Gender again. Sorry!

[Ianonabike]

Baroness Falkner: Labour was the party of feminism — not any more
https://archive.ph/b9CcE

At times, the hostility has been overwhelming. Falkner was on the receiving end of relentless abuse from trans activists, and eventually had to leave social media entirely.

Some of the messages directed at her and others were so extreme that she became afraid that she was going to be attacked on her way to work, and began changing her daily route. “You’re afraid that somebody will flip and attack you, knife you, do whatever,” she says.

There was little respite at work. Falkner had to face down — and eventually overcome — an internal coup after a series of unfounded claims were made against her...

In the midst of it all, Falkner has been fighting her own, personal battle. In August last year she was given a diagnosis of advanced ovarian cancer, something she never mentioned publicly. Three months later she had surgery to remove several organs.

Through it all she kept working, including during two rounds of chemotherapy...

Then there's this:

The delay in publishing the EHRC guidance, Falkner says, leaves both women and trans people in a “grey zone”. Councils, NHS trusts and businesses are still allowing trans women — biological men who identify as women — to use single-sex spaces, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The danger in not publishing it is that people are left in the grey zone,” she says. “Women are still having to go to court to assert their rights. My greatest concern is that it’s very distressing for trans people.

Read that last sentence again. And yet she's still vilified by them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nothing but complete capitulation would have been enough.

 

[AndyRM]

Nothing but complete capitulation would have been enough.

Seriously?

I've said it before on this thread, and will always maintain that there's a much wider discussion to be had.

This thread gets stuck in the same loops though, which is a shame.

 

[mickle]

.

I've said it before on this thread, and will always maintain that there's a much wider discussion to be had.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by 'wider discussion'. A significant percentage of the population do not want males in female prisons, sports, toilets and changing rooms etc. How will your wider discussion address this?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Seriously? I've said it before on this thread, and will always maintain that there's a much wider discussion to be had. This thread gets stuck in the same loops though, which is a shame.

Because any compromise that is suggested is rejected by trans groups. The trans community could have spent the last ten years putting their energy into ensuring an end to discrimination in employment or housing, in asking for evidence based health care and mental health support, in seeking facilities that accommodated them but didn't compromise women's needs.

They didn't. They spent most of it pushing for access to women's spaces, prisons, sports. And on that issue only full access, ie complete capitulation, was ever going to be enough.

 

[classic33]

Because any compromise that is suggested is rejected by trans groups. The trans community could have spent the last ten years putting their energy into ensuring an end to discrimination in employment or housing, in asking for evidence based health care and mental health support, in seeking facilities that accommodated them but didn't compromise women's needs.

They didn't. They spent most of it pushing for access to women's spaces, prisons, sports. And on that issue only full access, ie complete capitulation, was ever going to be enough.

So where do the trans men go, in your world?

"means exactly what it says. Females to males (ie transwomen) had a higher risk of conviction than the control group which was of their birth sex (ie male)."

 

[CXRAndy]

So where do the trans men go, in your world?

"means exactly what it says. Females to males (ie transwomen) had a higher risk of conviction than the control group which was of their birth sex (ie male)."

They can if they want to risk it, go in the men's restroom.

Blokes dont care about women in their spaces.

Or if they feel uncomfortable, use the unisex, single cubicle option.

 

[AuroraSaab]

They're entitled to use women's facilities. Surely you can see that the risk is asymmetrical though? A woman in male facilities is statistically less of a risk to the men there than a man in women's spaces is to the women there.

I think men deserve their own spaces too but if you’re all for being inclusive you'd be fine with those women being there surely? Or you could advocate for third, mixed sex, spaces.

"means exactly what it says. Females to males (ie transwomen) had a higher risk of conviction than the control group which was of their birth sex (ie male)."

If that's a quote from me I've obviously put 'Females to males' the wrong way round. Otherwise 'ie transwomen' and 'birth sex (ie male)' doesn't make sense. I'd be amazed if any crime stats showed that trans identifying women had a higher crime rate than men do.

