Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Living in such a State, it evidently means nothing.

Pixel42 just got done explaining to you why it doesn't mean nothing.

Yet we continue to see that not happening.

What exactly is "that"? Again, Pixel42 pointed out all the things that your data does not capture. At every turn, you ignore this.

More to the point you are evading. The tweety author was being dishonest, and fear mongering. Like some do here.

Again, you don't seem to get it. Let's assume that you're correct, that the data is entirely due to non-trans sexual predators declaring themselves to be trans. Hell, let's assume (with zero evidence) that there are NO sexual predators that are actually trans, that all "trans" sexual predators are actually cis pretending to be trans.

We are still left with the conclusion that self ID puts women at an unacceptable risk. We are still left with the conclusion that we should keep males out of female spaces. Whether these predators are actually trans or just cis pretending to be trans makes zero difference.

 

[Thermal]

Pixel42 just got done explaining to you why it doesn't mean nothing.

What exactly is "that"? Again, Pixel42 pointed out all the things that your data does not capture. At every turn, you ignore this.

Again, you don't seem to get it. Let's assume that you're correct, that the data is entirely due to non-trans sexual predators declaring themselves to be trans. Hell, let's assume (with zero evidence) that there are NO sexual predators that are actually trans, that all "trans" sexual predators are actually cis pretending to be trans.

We are still left with the conclusion that self ID puts women at an unacceptable risk. We are still left with the conclusion that we should keep males out of female spaces. Whether these predators are actually trans or just cis pretending to be trans makes zero difference.

There's no way you could honestly be misunderstanding this.

The tweeter claims that transwomen can't enter women's rest rooms, because they are disproportionately dangerous pervs, and presents a dickhead stupid misrepresentation of facts to 'prove' it. This is what I keep saying: it's not that your sides position is ultimately wrong, but that your reasons for advocating it are sickeningly wrong. Your response that "well its really the cis guys you have to worry about" is the most obnoxious goalpist move yet seen.

 

[smartcooky]

Living in such a State, it evidently means nothing.

Yet we continue to see that not happening. Unless you have that long requested data that indicates said increase, finally? I've been asking you for it for a long time now. You only respond with more wailing that it is inevitable, as you do again here.

More to the point you are evading. The tweety author was being dishonest, and fear mongering. Like some do here.

You have had it explained to you multiple times why there might not be data, but you find those explanations inconvenient , so you just handwave them all away.

But I'll explain it again just for you
1. No-one collects the case data except transcrimeuk.com who you dismiss as tranny bashers
2. Mainstream media don't report cases.
3. Self selection out because women don't want to expose themselves to danger, which you dismiss as meh, tough!

Every time you have had evidence presented to you, you dismiss it because you claim its either been cherry picked, or it doesn't meet your unique-to-you, personal criteria for evidence (which by the way, you NEVER apply to any of the evidence you provide to back up YOUR claims)

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no way you could honestly be misunderstanding this.

The tweeter claims that transwomen can't enter women's rest rooms, because they are disproportionately dangerous pervs, and presents a dickhead stupid misrepresentation of facts to 'prove' it. This is what I keep saying: it's not that your sides position is ultimately wrong, but that your reasons for advocating it are sickeningly wrong. Your response that "well its really the cis guys you have to worry about" is the most obnoxious goalpist move yet seen.

That isn't my position. I'm pointing out that even if we accept your claim, we still end up at the same policy recommendation of maintaining sex segregation. The one you keep insisting you don't oppose, but then keep opposing.

 

[Aber]

We've been over this a hundred times: transwomen KNOW they are not bio females.

But are prepared to say under oath that they are - see Dr Upton's testimony.

 

[Thermal]

But are prepared to say under oath that they are - see Dr Upton's testimony.

Then argue with Upton. Upton is not the spokesperson for the planet.

When we left off, you thought you were gotcha-ing about me having no objection to transwomen in the men's room. Were you going somewhere with that or was it one of those random stream of consciousness postings?

 

[Thermal]

You have had it explained to you multiple times why there might not be data,

Lamely, yes.

but you find those explanations inconvenient , so you just handwave them all away.

No, they just suck. But you want to do them again? OK:

But I'll explain it again just for you
1. No-one collects the case data except transcrimeuk.com who you dismiss as tranny bashers

Anyone can collect data. If you want to play skeptic, but no one on your side worldwide can figure out how to do so, that's a you thing.

And surprise surprise surprise, you're lying. I don't believe i said a word about that site.

2. Mainstream media don't report cases.

Oh, great, now we are going full tilt Q-anon.

