Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
This one has me scratching my head.
I know a trans man. If I met him now rather than at the 'half way' stage he was at when our paths first crossed in 2019 I don't think I'd be able to tell.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
This one has me scratching my head.
I know a trans man. If I met him now rather than at the 'half way' stage he was at when our paths first crossed in 2019 I don't think I'd be able to tell.
Ianonabike
Active Member
As anyone who has seen a picture of someone like Stephen Whittle knows, Trans identifying women ("trans men"), depending how far they've gone, are usually able to pass better than men pretending to be women. Which is why the Supreme Court took the common sense approach that if you've done that to yourself to the extent you're going to alarm women, you shouldn't go into the women's despite that you are one. A head scratcher for those affected I know, but I assume they'll keep going into the men's, and frankly nobody will care.
Ianonabike
Active Member
Sometimes it's about using your head.
monkers
Shaman
I don't agee with your first sentence but whatever. And trans men with a GRC are not counted in the number of transgender men, they are counted as men.
Your frequent dismissal of ''magically'' just says your mind is closed to how data works. This is not a philosophical point it is a purely mathematical one, which if ignored just shows obstinate adherence to misleading analysis.
And this image posted by you (below), shows the game of the old switcheroo being played. In the first sentence, the number of people stated to be transgender people all gain a GRC and become trans people by the time of the second sentence - just like that - as if by magic.
The number of trans people in prison in this country is just 9 of about 90 000. This means a rate of about one prisoner in ten thousand is a trans person with a GRC. This includes trans men and trans women. The ratio is unknown, but the ratio of GRCs issued is pretty much fifty fifty. This means the number of trans women for any or all offences is about one in twenty thousand people. And of these it is not reported that any one of them has a conviction for sex offences against women or children - not one!
So who are the monsters? Is it trans women, or those accusing them of being all predators?
Even Anne Widdecombe disagrees with you!!! She is a former minister for prisons. She states that trans women are an especially vulnerable group and it is wrong to put them into men's prisons. This is the same woman who had who had women shackled to their hospital beds even on maternity wards because on her watch 20 absconded - so she's no softy, and she sure ain't 'woke'.
Last edited:
monkers
Shaman
You can not simply switch groups of people within a data set at will and claim that is analysis whatever your protected philosophical belief.
The MoJ data makes it very clear, the number of trans people convicted of offences is vanishingly tiny. No reasonable person can claim that the group with the lowest conviction rates are therefore the most dangerous. It defies any sense of logic.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Again you're claiming that only those with a grc are transgender so only those with a grc should be counted in MOJ stats . This pivot just doesn't wash. It is the complete opposite of what every trans organisation has said for the last 10 years. It's the opposite of what you've said previously.
It means nobody under 18 is transgender because you can't get a grc until age 18. It means Eddie Izzard and India Willoughby don't count as 'trans women' because they don't have grcs. It's a pivot to wriggle out of the uncomfortable facts of male pattern offending - a pattern that doesn't change with deciding you want to identify as a woman.
You think it means you can pretend that this man isn't a member of the trans community when if he wasn't in court you'd be saying he was trans and supporting his access to women's spaces.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.li.../child-sex-attacker-claimed-jury-32968955.amp
It means nobody under 18 is transgender because you can't get a grc until age 18. It means Eddie Izzard and India Willoughby don't count as 'trans women' because they don't have grcs. It's a pivot to wriggle out of the uncomfortable facts of male pattern offending - a pattern that doesn't change with deciding you want to identify as a woman.
You think it means you can pretend that this man isn't a member of the trans community when if he wasn't in court you'd be saying he was trans and supporting his access to women's spaces.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.li.../child-sex-attacker-claimed-jury-32968955.amp
Last edited:
monkers
Shaman
No.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you a fact. The MOJ in their data (England and Wales) clearly state that the cohorts of transgender men and transgender women do not contain any person who holds a GRC. People who are hold a GRC are not in that cohort, they are not counted there, not present, don't exist there. I don't know how else to say it. The MoJ segrates groups across a 2x3 matrix.
More MoJ facts. The number of trans people with a GRC reported to be in prison is 9. 9 out of a population of about 60 000 000.
If 5 of those 9 are trans women, that means that 1 in every 12 000 000 people is a trans woman in prison. The numbers are so vanishingly small that any person who knows how data works will say these numbers are not typical but anomalies.
These 5 or so people may be convicted of any offence across the whole range of offences. There is no evidence presented in the data so to suggest that there are any trans women has been convicted of physical or sexual abuse of women or children. None, such evidence doesn't exit.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You're simply trying to pretend that those male prisoners who self id as women can't be considered as relevant to the discussion. You want to restrict the discussion to only those with a grc because you don't like what the self id stats show. It's a laughable attempt to deflect attention from the stats.
monkers
Shaman
I'm telling you what the Ministry of Justice report clearly states - the unvarnished truth.
It's here, read it ...
https://assets.publishing.service.g...Offender_Equalities_Annual_Report_2024-25.pdf
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
All that tells us is that the MOJ count trans prisoners with a grc and trans prisoners without a grc separately. We know that. They're still all trans - and more importantly still all men - which is the relevant issue.
monkers
Shaman
Sigh. Even by your own reasoning they can not be all men because the report tells us that 63 are trans men without a GRC, or in your terms they are biological women.
Therefore it is correct to say that trans men without a GRC (biologically female*) are multiple times more represented in the data than trans women with a GRC (biologically male*). Which group represent the greater impact? Only correct answer - we can't know because we do not know the range of offences committed.
* reproductive potential sex at birth.
You have the link.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You're counting the trans identifying women without a grc but not the trans identifying men without a grc....
This is nonsense. These men are either all trans or none of them are. Having a piece of paper makes no difference. You just don't like the implication of them all being trans, which is that transwomen have a high rate of sexual offending.
This is nonsense. These men are either all trans or none of them are. Having a piece of paper makes no difference. You just don't like the implication of them all being trans, which is that transwomen have a high rate of sexual offending.
monkers
Shaman
I'm not not counting anything. I gave you the link to the ministry of justice full report, and asked you to read it.
Sure I picked out some numbers, but they were as a challenge to the misinformation you were presenting.
A birth certificate is certifcated sex. An amended birth certificate is certificated sex - which is why since the Supreme Court ruling no birth certificate is valid. So on that basis I have to agree with you, ''having a piece of paper makes no difference''.