 

[AndyRM]

Because any compromise that is suggested is rejected by trans groups. The trans community could have spent the last ten years putting their energy into ensuring an end to discrimination in employment or housing, in asking for evidence based health care and mental health support, in seeking facilities that accommodated them but didn't compromise women's needs.

They didn't. They spent most of it pushing for access to women's spaces, prisons, sports. And on that issue only full access, ie complete capitulation, was ever going to be enough.

I'm not a member of any pro trans group, so I wouldn't know any of that.

If you've got the skinny on those groups/lobbyists I assume you're a member of some kind of opposing group?

Or do you just miss the "good old days"?

 

[AndyRM]

.


I genuinely don't understand what you mean by 'wider discussion'. A significant percentage of the population do not want males in female prisons, sports, toilets and changing rooms etc. How will your wider discussion address this?

I like to think in broad pictures rather than zeroing in on things.

But if we're going there, I manage to successfully use unisex toilets and changing rooms regularly without issue despite my made up status as non-binary.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not a member of any pro trans group, so I wouldn't know any of that. If you've got the skinny on those groups/lobbyists I assume you're a member of some kind of opposing group?

Looks like you're not that well informed then. It was a stated objective of Stonewall to remove the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act, thereby giving men access to women's spaces.

Or do you just miss the "good old days"?

I do miss the days when women could guarantee having their own stuff without men seeking access to it. Hopefully in ten years it'll be you missing the old days when men could be in women's changing rooms, sports, and prisons, and call women who objected Nazi bigots. Will you be sad then?

But if we're going there, I manage to successfully use unisex toilets and changing rooms regularly without issue despite my made up status as non-binary.

If there are also single sex ones available then those women who choose the mixed sex option have consented to your male presence, so no problem.

If there aren't single sex options too, then what you mean is it's no issue to you. You have no idea if it's an issue to the girls and women who have to share a changing room with a man.

 

[AndyRM]

Looks like you're not that well informed then. It was a stated objective of Stonewall to remove the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act, thereby giving men access to women's spaces.



I do miss the days when women could guarantee having their own stuff without men seeking access to it. Hopefully in ten years it'll you missing the old days when men could be in women's changing rooms, sports, and prisons, and call women who objected Nazi bigots. Will you be sad then?


If there are also single sex ones available then those women who choose the mixed sex option have consented to your male presence, so no problem.

If there aren't single sex options too, then what you mean is it's no issue to you. You have no idea if it's an issue to the girls and women who have to share a changing room with a man.

Carry on with your assumptions about me.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/1997273871238725818

 

[CXRAndy]

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

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.

So you earlier said there are 9 transmen but now you say the records record them as men, so how do you know about these 9 and does this also mean that in the future they won't be that visible anymore? (hence if you call them ''men'' in all records, it seems to me you're clouding the numbers not making them more trasparent but less.)

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.

The saying lies, damn lies and statistics doesn't come out of thin air. there are 301 ways to read the same numbers and give different explanations to them.

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.

or laws and regulations

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!

Pretty much fifty is based on what numbers and can you post evidence? and what do you want to say with ''just 9 on a total imprisonment of 90.000''? Should we have this discussion again when it are 500, 1000, or half the prison population? i'm not saying anything like that would happen, but i just think the ''look it's only a small group'' argument is flawed, that is my point.

So who are the monsters? Is it trans women, or those accusing them of being all predators?

I think it was made pretty clear who the monsters are, the point is more what does it take for the ''trans lobby'' to accept perpetrators are gonna be perpetrators then can be trans/male/female and anything in between, but no there is no ''safe space''. instead of finding a middle ground it seems everything that opposed ''trans ideology'' must be defeated of some sorts. That's not how the worlds works.

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'.

What about a seperate wing/department/however they call it for trans poeple?