Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

But the data that you presented in support of your argument does not show that trans women were implicated. It just shows that men and women were.

Yes. And transwomen are men with surgery or hormone treatment. They are a subset of men.

I'm happy to agree to the argument that we can not know how many trans women are arrested or convicted if the data is not collected. I can not agree that this means that there is evidence that trans women are implicated - that argument is vexatious.

No it isn't. Aurora's argument has consistently been that taking hormones and having surgery does not magically make you into a woman. The biology doesn't change. The lowering of testosterone may make a difference but the jury is still out on that one.

 

[icowden]

So from what you've said, she is a woman, but you still support the idea that she should not compete against 'other women', because that would be unfair.

From what I've said, she considers herself to be a women. Biologically she appears not to be. Both the IOC and she herself should support the idea that she has an unfair advantage which would potentially destroy women's sport.

We know that DSD is a complex area of genetic medicine. It doesn't follow that one person is more important than anything else. If we are going down that road we should allow all athletes to take performance enhancing drugs.

 

[monkers]

Yes. And transwomen are men with surgery or hormone treatment. They are a subset of men.


No it isn't. Aurora's argument has consistently been that taking hormones and having surgery does not magically make you into a woman. The biology doesn't change. The lowering of testosterone may make a difference but the jury is still out on that one.

Trans woman are legally women, therefore they are women. This is how democracy used to work before we farked it up more recently.

We elected members to parliament. They considered a Bill put forward by a Labour government played ping pong with the other place for a while and then decided to pass a law which determined that in our society that trans women are women, and that trans men are men.

In 2013, parliamentarians under an Con/ Lemsip alliance used a free vote to consider equal marriage; cemented into that law, again trans women are women and trans men are men.

This isn't party politics even. This is whole thing now relies on an unelected government of bigots to rule over us without a mandate - so I'm going to reject what comes out of the mouths of known bigots and liars such as Braverman.

Trans women are women before the law. If the law is to be varied, then it needs to be varied by parliament under a Bill from a government that has faced a general election, and not varied because somebody was made chief of the EHRC by a known bigot issuing non-statutory guidelines for you agree with.

I'll take democracy, truth and law over the words of known liars and bigots thank you.

 

[monkers]

Meanwhile, findings from a long-running research project show that less than one percent of people say that the trans debate will influence their vote in the next general election.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-instit...i-woke-culture-war-divisions-and-politics.pdf

 

[AuroraSaab]

But the data that you presented in support of your argument does not show that trans women were implicated. It just shows that men and women were.

Because transgender arrestees are not recorded as a separate category. Unless they choose to be recorded as 'Other' presumably, which they may or may not choose.

I'm happy to agree to the argument that we can not know how many trans women are arrested or convicted if the data is not collected. I can not agree that this means that there is evidence that trans women are implicated - that argument is vexatious.

There's no evidence that transwomen offend at lower rates than other men - even the Swedish researcher doesn't claim this in what you describe as her retraction - so it would be astonishing if the general stats didn't include some transwomen. In fact we know it does because it's recorded in news reporting, if not as a discrete category of offender in official stats.

My niece is aware of an historic allegation of rape by a trans woman. It's an interesting case.
The woman had a four year relationship with a man that ended some twelve years ago. She has since discovered that this man is now transitioning. The man never told her that he has always felt trans, and that is not the given reason for the end of the relationship.

She says that 'he' had never declared to her that he had a female gender identity and now feels 'violated' - so she is saying this is rape, despite the point that all sex was consensual. This case opens many other questions about motives by the parties in other cases that have not been asked in courts.

No, it doesn't. It says nothing about other cases. It does show how you'll happily sink low enough to use one case of rape by a transwoman to undermine other cases where the rapist was a transwoman and try to cast doubt on those victim's veracity.

Let's see the news/court report link so we can look at your anecdotal 'It was consensual' case so we can decide for ourselves.

 

[monkers]

Because transgender arrestees are not recorded as a separate category. Unless they choose to be recorded as 'Other' presumably, which they may or may not choose.

True or not - it does not lead to a conclusion that trans women cause harm to other women. A lack of evidence is not evidence. It's a vexatious claim.

