What I claim is that there are no special subsets of men to whom the long established safeguarding assumptions should not apply. You would have us believe different.
I agree. I don't believe there are subsets of men. Cis gender men are men. Trans men with a GRC are legally men. Trans men without a GRC have the right to live as men.
If my friend stands on a table, shouting ''there's a mouse'', I wouldn't think to ask her what sex it is or start a discussion about gender identities. It's biologically irrelevant. I'd probably ask where she saw it, and try to calm her, a mouse can't hurt a human after all. It's a panic reaction to an irrational fear.
As you said to me the other day, there are only two reproductive pathways. I agree, but it doesn't follow that it's any more true that all cis gender people fit into that than trans people do. My niece has neither reproductive pathway, but then neither do I.
As regard to violence 1 in 6 arrests are females in England and Wales. The data recognises that women tend only to be arrested for violence where there is significant harm, however in the case of men arrests for violence are frequent even when harm has not been caused.
In real everyday terms, women commit more violent acts than transgender people with or without a GRC do every day. Yet trans people are not calling for cisgender people to be banned from public spaces. It would be irrational if they did.
Yes I know that if the data is manipulated enough you can prove anything else.
91% of rapes are committed against women. 72% of homicide victims are male. That's the problem with percentages like these, on their own they fail to show the actual numbers. Whether the numbers are small or large the percentages of victims set out in that binary remain the same, or at least similar.
In round numbers we might see 72 000 rapes committed this year, and maybe 600 murders. The real numbers matter, so these data sets that present data in percentage terms only do not indicate scale.
Rape Crisis do essential work. Their ratios number are clear, but like percentages they fail to indicate that actual scale of the problem. In the sense of scale only real numbers matter.
This is why I resist the use of data that is not meaningful. We must keep it real.
To this end, there are 10 prisoners with a GRC. We don't the ratio of men and women. We don't know the offences committed.
About half of prisoners are serving time for violent and sexual offences.
So let's attempt reasonable assumptions. About 60% of GRCs are held by trans women. So of that 10 maybe 6 are trans women.
Of those 6 maybe 3 have committed violent or sexual offences.
The ratio of violent crime to sexual crime is about 10:1.
Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. Men are more likely to be the victims of stranger violence.
Taking these factors into account the actual number of trans women who have committed offences against cis women is statistically likely to be zero.
But given Sod's law that there is always an outlier, I will guess the number to be one.
I understand why some want the numbers to support their ideological stance, but facts remain facts regardless of personal bias.
