Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Manger Douse said:
Your whole argument rests on the unfairness of arrests, charges, convictions or incarcerations of transwomen and how that might significantly affect the statistics. You have no evidence that this has ever happened.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
That wasn't the point.

I have no idea of the fairness of their arrests, charges, convictions or incarcerations. Only that such factors might significantly affect the statistics.

And let's say that a higher percentage of crimes that trans people are rightfully charged, convicted and incarcerated are sexual, what does that mean? What is included under that label? Does that mean that Trans people are less likely to commit other types of crimes?

As Mark Twain so eloquently said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Click to expand...
These are not statistics, these are hard counts.
 
This whole argument is irrelevant anyway because, even if transwomen were never a threat to women, many men most certainly are. And self ID would mean such men could no longer be excluded from spaces previously reserved solely for the use of women when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless. That is the sacrifice that TRAs are demanding 100% of females make, to spare the feelings of less than 1% of males.
 
Trausti said:
Accommodating a small number of trans identifying males ends up affecting a very large number of women.
Click to expand...
This is what convinces me that transwomen are, in every respect that matters, men. Because, as we all know, the feelings and needs of any man have always, and should always, take priority over the feelings and needs of any number of women. It transwomen were really women they would have a damn sight more consideration for the effect acceding to their demands would have on other women.
 
acbytesla said:
Seriously? You reference the epitome of disinformation? Another Murdoch rag.
Click to expand...
Here's what MBFC has to say about The Times:
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to a failed fact check.
Click to expand...

So, not exactly the 'epitome of disinformation', then. More like confirmation bias on your part. You desperately need this not to be true, so you've resorted to not only an ad hom, but an inaccurate ad hom at that.
Very poor: Could do better.
 
acbytesla said:
And let's say that a higher percentage of crimes that trans people are rightfully charged, convicted and incarcerated are sexual, what does that mean?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it says. It's not about the percentage out of incarcerated people, as you keep mis-representing it. It's the percentage of the total population of cis and respectively trans. That's why you have the numbers out of 30 million males or respectively 30 million females in the statistics presented. Trust me, the UK didn't incarcerate its whole population. So kindly stop pushing that strawman.

What it actually says is that per capita they are more likely to commit such offences. More importantly, 566 times more than biological women, since we're talking about putting them into women's safe spaces. I also notice that you don't question how grave the latter are.

acbytesla said:
What is included under that label?
Click to expand...

ASCII and ye shall receive: Sexual Offences Act 2003

It's basically the usual stuff: rape, drugging someone to have sex with them, sex with children, child porn, trafficking, bestiality, necrophilia, and the like.

acbytesla said:
Does that mean that Trans people are less likely to commit other types of crimes?
Click to expand...

No, it does not mean that. It may or may not be the case that they do, but the data presented does not imply anything for or against that.

acbytesla said:
As Mark Twain so eloquently said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Click to expand...

Yet you had no problem using statistics that you think support your case, e.g., IIRC in the electric cars thread. So that's pretty disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of a poster in the Lockerbie thread, many moons ago. He had piled in with no idea at all of the evidence, or indeed of how the crime was alleged to have been committed. I explained it all to him very carefully, complete with the detailed evidence of how the alleged modus operandi was not what had actually happened.

Rather than acknowledge that he had waded in on a topic he knew nothing about, and that his initial prejudice had been mistaken, he simply announced "you may have won a slap-fest on the internet but that doesn't change anything" and flounced off.

Scepticism, don't you just love it.
 
I think some people are attracted to this topic because they think it presents an opportunity to appear right (on the side of the marginalized against the evil bigots) without needing to have any idea what they are talking about. I guess that miscarriages of justice is similar. Some people like the idea of starting from the point of being obviously correct because they are siding with the findings of a court. In both cases they lapse back into appeals to authority/credibility and attacking people and sources rather than arguments. All of this reduces the need to do any actual thinking or critical evaluation of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
This is what convinces me that transwomen are, in every respect that matters, men. Because, as we all know, the feelings and needs of any man have always, and should always, take priority over the feelings and needs of any number of women. It transwomen were really women they would have a damn sight more consideration for the effect acceding to their demands would have on other women.
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh, though, and partially misplacing the blame. As I've said before, most of the arguments seem to come from "progressives" who are not trans, and don't actually care about the feelings of nor about the damage done to anyone, male or female, cis or trans. E.g., see the even more negative attitudes towards de-transitioners online. Doesn't matter if they're male to female or viceversa.

