Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Crime stats provide that evidence on male risk in abundance. You have failed to provide evidence that transwomen should be treated any differently from other men.

This is like arguing the existence of God. There is no evidence either way.

So again I have to tell you, a lack of evidence is not evidence. Will you please become alert to this simple fact? One can not simply allege offences and not be expected to provide evidence. In law a person is innocent until such time as they are proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is how it works.

Neither does it work that once a man wearing a waistcoat was suspected of watching live TV without a licence that we must assume that all men wear a waistcoat before settling down to watch live TV without a licence - just to follow your absurd line of reasoning.

 

[monkers]

Crime stats provide that evidence on male risk in abundance. You have failed to provide evidence that transwomen should be treated any differently from other men.

Then bring it.

Trans women are not men, they are women - just not cis women.

 

[icowden]

Trans women are not men, they are women - just not cis women.

And this is the problem.

There is a wide section of society who would say that Trans women are not women. They are men who have undertaken to change their appearance through medical and surgical intervention in order to live more like they think women do.

Whilst the Trans lobby are screaming that anyone who doesn't think like them should be cancelled and the opposite lobby are screaming that all transwomen are paedophiles, it's unlikely that the discussion will progress.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This case opens many other questions about motives by the parties in other cases that have not been asked in courts.

I didn't label them a rapist. I asked for a link to assess the evidence. Weird that you are now expressing a judgement whilst castigating me for a judgement I expressly didn't make. Perhaps you imagine everybody reads your evidence free posts and immediately believes them. I'm not sure they do.

This is like arguing the existence of God. There is no evidence either way.

No evidence that men are a statistical risk to women and children on the basis that they are male?

So again I have to tell you, a lack of evidence is not evidence. Will you please become alert to this simple fact? One can not simply allege offences and not be expected to provide evidence. In law a person is innocent until such time as they are proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is how it works.

It's not how safeguarding works. We don't do individual assessments in most cases based on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Neither does it work that once a man wearing a waistcoat was suspected of watching live TV without a licence that we must assume that all men wear a waistcoat before settling down to watch live TV without a licence - just to follow your absurd line of reasoning.

That would be absurd because there's no evidence to correlate the groups 'those who watch TV without a license' and 'men who wear waistcoats'.

Now do the groups 'born male' and 'those most likely to comit sex offences'. Any correlation?

Then bring it.

Trans women are not men, they are women - just not cis women.

There's decades of evidence of male offending that shows men are a risk to women and girls. There is no evidence that that statistical risk changes because of how a person feels about themselves.

In 600 pages you have provided zero evidence that transwomen are any different to other men. It's a metaphysical belief for which you provide no proof but expect privileges and access that we don't grant to other men.

 

[monkers]

And this is the problem.

There is a wide section of society who would say that Trans women are not women. They are men who have undertaken to change their appearance through medical and surgical intervention in order to live more like they think women do.

Whilst the Trans lobby are screaming that anyone who doesn't think like them should be cancelled and the opposite lobby are screaming that all transwomen are paedophiles, it's unlikely that the discussion will progress.

Trans women were formerly men. Trans women with a GRC are formally women. That's the law.

It's not about appearance Ian, not about hormones or surgical intervention, it's about living life appropriately in a gender role congruent with their gender identity as laid down in law. There is no legal requirement for a person to undergo surgery or take hormones to present their gender identity to the world.

People babble on about freedom of speech, but actually it is freedom of expression, so people have been free to express their gender identity as they wished since 1948 (UNDHR) without further recourse to the law. The GRA extended that freedom to a legal gender identity and the right not to be defined by their biology. Some legal exemptions were made, albeit with a very high bar.

Having an identity is not an offence. Being discriminated against, harassed, or victimised for having that identity are offences.

 

[icowden]

It's not about appearance Ian, not about hormones or surgical intervention, it's about living life appropriately in a gender role congruent with their gender identity as laid down in law. There is no legal requirement for a person to undergo surgery or take hormones to present their gender identity to the world.

Which is precisely why there need to be discussion about how to protect women's rights, some women's spaces and women's sport.

People babble on about freedom of speech, but actually it is freedom of expression, so people have been free to express their gender identity as they wished since 1948 (UNDHR) without further recourse to the law. The GRA extended that freedom to a legal gender identity and the right not to be defined by their biology. Some legal exemptions were made, albeit with a very high bar.

Yep. And I suspect that very few people have an issue with that freedom of expression. The concerns come in when that freedom of expression suddenly has more value than other groups freedoms and the demand that society be adjusted to satisfy a tiny minority of people at the expense of a huge number of people.

 

[monkers]

I didn't label them a rapist. I asked for a link to assess the evidence. Weird that you are now expressing a judgement whilst castigating me for a judgement I expressly didn't make. Perhaps you imagine everybody reads your evidence free posts and immediately believes them. I'm not sure they do.

You did. This was your reply after my first mention.

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.

Clearly you are being untruthful (again). You threw in a bucket load of other accusation too for good measure.

The woman is alleging rape because she feels 'violated' since she found out that the man (contemporaneous for clarity) that she was seeing twelve years beforehand has started transition.

You have called the trans woman a rapist, and the woman a victim. A victim of what exactly?

You have described this as 'one case of rape by a transwoman' to undermine other cases.

