You are a habitual liar; and one with no ability to stop herself.

Trans women are not cis women, not cis men, not trans men. Trans women are trans women; the clue is in the name.

Trans women with a GRC are trans women with the similar (but not the exact same) rights as cis women. Their rights are the same as cis women as far as reasonably practicable. Yes, there are permissible exemptions; these are not to be treated as blanket bans.

This is not 'emotional pleading'. This is telling you what you don't want to hear; that these are the rights of trans people under the law. This comes from UK parliamentary made law flowing from international law. It is not Stonewall Law or Monkers Law.

There is special and emotional pleading coming from you. You want Aurora's Law which relies on a mixture of invention, lies, confirmation bias, mischaracterisation, misrepresentation, demonisation, and dehumanisation of a marginalised group. I know that you are not alone.

You have membership of a group of alarmists in this country who are sponsored by right wing republican so-called christian groups in the USA, yet you claim to be a feminist. You are not a feminist. I am.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You couldn't identify truth if it rode in on a horse and poked you in the eye with a sharp stick. I have made no special pleading. I certainly have not claimed that trans women are a special class of men.

You've persistently advanced arguments why transwomen shouldn't be treated the same as other men. You've trotted out everything from low testosterone and reduced performance in sports to flaccid penises and low libido re safeguarding, and everything in between.

And still there is no real discernible difference between a transwoman and any other man. And no reason to treat them differently in regard to single sex spaces and services. We'll have to disagree about the feminist bit and the tin foil hatted rest lol.

 

[monkers]

You've persistently advanced arguments why transwomen shouldn't be treated the same as other men. You've trotted out everything from low testosterone and reduced performance in sports to flaccid penises and low libido re safeguarding, and everything in between.

And still there is no real discernible difference between a transwoman and any other man. And no reason to treat them differently in regard to single sex spaces and services. We'll have to disagree about the feminist bit and the tin foil hatted rest lol.

Flacid penis, flacid penis, flacid penis ... repeat ad nauseum you sad limp dick.

An understanding of hormonal atrophy is important to critical analysis of potential harm. Safeguarding relies on risk assessment in relation to potential harms. Other posters on this forum expressed some surprise to my post on that initially, but I fancy that people now understand and accept it as truth.

In your plea for the safety of children you have stated that hormones are damaging, the effects of which are irreversible. Atrophy and loss of sexual drive and function are real. When we speak of trans women in prisons you portray them as rapists. You are a hypocrite hiding in plain sight.

Blanket bans at your request are unlawful. The High Court have said so. That is now legal precedent.

There are no reported cases of trans women being involved in harm to women in prisons in the last four years. That's the kind of real data needed in a risk assessment.

That this truth interrupts your sad world of dog whistling bigotry is refreshing to hear. Ultimately people will see through the lies and the bigotry and see you for the kind of person you truly are.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Flacid penis, flacid penis, flacid penis ... repeat ad nauseum you sad limp dick.

Nothing sadder than someone who time and again resorts to this kind of stuff when someone tells them 'No'.

An understanding of hormonal atrophy is important to critical analysis of potential harm. Safeguarding relies on risk assessment in relation to potential harms. Other posters on this forum expressed some surprise to my post on that initially, but I fancy that people now understand and accept it as truth.

That erectile dysfunction should be a meaningful criteria for the inclusion of men in spaces with women and girls? I'd be surprised.

That this truth interrupts your sad world of dog whistling bigotry is refreshing to hear. Ultimately people will see through the lies and the bigotry and see you for the kind of person you truly are.

I'm happy to let the arguments stand for themselves. I don't find the need to fall back on personal abuse when people disagree with me. 'You sad limp dick'? Nothing more sad than someone who talks like that, especially when they've spent so long crafting a very different online persona. It's exhausting keeping the front up I suppose but you always give yourself away in the end.

 

[monkers]

Nothing sadder than someone who time and again resorts to this kind of stuff when someone tells them 'No'.

You say 'no'. I say you don't have the authority to say 'no' to anybody who speaks the truth, nor the authority to speak for women.

People who keep acting as though they do? Well that's sad.

That erectile dysfunction should be a meaningful criteria for the inclusion of men in spaces with women and girls? I'd be surprised.

I'm sure the truth surprises you often, not that it ever stops you from lying.

I'm happy to let the arguments stand for themselves.

Trust me, the record does not stand in your favour.

'You sad limp dick'? Nothing more sad than someone who talks like that, especially when they've spent so long crafting a very different online persona. It's exhausting keeping the front up I suppose but you always give yourself away in the end.

I don't remember seeing you making a cogent argument based on your lies, let alone a cogent argument based on the truth.

I don't find the need to fall back on personal abuse when people disagree with me.

Unfailing misgendering a community is an abuse. Every time you do it you insult my niece, and I feel it, you sad furck.

'You sad limp dick'?

You have such an obsessive fixation with the words 'flacid penis' that being called a sad limp dick should make you happy.

Nothing more sad than someone who talks like that, especially when they've spent so long crafting a very different online persona. It's exhausting keeping the front up I suppose but you always give yourself away in the end.

My 'carefully crafted persona' is just somebody who is truthful, a person who detests liars and bigots of all kinds. I find expecting others to accept your lies without question an insult to their intelligence, and to expect to use ongoing bigoty in every post is reprehensible.

My 'carefully crafted persona' is someone who is prepared to ridicule fools like you who think they can get away with it.

Yes I've given myself away as someone who has been pretty patient and backed up statements with evidence.

Just yesterday you didn't believe the crime stats I quoted and asked for a link. I obliged you with a link. I asked for a link to your wild claim. Needless to say, no evidence or link to evidence came.

You don't bring truth, you don't bring evidence, you don't bring reasonableness, you don't bring rationality, logic, or cogent argument.

All bring is deceits of all kinds and dog whistling, and bigotry.


Did you know that 31% of violent crime and homicide in London is carried out be young females? Shocking isn't it?

 

[monkers]

That erectile dysfunction should be a meaningful criteria for the inclusion of men in spaces with women and girls? I'd be surprised.

How surprised? From the official documents ...

Potential risks presented by you to others in custody, or in an Approved Premises (AP), related to:
• Offending history, including index offence, past convictions and intelligence of potential
criminal activity - e.g. credible accusations
• Anatomy, including considerations of physical strength and genitalia
• Sexual behaviours and relationships within custodial / residential settings
• Use of medication relating to gender reassignment; and use of medication generally including the absence of medication and the impact of known side effects.
• Past behaviour in custody, the community, in the care of the police, or in the care of prisoner
escort services
• Evidence of threats towards other prisoners

 

[multitool]

This is the thing. "Men" do not pose an equal threat to each other. There are some groups of women who pose more of a threat to women than "men", and particularly subsets of men. This much should be obvious to all but the most dense. But Aurora has to pretend that they do in order to justify (erroneously) their bigotry.

Aurora spends all her time wanging on about non-threats, but we never see her talking about the real threats to women and womanhood in general, which is people like Andrew Tate and the view he espouses, and the incels.

She is silent on these.