What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

Do you support further investigation into what these numbers mean?

Until we know what they mean, do you agree that we should not be taking a cavalier attitude to women's safety by assuming on no evidence that the inclusion of trans women in women only spaces will not increase the risk to women of sexual assault in spaces where women may be vulnerable, alone or simply accessible?

Or do you feel accomodating trans women's gender dysphoria is urgent enough vs women's safety that we should go ahead before the prison numbers have been explained and shown not to reflect an actual difference in the risk posed by female and by trans identifying male people?

You mean individual testimonies don’t count as data? But then what about all the individual testimonies of TIM who claim they are women? Either all individual testimonies are valid or none are. Which is it?

Correct — not from prison statistics. You cannot infer the offending rate of men, or of particular groups of men, in the general population simply from the characteristics of male prisoners. Black men, for example, are disproportionately represented in prison, but that does not mean you can simply read their population offending rate off the prison population.

The difference is that for men and women we have multiple large-scale population-level data sources — police-recorded crime, conviction data, longitudinal studies and known population denominators — which allow us to estimate and compare patterns of offending far more meaningfully.
For trans women and trans men, equivalent population-level data are much more limited

individual testimonies provide important evidence and data about people's personal experiences, they don't provide evidence of rates of offending across a larger population- you need statistical data gathered from large or representative samples of populations to provide that.

@Lacksie -Victim testimonies , including by the children of transpeople who love them and convictions evidence eg the transcrime website are indeed evidence of the prevalence of trans offending!

I'm so sorry you don't feel able to accept reality. It's painful at times.

I support better data collection from trans / gender diverse populations.

I don't think any of your claims about safeguarding are rational, or evidence based.

So you’re saying the TIM individual testimonies should be discounted when providing evidence of why they should be allowed in female spaces because of being unsafe in male spaces. Gotcha. So as we know they are male, as you helpfully pointed out previously in the thread, there is no reason to allow them into female spaces is there?

They are not evidence of prevalence,

To estimate prevalence or an offending rate you need, at minimum, some way of knowing how completely cases have been captured and a reliable denominator for the population from which those cases were drawn. A website which selectively catalogues cases involving trans offenders can demonstrate examples of offending; it cannot tell you what proportion of trans people offend, or whether that proportion is higher or lower than another population.

The same applies to testimonies from children of trans parents. Those testimonies may be extremely important evidence about the experiences of those particular children, but they cannot tell us how common abuse is among trans parents generally.

We know that in all jurisdictions that keep data, transwomen offend more than transmen. In no other subdivision of the population do the ‘women’ offend at a higher rate than the ‘men’. Happy to leave it there though and let others judge your reluctance to address this.

Well you think men can “feel female” so if you believe something isn’t true, it probably is. I mean, so far you have not produced one rational or evidence based argument as to why a male “knows he is female” apart from some gubbins about neurological disorders.

It’s not gold standard evidence but it is evidence. It’s the best we have. And the figures are not unique to this country.

Well quite. Glad we got that sorted out.

Exactly this
I've not seen anything to back up any of the bizarre claims, just constant rejection of evidence provided and answering questions with questions.

Always with the black and wihte, extreme thinking.

One does not need to assume the figures extrapolate. One just needs to care anough about women to think this is concerning and important enough to dig deeper not hand wave it away.

Something is going on here.

If it doesn't align to the wider population, that is important to know. Are non-trans offenders and trans men getting off lightly? Are other factors making a specific subset of trans women dangerous where others are not, and if so how can we take that into account in safeguarding (assuming that "well, they are all men so all we need to do is not single trans women out for special access to women and children that other men don't have" is for some reason not an option)

If it does align to the wider population, well, that is clearly something important to know given how much political noise there is right now about trans women's "right" to be in women's spaces.

Because frankly, if there was statistic evidence that trans people people in prison suffer a high rate of heart attacks than so-called "cis" people would you just hand wave that away as not even suggesting something worthy of further investigation? I don't think so. I think you just want to hand wave this away because you are scared to see what looking behind those numbers might mean you have to face up to. (And to be clear, this is not supposed to nudge nudge suggest that all trans people are predators, deviants or whatever derailing accusation might get thrown - simply to suggest that some of the men who are those things are found identifying as trans women, and that is enough to blow the "trans women in women's spaces pose no extra risk or danger to women" conceit completely)

But I see we are about to get reduced to toiletological arguments again 🙄

I don't accept that policing entry to toilets based on the assumed shape of someone's genitals is rationally connected to safeguarding

It's imperfect, sure, but what's the alternative? Segregation based on self identity?

