What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

Not as misogynistic as saying men can be women if they feel like it, or men calling women transphobic bigots for defending their right to single sex spaces though.

Trans women shouldn't be blaming and villainising women for wanting safe spaces, they should be blaming the men who have used self identification to commit crimes. Oh and also maybe men in general for being so violent and predatory towards women and girls.

Ok, I’ll bite. You cannot extrapolate from the characteristics of a tiny, highly selected prison population to the rate of sexual offending among trans women in the wider population. you’re not making a valid statistical inference; you’re simply reproducing the familiar transphobic narrative of trans women as sexual predators

I’m sure @Lacksie will be able to tell us. Although I suspect it’ll be some variation of “that’s different”

Ok but how do you explain the much lower rates in TM prisoners? Because surely if it's highly selective then the same rates would be seen in TM with the same criteria used?

TIMS offend at the same rate or even slightly higher as non TIM men if you account and adjust for population numbers. So why should they be admitted to female spaces but non TIM men excluded?

Why would you expect the rates among trans women and trans men in prison to be equivalent? There is no reason to think selection bias will work in similar ways across different demographic groups. Different groups can differ by routes into custody, offending patterns and potentially by who gets recorded as trans in prison.

The basic problem remains the same: prison statistics describe people who are already in prison. They do not tell you the rate of sexual offending in the wider trans population, because the sample is highly selected and the relevant population denominator is missing

Why do transwomen make up the overwhelming majority of transgender prisoner in every jurisdiction that keeps stats? Why do the figures not reflect the figures for men and women more widely?

Given that you acknowledge physical
sex exists and the only way for trans people to be in objective reality, where sex is currently understod to be physical, the sex they perceive themselves as in their subjective reality, is to change what the words Man and Woman mean from physical sex to something else, a change that redefines every human on the planet based on something you can neither explain nor describe but simply accept because you think you see its shadow on a cave wall...

Please share the exact wording in which you would consider it acceptable to express the observation that since "man" and "woman" have unproblematically referred simply to physical sex for over a thousand years, that all the literature, history, laws and culture that refer to "men" or "women" had that meaning in mind, and since trans people, whatever the truth may be of what they experience and the basis one which they experience it, nevertheless remain the same physical sex, they really have no moral claim on the language, identity, rights, resources and history of the opposite sex. Furthermore, we should stop pretending that whatever they are subjectively experiencing makes them objectively any closer to the opposite sex in how they feel, think or act than anyone else is.

Please also consider the degree to which women, in the traditional female sense, on this thread and in society in general, are bending themselves over backwards to find a way to say "no" to frankly unreasonable demands without having that "no" dismissed out of hand without consideration of its owner simply because these aggressors on the female estate do not like the form of words being used. And consider to what degree those efforts are being taken in good faith, and to what degree those careful, resoectful women's efforts are being dismissed simply as "transphobia" anyway.

And then consider in that context, why JKR says what she does, and why she longer cares to twist her words and weaken their impact in the attempt to placate a group who will only ever be placated by silence and compliance.

As i often say, there's no way a woman can find the right words for a man to understand why she is saying no when he doesn't want her no to be valid.

But if TIF are men, surely they would be offending at the same rates as men, and TIM wield be offending at the same rates as women. For some unknown reason, TIF offend at the same rates as women and TIM at the same rates as men. Can you think of any reason this would be….?

Why would you expect the rates among trans women and trans men in prison to be equivalent?

You’d expect them to more or less mirror the stats for men and women more generally. Or you would if you were claiming that transwomen are women and transmen are men.

I think I missed your response in relation to whether it is transphobic to not believe that transwomen are women btw.

But they selected TM in the same way they selected TW for these specific statistics. So wouldn't it be correct to assume that if TW really do have the same psychological experience as women then their offending rates would be lower than TM who have the same psychological experience as men? Because men offend much more than women.

So either TW are offending like men or they are pretending to be trans so they can go to a women's prison. Both of these explanations are exactly why JKR does what she does.

So do you think that individual tweet was transphobic? If she’d not “deleted immediately” (your own words). Why would she?

If you toss a coin 10 times and it comes up 6 heads, you have no reason to think it's not a fair coin.
If you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up 600 heads, you have good reason to think it's not a fair coin.
If you toss a coin 10 times and it comes up 9 heads, you have good reason to think it's not a fair coin.

The prison population may be small, but the increase in offending rate over the baseline is so great that it indicates statistical significance anyway.