You are conflicted with this case as you would love to be able to use the opportunity to demonise trans women as rapists, but can not rationalise a reasonable justification since, if trans women are men, and sex was consensual, no crime has been committed. In fact if the woman wins this case, it will be a case of the court ruling that gender identity trumps sex in law, while you believe that gender identity does not exist.

My difficulty with this case is that a judgement in favour of the plaintiff has the potential to motivate ex wives and girlfriends (or maybe boyfriends) of trans women to allege rape in civil cases as a financial incentive - opening the floodgates as it were.

But just to remind you, that at this stage, this is only a true story concerning a woman seeking legal advice about whether her claim can succeed.

Can or should consensual sex at one point in time be legally interpreted to be rape twelve years later because the former partner is now expressing a different identity?

 

[monkers]

Which is precisely why there need to be discussion about how to protect women's rights, some women's spaces and women's sport.

I think you mean to introduce human rights that are specific to women where they don't already exist. Sport is separate issue to the topic in hand.

Do you not think that parliamentarians might ask the Home Office for the data which shows that trans women are violating cis women in public spaces designated for use by women?

I doubt the Braverman could satisfy them with an honest answer. On the one hand she criticizes the police saying they are not recording the data correctly, while in the next breath claiming to know the number of cases where they have failed to record. It smacks of invention.

 

[monkers]

And this is the problem.

There is a wide section of society who would say that Trans women are not women. They are men who have undertaken to change their appearance through medical and surgical intervention in order to live more like they think women do.

Whilst the Trans lobby are screaming that anyone who doesn't think like them should be cancelled and the opposite lobby are screaming that all transwomen are paedophiles, it's unlikely that the discussion will progress.

So you will presume. However I posted a link to a long-term study earlier today. The study shows that 2% of people think that the so-called 'trans debate' will play a part in the election, and that only 1% of will cast their vote on the basis of this one issue.

Oh, and that one percent? Could they be trans people saying they will be sure to vote to get the bigots out of government?

I've spotted you move from 'many' to 'a wide section of society' since I asked you how many is 'many'.

The study seems to show that 'many' and 'wide section of society' is just fanciful thinking.

It also seems to me that the electorate have woken up to the identity politics of the Tories and are not going to be duped again.

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

 

[icowden]

I think you mean to introduce human rights that are specific to women where they don't already exist.

No I didn't. That would then include Transwomen who should be specifically excluded.

Sport is separate issue to the topic in hand.

Why?

 

[icowden]

So you will presume. However I posted a link to a long-term study earlier today. The study shows that 2% of people think that the so-called 'trans debate' will play a part in the election, and that only 1% of will cast their vote on the basis of this one issue.

Seems fair. I'm not sure that it's on anyone's list of big issues to address. People would rather focus on inflation, crime, health and the economy.
Have you noticed that both the militant pro-trans activists and Suella Braverman want to suppress freedom of speech? Does that not concern you?

 

[monkers]

No I didn't. That would then include Transwomen who should be specifically excluded.

OK. So you think new laws should be introduced for cis women where they do not already exist?

 

[monkers]

Seems fair. I'm not sure that it's on anyone's list of big issues to address. People would rather focus on inflation, crime, health and the economy.
Have you noticed that both the militant pro-trans activists and Suella Braverman want to suppress freedom of speech? Does that not concern you?

Well yes and no. It's complex.

As I understand it from explanations from a few people who are quite expert, and reading myself, the intent behind the right to speak freely is to have the ability to speak freely to power. The intention was not to be able to just go around freely dishing out pejoratives, hate speech or threatening language. The right to free speech is not without consequence, nor do I think it should be.

This is distinct from being free to hold an opinion, after all there can be no thought police. But I do not think that the voicing of very offensive opinions should be absolutely free.

For example, let's say for sake of argument you have a young daughter. You walk to the shops with her one Saturday morning to buy her favourite magazine. A bloke comes up and says 'is this your daughter Ian' and you say 'yes, this is my lovely daughter Helen', and he says ugly little c.u.n.t ain't she, just like you. Do you shake his hand say thank you so much, I respect your rights and love to hear your honest opinions, and I'll be sure that we both stay inside in future so as to not offend your aesthetic sensibilities Sir'?

Braverman is a control freak. She wants to remove our human rights of freedom of assembly, freedom to have an opinion, and freedom to speak truth to power. Instead she wants to replace all of the thoughts of others with her own brand of nastiness and bigotry, while calling caring people haters.

Yes this concerns me a great deal.

 

[CXRAndy]

Trans 'women' are men

There is no such thing as cis. Just Men women girls boys

 

[monkers]

Which they can do just as easily in enclosed gender neutral toilets, unisex third spaces, or indeed in the Gents - because women are just as violent as men according to you so they'll be just as safe in the Gents as in the Ladies.

I'm not sure if you just don't have the ability to understand what is being said to you, are you just filter out anything not fitting your narrative.

The point made about the Met figures, was that youth is a much bigger cohort of offenders. If you want to bunch the biggest groups of violent offenders together, you'll make young women are much bigger group of violent street offenders than older men.

In the same way, if you filter trans women from cis women you'll find similar data, young trans women will offend at a higher rate than older women. Identities are never simple, they are always complex. A young trans offender is more likely to be an offender because they are young rather than because they are trans.

This is the kind of nuance to data that you simply don't understand, or refuse to recognise as it denies the all trans women are male rapists and paedophiles vexatious narrative that you seem to wish to promote.