I have been perfectly willing to accept 'non-mainstream' news. It does need to stand up to basic scrutiny, though. The bigoted tweety Rolfe recently posted does not.

3. Self selection out because women don't want to expose themselves to danger, which you dismiss as meh, tough!

Self banishment is not an external barometer for actual risk. It's entirely subjective. And again, as Rolfe's tweety inadvertently showed- the risk of coming up against a cis male or even a female sex offender is much higher than coming up against a transwoman sex offender. If these self banishers aren't concerned with the larger threats, are we supposed to believe that the far less likely threat is really what concerns them?

So that's it? That's your argument for why the anti trans side can't come up with any data?

 

[Ziggurat]

Self banishment is not an external barometer for actual risk.

Absolutely true. And this applies to trans identifying males who want to self banish from the men's room.

It's entirely subjective.

So is the desire for trans identifying males to access female spaces.

Funny how you only apply this objection to women's desires.

And again, as Rolfe's tweety inadvertently showed- the risk of coming up against a cis male or even a female sex offender is much higher than coming up against a transwoman sex offender. If these self banishers aren't concerned with the larger threats

The risk of coming up against a cis male predator is one of the reasons to exclude all males from female spaces. It's not a reason to allow males into female spaces.

As for the risk of encountering a female sex offender, I've pointed this out before: it's not even remotely equivalent. Female sexual predation patterns DO NOT match male sexual predation patterns. Female sexual predators almost never go after strangers unless they are working with a male sexual predator. A female in the bathroom with an unknown female sexual predator is actually at very low risk, and furthermore, the consequences of female sexual predation to a female are far less severe than the consequences of male sexual predation to a female. So for you to dismiss concerns about male sexual predation because of the existence of female sexual predation is not only incredibly patronizing, it's also deeply ignorant.

 

[Thermal]

Absolutely true. And this applies to trans identifying males who want to self banish from the men's room.

So is the desire for trans identifying males to access female spaces.

Funny how you only apply this objection to women's desires.

The risk of coming up against a cis male predator is one of the reasons to exclude all males from female spaces. It's not a reason to allow males into female spaces.

As for the risk of encountering a female sex offender, I've pointed this out before: it's not even remotely equivalent. Female sexual predation patterns DO NOT match male sexual predation patterns. Female sexual predators almost never go after strangers unless they are working with a male sexual predator. A female in the bathroom with an unknown female sexual predator is actually at very low risk, and furthermore, the consequences of female sexual predation to a female are far less severe than the consequences of male sexual predation to a female. So for you to dismiss concerns about male sexual predation because of the existence of female sexual predation is not only incredibly patronizing, it's also deeply ignorant.

So now the goalposts are moved to predation patterns? OK. What are the trans offender predation patterns in the 90 offenders on question?

If you don't already know, your argument is again a cheap bob and weave.

 

[Ziggurat]

So now the goalposts are moved to predation patterns?

What do you mean, now? Predation patterns have been part of the discussion since the start. There's no goalpost move, there's just you being clueless.

OK. What are the trans offender predation patterns in the 90 offenders on question?

The offender predation patterns of trans identifying males are the same as other males.

Because, get this, they are male.

 

[d4m10n]

She also flatly denies that you can feel as if you were born in the wrong body

She literally said no child is born in the wrong body.

You realize these are two distinct claims, right?

To say no one ever feels like they are in the wrong body is just silly and wrong.

To say no one is born in the wrong body is to state a preference about how young people are treated by the purveyors of body modification.

The latter is a sentiment that can be appropriated without modification by, say, anti-FGM activists.

 

[smartcooky]

So now the goalposts are moved to predation patterns?

Predation patterns of males v females was already discussed previously. IIRC you were part of that discussion.

So no, the goalposts haven't moved.. they are precisely always where they have been all the time

 

[smartcooky]

What do you mean, now? Predation patterns have been part of the discussion since the start. There's no goalpost move, there's just you being clueless.

The offender predation patterns of trans identifying males are the same as other males.

Because, get this, they are male.

But the incidence of predation among transgender identified males is several times greater than for non-transgender identified males.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

This has been posted before, but @Thermal has either ignored it or handwaved it away as he does with anything (no matter its source) that doesn't fit with his preferred narrative.

 

[Thermal]

What do you mean, now? Predation patterns have been part of the discussion since the start. There's no goalpost move, there's just you being clueless.

No idea what was discussed 'since the start', but you're ducking the question. What 'patterns' are being referred to that are relevant to transwomen in public rest rooms?

The offender predation patterns of trans identifying males are the same as other males.

Because, get this, they are male.

Then you don't know, and are assuming transwomen follow these patterns for convenience?

