Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Please do, and compare that percentage with men and women

Ok! Your data shows 79 transwomen sex offenders in the UK. There are approximately 260,000 transgender hommies in the UK.

Yeah, that's enough for me to draw the relevant conclusion about how vile the trannys are, across the board.

 

[Thermal]

TransWOMEN. There are no transmen in UK prisons as of that report. I'll leave it up to the readers to guess why

Great! Transwomen, then. Same conclusion reached, except that we can add in that transmen seem to be less violent than any of the groups at all, including Brits as a whole.

 

[Manger Douse]

Ok! Your data shows 79 transwomen sex offenders in the UK. There are approximately 260,000 transgender hommies in the UK.

Yeah, that's enough for me to draw the relevant conclusion about how vile the trannys are, across the board.

What is the vanishingly small percentage you mentioned and how does it compare to men and women?

 

[Manger Douse]

Great! Transwomen, then. Same conclusion reached, except that we can add in that transmen seem to be less violent than any of the groups at all, including Brits as a whole.

Not just for violent offences - there are no out transmen in UK prisons whatsoever. Probably because they can see what a bad idea mixing men and women up can be and want a same sex safe space

 

[Thermal]

What is the vanishingly small percentage you mentioned and how does it compare to men and women?

79 transwoman sex offenders out of 270,000 in the general population? That's about, ooooohhh...what miniscule fraction of a percent is that?

Numbers that small don't really matter in comparison. There's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 79 of them total. In the United ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Kingdom.

 

[Manger Douse]

79 transwoman sex offenders out of 270,000 in the general population? That's about, ooooohhh...what miniscule fraction of a percent is that?

Numbers that small don't really matter in comparison. There's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 79 of them total. In the United ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Kingdom.

What is the figure and how does that compare to the women who you're asking they share their safe spaces with, and to the men who we already deny access to?

 

[Hercules56]

What is the figure and how does that compare to the women who you're asking they share their safe spaces with, and to the men who we already deny access to?

He's right, 79 people out of 270,000, is a truly insignificant minority, not really worthy of considering as having any sort of scientific significance.

 

[Thermal]

What is the figure and how does that compare to the women who you're asking they share their safe spaces with, and to the men who we already deny access to?

Dude, you need to sober up. I have adamantly said that sex segregation is necessary, from locker rooms at the gym to prisons.

 

[Manger Douse]

Dude, you need to sober up. I have adamantly said that sex segregation is necessary, from locker rooms at the gym to prisons

He's right, 79 people out of 270,000, is a truly insignificant minority, not really worthy of considering as having any sort of scientific significance.

There are actually only 48,000 transwomen in the UK. If a race or culture had a .16% chance of having a sexual assault conviction I suspect it would be a big scandal

 

[Thermal]

There are actually only 48,000 transwomen in the UK. If a race or culture had a .16% chance of having a sexual assault conviction I suspect it would be a big scandal

Oh for Christ's sake, dude. Your own link says 262,000. The further breakdown says only 48,000 specifically selected the one specific descriptive term. What the ◊◊◊◊ were the other 150,000? Trans ocelots? Come on.

Eta: in case you forgot, we were talking about whether these sex offenders are representative of the population. If you are talking about trans sex offenders being a small fraction of a single percent of the total trans population, even using your dickhead reworded version, the answer is a resounding and definitive NO, they are not representative. At all. Even a little.

And every mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ claiming otherwise is a liar or really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid, or a transparent bigot.

 

[Manger Douse]

Oh for Christ's sake, dude. Your own link says 262,000. The further breakdown says only 48,000 specifically selected the one specific descriptive term. What the ◊◊◊◊ were the other 150,000? Trans ocelots? Come on.

Fair enough but splitting the 150,000 50/50 still gives us .06% of the population of transwomen having a sexual assault conviction, for men its .04% and the women they're being compared to, 0.0003.


The rate that men commit sexual assault is a scandal and its less than transwomen

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough but splitting the 150,000 50/50 still gives us .06% of the population of transwomen having a sexual assault conviction, for men its .04% and the women they're being compared to, 0.0003

See above. Fractions of a percent that tiny are NOT representative of a population, which was the discussion.

And apologies for getting testy. I don't like it when whole groups of people get picked on because a small percentage of a single percent of them are bad news.

Eta: conviction rates are dicey. Its estimated that one in three men have committed sexual assault. By some definitions, I have (but my partners would disagree). Conviction rates may have more to do with prosecutors, juries, judges and the like than the perpetrators.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Doesn't matter, like the other animals on your list, because they have no meaningful concept of gender that we are aware of. And EC, I do believe you know that.