I'm reminded of couple of lines from a Megaherz song whose title would probably get censored:

Besserwisser aller Arten
Zündeln gern, bis jemand brennt​

Roughly translated "Know-it-alls of every kind like to play with fire until someone burns."
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
I think some people are attracted to this topic because they think it presents an opportunity to appear right (on the side of the marginalized against the evil bigots) without needing to have any idea what they are talking about. I guess that miscarriages of justice is similar. Some people like the idea of starting from the point of being obviously correct because they are siding with the findings of a court. In both cases they lapse back into appeals to authority/credibility and attacking people and sources rather than arguments. All of this reduces the need to do any actual thinking or critical evaluation of evidence.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely nailed it, and I think this is true in a much wider sense also. I noticed some time ago that for many self-identified "sceptics" this is actually how they operate. Pick the side that is obviously correct, and run with it. Most of the time that actually works. Homoeopathy is bunk. Contrails are just water condensation. Man really did walk on the moon. Vaccines work. A bunch of Saudis flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Bigfoot is delusional. You're definitely on the right side of the odds arguing from these perspectives. You can appear very clever, and "sceptical", and even convince yourself that you're clever.

Even there, I've noticed a distressing lack of nuance in some quarters. For example, while vaccines work and are of immense benefit to mankind, there are side-effects and adverse reactions sometimes. But mention these, and certain pro-vaccine advocates will jump down your throat as if you were a full-blown antivaxxer. It's not about evidence, and weighing evidence, it's about defending the chosen side.

However, there are situations where this breaks down completely. Miscarriages of justice are the obvious case, and in particular the Amanda Knox situation. Court verdicts are not invariably correct, as a long string of proven miscarriages of justice demonstrates. Simply jumping into the argument asserting that a convicted person is without doubt an evil murderer is not a safe bet. And yes, people who are genuinely interested in this issue usually choose to fight the cases where they think the verdict is incorrect. There's seldom much interest in defending an obviously guilty person, so then the accusation gets thrown around, "you think every murderer is a poor innocent soul!" No, we just tend not to bother about the obviously guilty (though I was interested in the David Gilroy one, despite reaching the conclusion that yes, he's as guilty as hell).

The Amanda Knox thread is the prime example of one where the initial forum "received wisdom" was that she was guilty, and those arguing for innocence were crazy woo-woos. Finding it hard to sustain this position, many "sceptics" labelled the thread "That Thread", announced that it was "a cess-pit" and stopped participating. While continuing to declare Knox an evil monster in other threads, where the pro-Knox posters, who actually knew the arguments, couldn't reply because any such attempt was piled on with reports of "off topic" and exhortations to take your conspiracy theories where they belong.

The Knox and Lockerbie threads were actually what led to the creation of the Trials and Errors subforum, because of the constant allegations that anyone arguing that a court verdict was incorrect was being labelled a conspiracy theorist and calls for the threads to be moved out of Social Issues and Current Events to the Conspiracy Theories subforum. As Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on appeal the posters who had initially argued that they were clearly guilty simply quit the field. The thread is still regarded as a cess-pit even though it has been amply vindicated.

This thread has turned into the same phenomenon. It's "That Thread", a cess-pit where the high-minded defenders of all things trans no longer go. Any mention of the trans issue elsewhere gets jumped on with "there's a thread for that, take your bigoted ass where it belongs", and so the arguments being advanced here are never seen by most of the members. Then someone decides they'll do a bit of virtue-signalling and comes in here with the usual "be kind", "born in the wrong body", "transwomen are no threat to cis women", "they only want to pee in peace" drivel. And then acts all surprised when they get their arse handed to them on a platter.

I long ago decided that "scepticism" is just picking what seems to be the obviously rational position and defending it unthinkingly. It doesn't take much intellect and most of the time you're right. But sometimes you're wrong, and sometimes what you thought was the obviously rational position turns out to be nothing of the sort. The tide seems to be on the turn on the trans issue, although it's going to take a long time for something so tenaciously embedded in protocols and even the law to be expunged. It's just sad that this forum isn't a place where the issues can be debated rationally, but rather the debate has been confined to this ghetto and most posters refuse to participate.
 
I'm not giving a dictionary definition, I'm commenting on what the term seems to mean among the self-described sceptic community.
 
Rolfe said:
But sometimes you're wrong, and sometimes what you thought was the obviously rational position turns out to be nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Even James Randi made that mistake when he endorsed climate scepticism, without first educating himself about it.

We're all human, and we all make mistakes. What distinguishes a true sceptic is a willingness to re-examine their position, even after they have emotionally invested in it, when confronted with compelling evidence and argument to the contrary.
 
Pixel42 said:
Even James Randi made that mistake when he endorsed climate scepticism, without first educating himself about it.

We're all human, and we all make mistakes. What distinguishes a true sceptic is a willingness to re-examine their position, even after they have emotionally invested in it, when confronted with compelling evidence and argument to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I agree totally.
The Homelessness Issues thread saw a widespread and explicit rejection of objective evidence in favour of subjective, ideology-based anecdotes.
The various Israel/Palestine threads are filled with members who regularly post outright lies, refuse to support their claims with evidence, and again display a preference for ideology over fact.
The UK Politics thread....? I shudder. A cynical, evidence-free echo chamber.
If we are to live up to the forum's name, we need to collectively show how scientific scepticism should be done, and at least try to educate those who are unwilling or unable to practise it. Otherwise, what are we doing here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom