Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The Swedish report does not say that trans women retain a male pattern of criminality. This is a lie told by Stock to the advisory committee.

It literally does say it in the screenshot from the paper.

Now you resort to this petty squabbling and mischaracterising my words, because you are an empty vessel. Give it up.

I'm tired of you posting crap and not giving the receipts. There'll be a few people on here daft enough to believe you no doubt, which makes it worth your while I suppose. Unevidenced assertions and personal abuse is all you've got.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
It literally does say it in the screenshot from the paper.



I'm tired of you posting crap and not giving the receipts. There'll be a few people on here daft enough to believe you no doubt, which makes it worth your while I suppose. Unevidenced assertions and personal abuse is all you've got.

You asked for evidence I provided it. Now you are embarrassed you are looking for fresh avenues of personal attack.

Dhejne has explained why the characterisations of her work are in error. We've been round this loop before with you continuing to deny the word of the author, preferring the mischaracterisations made by Stock and others.

Please don't pretend that you haven't seen the evidence before; we both know that you have.

Williams: Other anti-trans activists have seized upon your study to make certain fact assertions about a supposed inherent criminal nature trans women possess, as exemplified by the following Twitter exchange:

08VQAE2.png


Using simple language, would you please speak to those using your work to support the fact assertion that trans women and cis men are alike when it comes to perpetrating incidences of rape, murder, torture, etc? In other words, would you please clarify the following:

A.) As to the “male pattern regarding criminality” your study reviewed, would you please speak to whether your sample is representative of the trans population as a whole?

B.) Does your study support the notion that trans women, epidemiologically speaking, are likely rapists?

C.) Did your study show that trans women, epidemiologically speaking, are just as likely to rape cis women as cis men?

D.) In the way that your study’s morbidity and mortality sample is reviewed as two chronological groups, did you use the same chronological metric for your criminality sample and, if so, what did you find?

E.) Is your “male pattern regarding criminality” a simple comparison of percentages of overall conviction rates between cis males and trans women or is it a quantitative conviction category comparison between the two? In other words, trans women (who may experience around a 50% unemployment rate4 5 6) will generally bear a greater burden of convictions associated with social oppression, poverty and homelessness (squatting, loitering, panhandling, prostitution and non-violent crimes such as drug use and petty theft) than cis men. When your study looked at the “male pattern regarding criminality” between cis men and trans women, are you saying that your data shows that cis men are being convicted for crimes associated with oppression, poverty and homelessness at a rate similar to that found in the trans population?

Dhejne: The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. 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.

As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.

There you have it. To be clear:

  • No, the study does not show that medical transition results in suicide or suicidal ideation. The study explicitly states that such is not the case and those using this study to make that claim are using fallacious logic.
  • No, the study does not prove that trans women are rapists or likely to be rapists. The “male pattern of criminality” found in the 1973 to 1988 cohort group was not a euphemism for rape.
  • No, the study does not prove that trans women exhibit male socialization. The “male pattern of criminality” found in the 1973 to 1988 cohort group was not a claim that trans women were convicted of the same types of crime as cis men.
 
What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.
So just as the original paper said, transwomen ordinarily have male pattern of criminality.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care,
So when a group of men have mental health care, they comit less crime. Not surprising, is it? I would think any group would. So the comparator for that group should have been non trans men who also had mental health support not men who didn't.

The original conclusion is still valid. In ordinary circumstances, transwomen have male pattern criminality.

You made claims specifically about what Stock said, and as she didn't claim the research said anything about rape (because it doesn't break down the crimes by type), the other points are irrelevant. Don't make specific derogatory allegations about specific people then try to turn them into a general discussion, of stuff we've been over 10 times, because you were caught out and couldn't provide the receipts.
 
Last edited:

monkers

Legendary Member
So just as the original paper said, transwomen ordinarily have male pattern of criminality.

So when a group of men have mental health care, they comit less crime. Not surprising, is it? I would think any group would. So the comparator for that group should have been non trans men who also had mental health support not men who didn't.

The original conclusion is still valid. In ordinary circumstances, transwomen have male pattern criminality.

You made claims about what Stock said, and as she didn't claim the research said anything about rape (because it doesn't break down the crimes by type), the other points are irrelevant.

It's not surprising when you remember the premise of the study which was concerned with trans women who had experienced suicide ideation due to discrimination / trans oppression.

Nowhere have I said that people with mental health issues do not benefit from mental health healthcare.

You seem incapable of any coherent argument.

The author has clearly stated ...

As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

What more do you need?

I'm sure that when the penny drops that you'll pivot onto a line of attack that you've already tried and exhausted previously.
 
'Not observed in the 1989 group' - because they had mental health support. When transwomen don't get mental health support - ie crimes recorded just like everybody else who doesn't get it - they retain the same offending pattern as other men. You are not comparing like for like. You are comparing a supported group of transwomen with an unsupported group of other men.

We've discussed this already 10x though and just as with the prison numbers, there's always a reason these men are special or the stats are wrong.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
That's what monkerd does. She threw in Thomas slower time to try indicate trans are slower. She wasn't comparing like for like .