"That we know of" is carrying a lot of weight. I would also challenge your implicit assumption here. We can absolutely observe that other animals have quite clear social roles, tied to their sex. Lionesses do the majority of the hunting, lions guard the pride against threat and encroaching males. Sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom isn't limited to physical appearance, it's incorporated into behaviors as well. We can observe that other animals do actually have gender roles - and we can also observe rare occasions where one of those animals defies those gender roles. For example, there was a case of a male tiger adopting and raising a weaned cub that had lost its mother. Male tigers don't do childcare, they're pretty much a hit-it-and-quit-it species.

You're assuming that humans are exceptional in that we have behavioral and presentational differences by sex, and we also have some rare instances where individuals step outside of those norms. I don't think it's exceptional at all. I do, however, think that some humans have reified gender roles to a prescriptive level... and most of those who do so are trans rights activists.

Hard to relate. Man can mean human, male humans, a casual form.of address... as far as I know, having a special proprietary term is kind of... meaningless? What are we, the Bloods and the Crips?

Again, maybe I'm just not getting something, but a word is a sound in the air.

You can't possibly be serious. I mean, if you want to take the position that racial slurs are just sounds in the air and they don't carry any meaning, you go right ahead - I'm not joining you on that train though.

I just don't get why it's somehow derogatory to share a form.of address. I have no objection to calling those rare trans men "dude". There are a lot of hills to die on that really show what you are made of. This doesn't seem like a great hill.

It's dehumanizing. It also hampers communication and turns everything into humpty-dumpty language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Emily's Cat : my meta argument here is to be accommodating to a very small minority group. One out of 200 people, at most. I really don't mind using the "wrong" term to make someone feel included, and... just normal. I consider it an obligation of sorts.

I'm perfectly fine with you choosing to use whatever terms you wish to. In real life, when interacting with those few people I know who identify as trans, I try to walk a fine line and avoid unnecessary insult - especially when they're people that I know and actually like as people.

But there's a huge difference between me choosing to refer to my sister's male offspring as "they" when talking to family and friends... and me being told that I am obligated to refer to Eddie Izzard as "she" because Izzard wants me to.

Seriously - this very topic, and some of the blow-up about "misgendering" caused Rolfe to leave the forum for a couple of years, and resulted in me outright denying any of you people the honor of sexed pronouns. There's a reason you're all "they" here. I'm not kidding - a prior member got bent out of shape at being accurately referred to as male, despite everyone using "she" in reference when pronouns were appropriate. Nobody called them "he". But accurately using the term for their actual sex - which they had already disclosed - resulted in infractions and has materially changed the views of several of us when it comes to compelled language that is in contradiction to fact.

 

[Thermal]

"That we know of" is carrying a lot of weight. I would also challenge your implicit assumption here. We can absolutely observe that other animals have quite clear social roles, tied to their sex. Lionesses do the majority of the hunting, lions guard the pride against threat and encroaching males. Sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom isn't limited to physical appearance, it's incorporated into behaviors as well. We can observe that other animals do actually have gender roles - and we can also observe rare occasions where one of those animals defies those gender roles. For example, there was a case of a male tiger adopting and raising a weaned cub that had lost its mother. Male tigers don't do childcare, they're pretty much a hit-it-and-quit-it species.

You're assuming that humans are exceptional in that we have behavioral and presentational differences by sex, and we also have some rare instances where individuals step outside of those norms. I don't think it's exceptional at all. I do, however, think that some humans have reified gender roles to a prescriptive level... and most of those who do so are trans rights activists.

Ok, then staying on this logical train: we can't call any of your listed animals anything, because they might take the others' roles? Or do we call them "tigers that might occasionally behave like tigresses?

You can't possibly be serious. I mean, if you want to take the position that racial slurs are just sounds in the air and they don't carry any meaning, you go right ahead - I'm not joining you on that train though.

Oh, come on. Of course words can be weaponized. That hardly applies to a form of address.

No, wait... you're right. Refusing to acknowledge someone's gender ID and calling them whatever you like *is* weaponizing a form of address. I concede the point, and will watch the cognitive dissonance sink in.

It's dehumanizing. It also hampers communication and turns everything into humpty-dumpty language.

I don't see calling one out of every 200 guys "she" or "miss" at their request to be dehumanizing to anyone. I *do* see refusing to as being very dehumanizing.

Has a transperson ever refused to use a form of address you requested?

Also, before going on, you opened up a bunch of challenges and stuff to me that were abruptly abandoned when I responded, like the priest and nun titles. Were we done with them? What was the resolution? You got quiet.

