Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

No, statistics don't work that way. We incarcerate significantly more people of color than Caucasians. Does that necessarily mean that that people of color commit more crime? Or is it possible that people of color may be more likely to be arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated?
So... your argument is that transgender identified males get caught and punished for sex offenses more often than other males, and that regular old run of the mill males are simply under-represented in prisons?

And you somehow think this is an effective argument for why females should be forced to allow any ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ male who says magic words into spaces where we are naked or vulnerable?

"Oh, see, really it's that males as a whole are way, way, way, way worse than you think they are, it's just that the trans identified ones get caught more. Therefore, you females should just totally throw open the doors and let any male who professes gendery feels to violate your boundaries or else you're a bigot!"
 
Anecdotes are not persuasive. And my point was to show that making conclusions from the statistics can be challenging. A higher percentage of sexual crimes out of total cimes that a population is incarcerated for does not mean that population is more inclined to commit sexual crimes than another population of inmates that were ncarcerated for other crimes.
That's pretty much what it means... unless you're arguing that way more males ought to be in prison than are actually there. A point I would probably not dispute.
 
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?
No. It means that AT MINIMUM transgender identified males retain a male pattern of criminal offending.

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.
 
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.
I find it interesting that the vast majority of 'gender critical" posters in this thread are those who actually did engage in skepticism. I know I started out far more supportive of transgender people, and much more willing to accomodate than where I've ended up. I think most of us have.

Almost across the board, we started from a position of "be kind and accommodate" and bathrooms don't matter, and most transgender people are harmless, and we just need some common sense. Over time, as we've done more and more and more investigation, as we've learned more about the effect of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, paraphilias, exploitation of loopholes, actual females harmed, nearly 1000 athletic wins lost to obvious males, and so on... we've become LESS willing to give any ground whatsoever.

I started out willing to use whatever pronouns a person asked for. I've ended up flat out refusing to give ground on that because it's the thin end of the wedge. Now I'm at a point where there are several situations in which nobody gets sex-based pronouns because I refuse to use wrong-sex ones for special people.
 
Last peek at the thread for 2024. How y'all doing with that defining what a wo/man is thingy?
I've got a perfectly cromulent definition. A man/woman is an adult human male/female. The TRA's don't accept that definition, but haven't figured out a coherent non-circular alternative.
 
My hope is that 2025 is the year our resident TRAs start grappling with the problem of where to go with the appeal to mental health, once you concede that self ID for sports is untenable.
 
I've got a perfectly cromulent definition. A man/woman is an adult human male/female. The TRA's don't accept that definition, but haven't figured out a coherent non-circular alternative.
You guys making any progress on those who are in the gray area, ie biologically one but for all intents and purposes living like the other? I gather that's where the multi year thread is stuck.
 
You guys making any progress on those who are in the gray area, ie biologically one but for all intents and purposes living like the other? I gather that's where the multi year thread is stuck.
The multi year thread would be very different, if it were stuck on providing for people who are biologically one but for all intents and purposes living like the other.

The whole point of modern trans rights activism is that you don't have to live like the other to claim moral entitlement to the other's status and privileges in society.
 
You guys making any progress on those who are in the gray area, ie biologically one but for all intents and purposes living like the other?
There's no gray area. A male can be as feminine as they wish, wear dresses and make-up, and I don't care. But they're still male and their internal feelings don't entitle them to violate reasonable boundaries.

I gather that's where the multi year thread is stuck.
Nope. It's stuck with the fringe resetters who want to come in and recycle the same old "Oh you can't tell" and "It never happens, but if it does happen it's rare, and if it's not rare it doesn't matter"
 
There's no gray area. A male can be as feminine as they wish, wear dresses and make-up, and I don't care. But they're still male and their internal feelings don't entitle them to violate reasonable boundaries.


Nope. It's stuck with the fringe resetters who want to come in and recycle the same old "Oh you can't tell" and "It never happens, but if it does happen it's rare, and if it's not rare it doesn't matter"
Ok: if they get ye Olde slice and dice surgeries, are they legit or still what they were born as?

I ask because it would clarify if the issue was less about identification and more about packing pipe.
 
Ok: if they get ye Olde slice and dice surgeries, are they legit or still what they were born as?
A male who has had a penectomy and orchiectomy is still a male. Even if they remove ALL the plumbing, including vas deferens, seminal vesicles, etc. they're still male. Nothing at all can prompt that male to develop a female reproductive system ;).
I ask because it would clarify if the issue was less about identification and more about packing pipe.
I used to be a lot more willing to accommodate based on a lack of plumbing... but I've backed away from that view. The vast majority of males who undergo complete sex-mimicking surgeries still look male. They still have a male physique, male height and hand/foot size, male jaw line and brow ridges, male shoulder structure, male hips. If they're exceptionally small-statured and spend a LOT of time depilating and spackling on the make-up, they may be able to pass relatively well... but the number who do so is extremely small.

But at the end of the day, what we've seen over and over is that males who've leaned all the way in still retain male behavioral patterns. Even if you remove their body's ability to create testosterone and pump them full of exogenous estrogen... they still commit violent crimes at the same rate as non-altered males.

And frankly, I'm not inclined to try to check for frank & beans when 99% of the time, they're obviously males.


ETA: A really, really, really convincingly made plastic apple still can't be turned into a pie. No matter how convincingly they mimic a female, they're still male.

Same goes in the other direction by the way. "Elliot" Page really doesn't pass as a male, no matter how much they wish to flee being female.
 
Last edited:
Ok: if they get ye Olde slice and dice surgeries, are they legit or still what they were born as?

I ask because it would clarify if the issue was less about identification and more about packing pipe.
Did the Chinese emperors or Ottoman sultans view their eunuchs as women or dickless men?
 
You guys making any progress on those who are in the gray area, ie biologically one but for all intents and purposes living like the other? I gather that's where the multi year thread is stuck.

If you are male then by definition you are living as a male. There's no right or wrong way for males or females to live. However you choose to live, you are the sex you are, and you are living as yourself.
 
Oh look. Just what we were talking about.


Although, to be strictly fair, I don't think 45% is a majority of any sort, let alone a staggering one. Maybe the headline writer was going for "staggering proportion"? I'd agree with that.
 
Last edited:
Courtesy of the Libertarians at reason<dot> com, a cautionary tale out of California on the consequences of 'gender self-identification'...

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

https://reason.com/2024/12/26/women...te-will-have-to-refer-to-attacker-as-she-her/
 

Back
Top Bottom