Prison statistics are often very skewed relative to the wider population because imprisonment is not a random sample of society. Differences in socioeconomic disadvantage, homelessness, substance use, mental-health problems, exposure to violence, policing, criminalisation, sentencing, age profile and routes into custody can all affect who ends up in prison.

So if trans women make up a larger share of transgender prisoners than they do of the wider trans population, that tells you that the pathways into imprisonment differ between groups. It does not, by itself, tell you why they differ, and it certainly does not let you infer the offending rate of trans women in the general population without a proper denominator and comparable population data.

here may well be differences in offending patterns between trans women and trans men, and some of those differences could plausibly relate to sex-linked physical or developmental factors. But we do not have the population-level evidence needed to establish the offending rate of trans women or trans men in the general population from prison statistics alone.

And I don't agree with naturalising sexual violence as though it simply flows from chromosomes, hormones or genitals. Sexual violence is shaped by social, behavioural and situational factors, not reducible to anatomy.

For the same reason, I don’t think blanket sex segregation based solely on genital anatomy is, by itself, an adequate or evidence-based strategy for preventing sexual violence. Risk assessment, behaviour, offence history and vulnerability are far more directly relevant to safeguarding.

The central flaw in your logic is that while tossing a coin is random, selection into prison is anything but. That's why the prison population is not a representative sample from which you can draw more general conclusions - if it were selected randomly through tossing a coin, it would be and you would be able to draw conclusions based on probability.

Exactly. Like every other boundary violating man on the planet. Consider Upton, who the poster was championing earlier (I paraphrase) saying under oath to a barrister’s question about biological women - I don’t understand what you mean so I can’t answer the question about the privacy and dignity of women, because I’m a woman and I’m biological. Biological sex is a nebulous dogwhistle.

I don't think a screenshot of that tweet would be meaningful evidence to establish JKR is transphobic. No.

Go on then. Explain how trans-identified men are over-selected for sexual offences compared with other men.

But you are drawing your focus only on trans people who experience this posited genuine disconnect between subjective reality and objective reality, when the section of male society who claim to identify as women is far larger than that. It undoubtably does include men "performing their idea of femaleness" because (1) many trans women commentators have spoken about this, and (2) people who are in objective reality male are attempting to express their subjective reality of female in the objective world by consciously appropriating and inhabiting the cultural and physical spaces that objective world codes "female". How else can you describe that than "performing their idea of femaleness"?

You have already accepted that to believe TWAW outside their heads requires redefining what it means to be a "woman". Until that is done, woman in objective reality remains physically female. If that is ever done, being a "woman" is no longer related to the needs and experiences and existence of people who are physically female. Either way, there is no path that leads to male bodied TW being "the same as" female bodied people simply because of how they feel. The leverage of the phrase TWAW to claim they are or can be is indeed a foundational falsehood.

Finally, if you are not actively trying to "drown out" the wider discussion, you may want to consider whether in your obvious deep concern for this one.m very limited aspect of the topic, you have been having an unintended effect.

So if trans women make up a larger share of transgender prisoners than they do of the wider trans population, that tells you that the pathways into imprisonment differ between groups.

"So if trans-identified men make up a larger share of trans-identified prisoners than they do of the wider population, that tells you that the pathways into imprisonment differ between groups"

"So if men make up a larger share of prisoners than they do of the wider population, that tells you that the pathways into imprisonment differ between groups".

No, it tells you that men commit more crimes. Try again.

As someone who actually watched this live it was jaw dropping even for me who is familiar with how this movement gaslights.

We do have population-wide stats for male v female sex offending.

These show that men commit 98-99% of sexual offences (depending on which year’s stats you look at).

There is no evidence that TIMs offend sexually at a lower rate than other males. The data we do have suggests the opposite, but even if we leave that aside, there is NO evidence that trans women are less of a threat to women and girls than other men.

So can you explain why, in the light of that, you don’t support a blanket policy that all males, no matter how they identify, stay out of female single sex spaces?

I absolutely support this discrepancy to be fully investigated from all angles and if there are any injustices to be righted.

For the same reason, I don’t think blanket sex segregation based solely on genital anatomy is, by itself, an adequate or evidence-based strategy for preventing sexual violence. Risk assessment, behaviour, offence history and vulnerability are far more directly relevant to safeguarding.

You genuinely believe this statement?

Men are faster, stronger, have greater muscle mass, larger heart, larger lungs, faster reactions. It's a safety issue. There are outliers, but the vast majority of men can overpower nearly every woman.

Over 90% of all sexual crime is committed by men. And you think it's ok to pop them in prison with women?
Because of feelings?

Vulnerable women who are often in there because of the actions of men in the first place?