Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I asked because the victimisation of Semenya has been going on for a long time now, and now that she's back in the news having won a case about it, the abuse is coming not just from men like Andy who have always claimed the right to judge who is and isn't a 'proper woman' based on their appearance or demeanour, but from people who would otherwise call themselves feminists.

That's not my view but how is this different from those on here who have said that presenting as a woman is enough to entitle a man to access single sex spaces and services?

I've seen people say she's a man (and call her a cheat) because she talks in an interview about playing football with boys as a child, because of the way she sits or the way she dresses. People are speculating about her genitalia and spreading lies about how she came to have children. Do you worry at all about contributing to this?

Don't you worry that you are harming women when you suggest that access to sports or anything else should be based on anything other than material biology? I think the discussion around dsd athletes is often unthinking and insensitive, but there is no easy way to deal with the issue that doesn't involve some people being hurt. It's unfortunate that the dsd issue has had to come down to focusing on individual athletes rather than the organisations taking a lead from the science early on.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I said women were pathetic in defending their own rights, which by and large has happened.

Women have been on the case for years. The fact that people started listening more when high profile men got on board tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Andy who have always claimed the right to judge who is and isn't a 'proper woman' based on their appearance or demeanour

I didn't claim, I said he looked like an man, XY chromosomes confirmed he was a male

That's not my view but how is this different from those on here who have said that presenting as a woman is enough to entitle a man to access single sex spaces and services?


Don't you worry that you are harming women when you suggest that access to sports or anything else should be based on anything other than material biology?

What I find from these women that they are disregarding the safety/modesty of their own sex.

Thank goodness they're a tiny minority

 

[monkers]

That's not my view but how is this different from those on here who have said that presenting as a woman is enough to entitle a man to access single sex spaces and services?

Because it is not an expression of intent to cause harm, it's an expression that exhibits vulnerability.

Women do commit violence, the data strongly suggests it. Are we then going to exclude women who wear hoodies, because the stereotype is that if you were a hoodie ... see where this a going?

 

[mudsticks]

Another one who can't process. And this is the problem.

The Home Office data that I posted here clearly shows that in the UK 55% of arrests for violence are female. It also shows that societal conditioning means that they don't face consequences for it, but men do, and black men more so, and queer people more so, and trans people more than that. Juries are ordinary citizens, or what Andy calls 'normal' people; they have biases.

The food product comment was concerned with the societal conditioning that accepts these acts committed by women against men as acceptable, but not acceptable when commit the same act against women.

I've never poured a drink over anyone, slapped the face of anyone, or pushed their dinner into their lap.

Here you are not objecting to men being treated this way, just women. Why?

I object to any violence, and threat of violence, I never said any of it is ok.

Whoever is doing it.

But to suggest that women are more violent than men is utter bs.

I am a supporter of trans rights as it happens.

But you'll still call me a bigot because I think there are certain concerns in certain areas where 'rights' conflict

 

[AuroraSaab]

Thanks Rusty. This was my source document. I copied the graphics to here earlier.

Yes, but let's look at the stats from Rusty's link in full.

Women actually accounted for only 18% of the prosecutions for violence against the person. Not 55% as you claimed - because your chosen graphic was of the % of all female arrests, not as a % of the total of M and F arrests.

And look at the sex offences. No mistake there.

I do find this unenviable quest to prove women are as likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders as men as are quite interesting. Like the search for the 3rd gamete that disproves the sex binary, it will be Nobel Prize winning stuff when it finally materialises.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Women do commit violence, the data strongly suggests it. Are we then going to exclude women who wear hoodies, because the stereotype is that if you were a hoodie ... see where this a going?

A much smaller percentage of women

Men who think they are female can wear whatever they like, but cannot have access to women's spaces/sports

 

[AuroraSaab]

Because it is not an expression of intent to cause harm, it's an expression that exhibits vulnerability.

How you present means nothing in terms of the risk you are to others. It has literally nothing to do with it.

Women do commit violence, the data strongly suggests it. Are we then going to exclude women who wear hoodies, because the stereotype is that if you were a hoodie ... see where this a going?

Not at anything like the levels that men do. You used the stats to attempt to mislead readers. Simply not true.

Is wearing a hoody associated with being in the demographic that comits 98% of all sex offences? Hardly comparable.

 

[monkers]

Yes, but let's look at the stats from Rusty's link in full.

View attachment 4229

Women actually accounted for only 18% of the prosecutions for violence against the person. Not 55% as you claimed - because your chosen graphic was of the % of all female arrests, not as a % of the total of M and F arrests.

And look at the sex offences. No mistake there.

I do find this unenviable quest to prove women are as likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders as men as are quite interesting. Like the search for the 3rd gamete that disproves the sex binary, it will be Nobel Prize winning stuff when it finally materialises.

I shouldn't have to explain the numbers presented in simple bar graphs.

I said the data shows that more women are arrested than men for violence against the person.

I have also said that men are four more times likely to face prosecution.

That doesn't prove that women are less violent. It proves that the system is biased in favour of women.

This stuff isn't hard to understand.

 

[monkers]

A much smaller percentage of women

Men who think they are female can wear whatever they like, but cannot have access to women's spaces/sports

How can you claim to have common sense when you have no critical thinking skills? You've reduced common sense to the inability to think.

 

[winjim]

Use the proper words

You need to pay better attention.

 

[Deleted member 159]

That doesn't prove that women are less violent. It proves that the system is biased in favour of women.

Oh Cognitive bias

So women get arrested and invariably there is no case to answer. I'd go with conviction rates. Proven cases

 

[monkers]

Yes, but let's look at the stats from Rusty's link in full.

View attachment 4229

Women actually accounted for only 18% of the prosecutions for violence against the person. Not 55% as you claimed - because your chosen graphic was of the % of all female arrests, not as a % of the total of M and F arrests.

And look at the sex offences. No mistake there.

I do find this unenviable quest to prove women are as likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders as men as are quite interesting. Like the search for the 3rd gamete that disproves the sex binary, it will be Nobel Prize winning stuff when it finally materialises.

Arrests and prosecutions are not the same thing.

 

[spen666]

I shouldn't have to explain the numbers presented in simple bar graphs.

I said the data shows that more women are arrested than men for violence against the person.

I have also said that men are four more times likely to face prosecution.

That doesn't prove that women are less violent. It proves that the system is biased in favour of women.

This stuff isn't hard to understand.

It provides no proof of that.
You are interpreting the data that way. That is not proof of the bias.

There are many factors that are taken into play as to why people are arrested and there are different factors taken into play before a decision to prosecute is made

The system may or may not be biased, this data is no proof either way

 

[monkers]

I've had enough of this batshit craziness.