Self identify as vulnerable and not posing a risk == use the pink room
Self identify as not vulnerable and posing a risk == use the stink room
Self identify as vulnerable and posing a risk == stack overflow, out of memory, unhandled exception, does not compute?

The prison population is a good indicator of violent criminality because the figures are reliable and they can be split by offence.

There are lots of crimes that are committed that don't result in a prison sentence, but it will be the same for every group.

If the claim is that the sample is too small, or trans people are more likely to face a prison sentence, or the proportion is incorrect, that is, there are more trans identifying men then we know, its interesting, but still doesnt warrant removing sex for safeguarding. These men are still committing sexual offences.

We could say the same about any group of men. There will be few men living in a small village, but it doesnt mean the statistics are so unreliable they can be admitted into the female estate.

The reason people are confused with your argument is that you acknowledged sex and have situations where you know its important, like sport, but dont acknowledged sex is a factor in other ways.

I have to remind you that to be protected under the PC of GR, a man just has to intend to transition, to obtain a GRC a man only has to have a diagnosis of GD. Neither of which changes anything about his body. Hes the same man as before.

Gosh, apologies I am a little late to the party, but in answer your question OP, JKR has said absolutely nothing that is transphobic. She stands up to misogynistic men, defends the rights of women and holds the apologists and the BeKinds to account.

She is spiffing, a thoroughly good egg and the world needs more like her.

Not the minds of many of the people I reply to. But I do believe clear logical challenges to the handwavy justifications make a difference to the people who read them.

Something as huge as taking away the name of half the human race (both halfs actually) and turning it into some sort of personality marker should not go unexamined. I hope to make the people who advocate for it justify it properly.

LOL, Schrodingers statistics.

We can't just take the stats of people who have been convicted because that's only the subset of people who have been convicted.

And we can't include the stats of the people who haven;t been convicted because we don't know they committed the crime.

So many TRA arguments boil down to heads I win tails you lose

Exactly. Consummately bad faith.

I don’t believe any TRA or fully invested TRA ally is capable of having a reasoned good faith discussion about women’s sex based rights if their life depended on it.

That’s why when people aren’t all that invested, they mostly see the issue. And they change sides.

The problem is the assumption in “it will be the same for every group”. You don’t know that from prison statistics. in fact we know that different groups do not pass through the criminal justice system in identical ways. Criminal justice data show well-documented disproportionalities and biases, especially by ethnicity. Different populations can differ in detection, policing, prosecution, offence profile, sentencing, previous convictions and routes into custody. The characteristics of people who have reached prison cannot simply be treated as the offending rate of the wider population.

And I have never disputed that some trans women commit sexual offences, or that sex differences may be relevant to some behavioural differences. Hormonal differences in particular , can evidently affect behaviour.

What I dispute is the much larger inference that is being drawn from that.
There are three separate claims here:

1. Some trans women commit sexual offences.
2. Trans women as a population commit sexual offences at a disproportionate rate.
3. Therefore blanket sex segregation based on birth sex is a necessary and proportionate safeguarding response.

The first is obviously true. It does not establish the second, and even if the second were established, it does not justify the third.

im also troubled by the implication that behavioural differences should be viewed as biologically fixed- to me that seems to justify naturalising sexual violence as an inevitable consequence of male biology.

Sexual offending is a complex behaviour with biological, psychological, developmental and social determinants.

But on this thread you are quite comfortable extrapolating trans people's individual descriptions to some sort of hand wavy "theory of trans" and on that basis making claims for trans womens inclusion in the female peopulation at least lingustically and socially.

So given that you will base population level decisions on anecdote when it suits you, I don't think you have a leg to stand on picking and choosing which sources are relevant to the wider population and which are not.

I think these discussions are good because they expose the missing details in the debate that aren't explored on TV or the radio.

The idea of what transition is, why we have single sex spaces, how different single sex and mixed spaces are.

Allowing trans identifying men into female spaces is removing sex from safeguarding. Theres no other way to interpret it.

1. Some men commit sexual offences.
2. Men as a population commit sexual offences at a disproportionate rate.
3. Therefore blanket sex segregation based on birth sex is a necessary and proportionate safeguarding response.

To use your words:
The first is obviously true. It does not establish the second, and even if the second were established, it does not justify the third.

im also troubled by the implication that behavioural differences should be viewed as biologically fixed- to mean that seems to justify naturalising sexual violence as an inevitable consequence of male biology.

Sexual offending is a complex behaviour with biological, psychological, developmental and social determinants.

I mean, trans questions aside, that's the current status quo. Are you arguing to remove the blanket exemption of all men from women's spaces, and if not, why not? Why just single out the trans identifying ones to be released from this unfair biological profiling? It's exactly the same logic after all