 

[Thermal]

I'm perfectly fine with you choosing to use whatever terms you wish to. In real life, when interacting with those few people I know who identify as trans, I try to walk a fine line and avoid unnecessary insult - especially when they're people that I know and actually like as people.

But there's a huge difference between me choosing to refer to my sister's male offspring as "they" when talking to family and friends... and me being told that I am obligated to refer to Eddie Izzard as "she" because Izzard wants me to.

Seriously - this very topic, and some of the blow-up about "misgendering" caused Rolfe to leave the forum for a couple of years, and resulted in me outright denying any of you people the honor of sexed pronouns. There's a reason you're all "they" here. I'm not kidding - a prior member got bent out of shape at being accurately referred to as male, despite everyone using "she" in reference when pronouns were appropriate. Nobody called them "he". But accurately using the term for their actual sex - which they had already disclosed - resulted in infractions and has materially changed the views of several of us when it comes to compelled language that is in contradiction to fact.

Ok, I hear this. But on the flip, I'm sure you are aware that using "they" is often intended as a passive aggressive insult? Its intended to emasculate, or otherwise deny sexuality. Its meant as an insult, exactly how you perceive being dorced to use gendered language is. Like, reading your posts using "they" universally, I have to mentally check myself, saying "EC doesn't mean insult by this".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nothing really to do with the thread, though.

It has everything to do with the thread, Thermal.

We're all supposed to be skeptics here, right? We're supposed to critically examine evidence when available, and to employ solid reasoning and logic when talking speculatively. We're supposed to be unafraid to point out falsehoods and baseless belief.

If an observably 48 year old person tells you that they sincerely and genuinely feel like they're actually 5 years old, a rational skeptic would at best accept that this is how they feel about themselves, but would accept no obligation to pretend that they perceive that 48 year old to be a young child. And a rational skeptic would very reasonably recognize that it is inappropriate to grant that 48 year old unfettered access to day care centers based on their internal identification.

Similarly, if we meet someone who believes themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte, we can acknowledge that they hold this belief without feeling at all obligated to grant them control of France's military.

But in this one specific instance, where people of one observable and verifiable sex claim to have the "mind" of the opposite sex, or to "feel like" the opposite sex, or to in some fashion have a subjective, internal, unverifiable "identity" of the opposite sex... somehow we're all supposed to ignore the evidence of our eyes and our ears and our millions of years of evolutionary experience and pretend like their internal feelings about themself supersede their sex.

 

[Rolfe]

I saw something on Twitter earlier to the effect of "It starts with 'It costs you nothing to use their preferred pronouns' and ends up with 'Lia' Thomas getting his cock out in the women's changing rooms." Except it doesn't end there at all. It goes on to 'Karen' White raping a woman prisoner and Sall Grover being extorted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars because "Tickle" was offended by being told that her online chat site was for women only, and Johathan Yaniv taking women to court for refusing to wax his balls in their own homes.

Pronouns are where it starts. Complete takeover of all women's spaces and categories is the objective.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can this be substantiated to a skeptic's standard, or is it one of those "my arguments only make sense if we assume this" things?

I don't know how to provide you the evidence on this, but it is definitely a thing.

Back before the days of self-id, when sex changes were heavily gatekept by clinicians, that was one of the single biggest reasons for those gates. It was documented and fairly well understood for several decades that there are two significantly different motivations for males who wished to present as female. The rarer of them was homosexual transsexualism (HSTS). These were males who were attracted to males, and who tended to be highly effeminate in their behaviors - but not caricatured in the way that drag queens are, just actually displaying feminine behavior patterns. They frequently displayed deep dislike of their sexed bodies from a young age.

The more commonly occurring form were males who were attracted to females, and who experienced sexual arousal and titillation at the thought of themselves as a female. The fantasy of performing "womanly work" and being "treated like a woman" was a turn-on for them. The term for this is autogynephilia (AGP).

Despite the narrative you may hear from activists and social media, AGP *still* exists in DSM-V as a sexual paraphilia, under the heading of transvestic disorders. It is still a mental health disorder.

A significant part of what clinicians did in the before-fore times was to screen people seeking sex changes in order to exclude AGP males, and to ensure that only HSTS males were given the green light. Part of the years of therapy was to make sure that nobody lopped off body parts on a whim, sure. But a significant part of it was to make sure that AGPs were barred from female spaces. BEcause they were - and are - a danger to females. It's a material boundary violation to be forced to participate in someone else's live-action sexual fantasies against your will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just like bathrooms aren't rooms, I suppose.

Come on, buddy.

Try this on: What do transwomen share in common with females of the human species, that they do NOT share in common with males of the human species? In what way exactly are transgender identified males the same as females?