 

[Thermal]

But the incidence of predation among transgender identified males is several times greater than for non-transgender identified males.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

This has been posted before, but @Thermal has either ignored it or handwaved it away as he does with anything (no matter its source) that doesn't fit with his preferred narrative.

The subject matter in that paper doesn't even touch on predation patterns.

Eta: as this paper addresses only sex offence convictions, Ziggurat will be along presently to scold you for holding up stats that do not account for the myriad of other variables beyond the offenders gender, including being poor, poorly represented, drug use, domestic violence versus stranger assaults, and all the rest. He's quite adamant about that.

Also eta: the paper mentioning patterns doesn't address at all what they actually *were*, as being discussed here.

 

[Ziggurat]

No idea what was discussed 'since the start', but you're ducking the question. What 'patterns' are being referred to that are relevant to transwomen in public rest rooms?

For starters, male sexual predators will commonly target strangers. Female sexual predators rarely do.

Then you don't know, and are assuming transwomen follow these patterns for convenience?

I do know, it's been observed, and if you expected anything else you're an idiot who doesn't understand anything about human sexuality. I will assume that you're merely trying to play devil's advocate here and aren't actually this confused, but it's a pointless exercise.

ETA: the kicker is that it doesn't even matter. Again, even if we assume that there are ZERO "true" transgender offenders, only cis offenders pretending to be trans, the policy recommendations will remain the same: enforce sex segregation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We've been over this a hundred times: transwomen KNOW they are not bio females. If they thought they were, literally, there would be no trans discussion at all. There would just be a bunch of guys (who literally thought they were female) wondering what all the fuss was about.

An awful lot of very vocal males with transgender identities are very explicit in saying that they're just as female as any other female, saying that they're biologically female, and otherwise contradicting your claim. You might think they should logically and rationally know that they're not bio females... but a whole lot of them have redefined what the word female means and they seem to believe that they're female because of thoughts in their heads or because of exogenous hormones or because they think that female is a socially constructed category that doesn't have any real meaning because sex is a spectrum...

And that's why I narrow my eyes at you when you make this claim. A delusion means you believe your thing is real. You 'feeling tall' is not something you literally believe to be true. I actually share a version of that- I'm 6 foot and 225 lbs, but I think I am much smaller, and am somewhat stunned when I see a picture of myself with others.

But I don't think it is literally true that I'm 5'8" and 160 lbs. It's a vague feeling that doesn't change my core identity. Being trans, I am told, does, and I believe them. They know it is not factually true, but the feeling is far more encompassing than feeling taller or shorter.

I disagree on a few things here. First, I don't think you should believe them, because it's unsubstantiated and unprovable - you're accepting that someone saying their feelings are real means that they're real in the way you think of them as real. And I don't think that's a good assumption for you to make.

Second, at least some of them seem to not know that it's factually true - in part because they've decided that sex is a spectrum that anyone with any body parts can be anywhere on. Some of them seem quite convinced that they're biologically female because they take hormones and have had some surgeries done - we had one in this very thread that caused a significant kerfuffle when they were referred to as being objectively male. It resulted in several posters being dinged for "intentionally misgendering" a male as male (not man, but actually male). That poster claimed to be just as female as any other female in all the ways that mattered.

And lastly... You seem to believe that the feeling of being transgender is a stronger feeling. I don't think that's true at all.

I think you're unswervingly generous in granting as much compassion and consideration to transgender identified males as you possibly can be. I think you really want to be a nice guy, and you think that means believing what they say, accepting their descriptions, and not questioning the validity of their claims.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's no way you could honestly be misunderstanding this.

The tweeter claims that transwomen can't enter women's rest rooms, because they are disproportionately dangerous pervs, and presents a dickhead stupid misrepresentation of facts to 'prove' it. This is what I keep saying: it's not that your sides position is ultimately wrong, but that your reasons for advocating it are sickeningly wrong. Your response that "well its really the cis guys you have to worry about" is the most obnoxious goalpist move yet seen.

There've been multiple analyses that demonstrate that the rate of sexual and violent offending among males with transgender identities is as high or higher than the rate for males as a whole.

Why are you determined to ignore it, and continually pretend that such analyses are misrepresentations?

 

[Aber]

Then argue with Upton. Upton is not the spokesperson for the planet.

But is a well-evidenced counter-example to your wild generalisation.

I still don't understand what you are arguing for on this thread as your claims are all over the place.

 

[Rolfe]

Six months after FWS.

‘I objected to a man using my gym’s women’s changing room. Now, I’m banned by the council’

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex, Miranda Newsom has been ‘punished’ for protecting a female-only space

www.telegraph.co.uk