 

[monkers]

There's no evidence that transwomen offend at lower rates than other men - even the Swedish researcher doesn't claim this in what you describe as her retraction - so it would be astonishing if the general stats didn't include some transwomen. In fact we know it does because it's recorded in news reporting, if not as a discrete category of offender in official stats.

Trans women are women before the law - not men.

The author of the Swedish Study says that this use of her report is a distortion. She clearly says that the study does not provide evidence that trans women are rapists. You are still twisting as if this is not a fact. That she rejects this interpretation as true is a fact.

Again, a lack of stats is not evidence of anything other than system failure.

 

[icowden]

Trans woman are legally women, therefore they are women. This is how democracy used to work before we farked it up more recently.

I don't remember being democratically consulted on that point.

We elected members to parliament. They considered a Bill put forward by a Labour government played ping pong with the other place for a while and then decided to pass a law which determined that in our society that trans women are women, and that trans men are men.

No they didn't. They passed a law that trans women should have the same legal rights as women and the same for trans men. There is no requirement to believe the magic fairy dust that transwomen are women.

In 2013, parliamentarians under an Con/ Lemsip alliance used a free vote to consider equal marriage; cemented into that law, again trans women are women and trans men are men.

Equal marriage has nothing to do with trans. It is do do with legally allowing same sex marriages.

This isn't party politics even. This is whole thing now relies on an unelected government of bigots to rule over us without a mandate - so I'm going to reject what comes out of the mouths of known bigots and liars such as Braverman.

At last, something we can all agree on.

 

[monkers]

No, it doesn't. It says nothing about other cases. It does show how you'll happily sink low enough to use one case of rape by a transwoman to undermine other cases where the rapist was a transwoman and try to cast doubt on those victim's veracity.

Let's see the news/court report link so we can look at your anecdotal 'It was consensual' case so we can decide for ourselves.

So you've made up your mind that this was a case of rape. The case hasn't been heard yet. The victim agrees the sex was consensual.

If gender identity is not a thing as you tend to say, that trans women are men as you tend to say; how can it be that consensual sex between a man and woman twelve years ago is suddenly now to be considered rape?

 

[monkers]

I don't remember being democratically consulted on that point.

You ought to know how the system works. You either carefully considered your vote, turned out to vote, or you didn't. That's a matter for you.

 

[icowden]

If gender identity is not a thing as you tend to say, that trans women are men as you tend to say; how can it be that consensual sex between a man and woman twelve years ago is suddenly now to be considered rape?

How is it any different if the man is now saying they are a woman? The trans status is irrelevant.

 

[monkers]

Equal marriage has nothing to do with trans. It is do do with legally allowing same sex marriages.

Then you are in error.

From the introduction of the GRA, and up until the Same Sex Marriage Act, a trans women with a GRC could only marry a man, and not a woman. Only after the SSMA could a trans woman marry another woman as a same sex marriage. Flip the case for trans men.

In this way, the 2013 Act cements the already held legal principle that trans women are women.

 

[monkers]

How is it any different if the man is now saying they are a woman? The trans status is irrelevant.

I tend to agree, but it does seem that AS sees the now trans woman as a rapist.

 

[monkers]

I don't remember being democratically consulted on that point.

No they didn't. They passed a law that trans women should have the same legal rights as women and the same for trans men. There is no requirement to believe the magic fairy dust that transwomen are women.


Equal marriage has nothing to do with trans. It is do do with legally allowing same sex marriages.


At last, something we can all agree on.

Thanks; probably not something that all will agree on, but yeh.

 

[icowden]

From the introduction of the GRA, and up until the Same Sex Marriage Act, a trans women with a GRC could only marry a man, and not a woman. Only after the SSMA could a trans woman marry another woman as a same sex marriage. Flip the case for trans men.

As i said, nothing to do with trans.

The Same Sex Marriage Act allowed same sex marriages. If someone is going to insist they are a woman and get a certificate to prove it, then it holds that they could only legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

The Act allowed Gay and Lesbian marriages. A transwoman marrying a woman is just a normal marriage unless you have a bit of paper which then specifically prevented it. This is why there is a whole wormhole of discussion around whether becoming a transwoman now means you are a lesbian if you still like women. Many lesbians take quite a lot of issue with this.