When your argument is based on a pile of hay (farming;)) your footing is always shifting just to keep up
 

monkers

Legendary Member
That's what monkerd does. She threw in Thomas slower time to try indicate trans are slower. She wasn't comparing like for like .

When your argument is based on a pile of hay (farming;)) your footing is always shifting just to keep up

There's you thinking that you know what I'm thinking. Your track record isn't strong on this Andy.

A level playing field is based on average performances of the cohorts and not world records. The idea that Usain Bolt's world record informs us of 'average performance' of biological males is a bit nuts.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
The level playing field is the comparison between male and female elites

Then you can compare the differing age categories for male and female, as I already have.

On each occasion there is conclusive proof, males outperform females.

To further backup males are faster/stronger, it was pointed out thousands of boys and young men can beat the womens world record for sprinting.

Then I put the times for the trans cyclo-cross rider, who was literally head and shoulders ahead in performance compared to the women competition.

I did the same comparison for weightlifting, men are considerably faster, stronger.

Id suggest you get in the ring with a trans cage fighter, let them pummel you into recognising the glaring facts
 

icowden

Legendary Member
What concerns me more about this ruling is that a Government of another country, not voted by anyone in Scotland, run by a party that no-one in Scotland has voted for since the 1950s, can block laws put through, debated and passed by a democratically elected Scottish Parliament.
On a point of order:-

2,759,000 Scots voted in the last general election. They voted for 59 members of the UK Parliament. 693,000 of those voting voted for Conservative politicians (25.1% of the vote). The people of Scotland returned 6 Conservative MPs.

The Government of the country, of which Scotland is a nation, run by a party that isn't that popular in Scotland although they did return 6 out of 59 MPs can block laws put through, debated and passed by a democratically elected Scottish Parliament as that Parliament is junior to the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Since 2015 the SNP vote has dropped and the Conservative vote has improved, along with the Lib Dem vote. Of all the parties, the Scots seem to despise Labour the most up to 2019. Current opinion polls suggest Labour has bounced back with the Lib Dems dropping considerably. Conservatives remain in 3rd place in terms of projected vote share. Labour are predicted to return 22 MPs, SNP 20, Conservatives 11 and 4 Lib Dems.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.
 
On a point of order:-

2,759,000 Scots voted in the last general election. They voted for 59 members of the UK Parliament. 693,000 of those voting voted for Conservative politicians (25.1% of the vote). The people of Scotland returned 6 Conservative MPs.

The Government of the country, of which Scotland is a nation, run by a party that isn't that popular in Scotland although they did return 6 out of 59 MPs can block laws put through, debated and passed by a democratically elected Scottish Parliament as that Parliament is junior to the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Since 2015 the SNP vote has dropped and the Conservative vote has improved, along with the Lib Dem vote. Of all the parties, the Scots seem to despise Labour the most up to 2019. Current opinion polls suggest Labour has bounced back with the Lib Dems dropping considerably. Conservatives remain in 3rd place in terms of projected vote share. Labour are predicted to return 22 MPs, SNP 20, Conservatives 11 and 4 Lib Dems.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.

The current Scottish Government is an (informal?) coalition of the SDP and Scots Greens.

The devolution settlement is set out in the Scotland Act and the various agreements between the respective admirations as to how the relationship will work.

Matters which are devolved are wholly the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament/Government.

To describe the Scottish Parliament as 'junior' to Westminster is insulting and a gross piece of (wilful?) constitutional ignorance.
 
Last edited:

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Only if you're English.

I remember when the Scottish Government first came into being, and even then it was referred to as "The Wee Pretendy Government", and it's a shame to see that attitude still hangs around to this day. We're perfectly capable of governing ourselves, without the bullying influence of Westminster.

I did enjoy, in a gallows sort of way, when it looked like independence was going to be voted for, only for politicians and celebrities to pile on and beg us to stay, extolling the virtue of a union. Then promptly vote to leave the EU. Irony overload.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Matters which are devolved are wholly the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament/Government.
To describe the Scottish Parliament as 'junior' to Westminster is insulting and a gross piece of (wilful?) constitutional ignorance.
Not really. Scotland cannot enact legislation which is contrary to that enacted by Westminster. It cannot override the will of the UK Parliament. This makes it junior to Westminster. @CXRAndy suggests tertiary - which means third in order, which somehow makes it even more junior. Other available words include sub-ordinate, secondary. Whatever you want to call it, Scotland is not a country in it's own right, thus it remains in hock to Westminster and the people of Scotland vote for their representatives in Westminster.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
I remember when the Scottish Government first came into being, and even then it was referred to as "The Wee Pretendy Government", and it's a shame to see that attitude still hangs around to this day. We're perfectly capable of governing ourselves, without the bullying influence of Westminster.
As evidenced by the stable financial footing of the ruling SNP party?
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
As evidenced by the stable financial footing of the ruling SNP party?

Branchfoot's been going on since 2021, and despite resignations of various party members hasn't turned up anything I've seen, though it may well do in the future.

The amount of dodgy backhanders and funding of the Conservatives throughout is much more of a concern to be honest.
 
Top Bottom