I totally have proof! But...oh look is that a bird? Have to run catch a train, sorry!

I have to say that I find it very frustrating that you keep saying people have misunderstood or misinterpreted or are not in full position of the facts then having to go the minute you are asked for clarification

I have noticed this happens a lot and not just with this poster!

Bespin- I have to say that I find it very frustrating that you keep saying people have misunderstood or misinterpreted or are not in full position of the facts then having to go the minute you are asked for clarification. I assume that it’s coincidence- but it is pretty bloody convenient. I am desperate to be better informed. Trying to find stuff out is like trying to catch will o’ the whisps.

not because she was angry, but because she was likely to get deleted.
Your intention showed through clearly Bertrand

Bespin your theme seems to be "but if you only just knew more about trans!"
That is actually the problem, we do already. That line only works on your libfem allies.
I can even tell you Serano's tackle status. I have read parts of the book. Solidified my stance if anything.

I'm frequently angry

I dont have a big issue with angry

But what she was shouting was the issue...it was almost as if she was daring MNHQ to ban her, when she'd only just turned up

If someone reports all of those posts she'll be gone, one post on a thread has already gone and she posted very similar comments on a few threads

I post a fair bit on twitter and I find myself moderating my responses if I am angry simply because I know it will be used against me and the point will be lost while the focus shifts on to my lady emotions
It has always been used as a tactic to shut women up. We then stop debating and spend our time explaining why we are angry and justifying oyr perfectly nornal emotions.

There are lots of links on twitter to articles I'm mostly on my phone so don't have access to a lot of the stuff. Going to have to go today as we are floating our boat so busy day

Bespin, I'd be interested to read a summary of the history and of the misunderstandings that you think GC posters have, if you've explained it to others before or if there are any good articles you've found? I'm not able to commit to several books, since I already have to do a lot of reading in my day job.

I didn't say it was 41% it's as you say about per population and I agree there appears to be an issue with this. Though having experiance of vikki Thompson and talked with the people who tried to help her this is not just a onesided debate and a real. Solution is needed.

The Linking of the epaulity act and the gra is the biggest assumption. But there are. A. Number being made around young people and the work that is done with them something I have direct experience with

"but they make a lot of assumptions to fill in the gaps in there knowledge."

Could you give an example of the sort of assumptions you mean, please?

The number of women in prison for sexual offenses is not even close to 41%. If you're attempting to compare the total number of women to the total number of male prisoners who claim to be trans then that's just silly, given the over prevalence of trans people in the population is so low. It's comparing apples to donuts.

But yes- the "he was angry- what do you expect?" is a common theme. You often see it on here when people talk about male partners and sons breaking things. It's chilling. And the automatic socialised response of women is to retreat, to appease, to introspect. Which is what is happening in the trans debate. I am sure that many women have concerns but struggle to express them.

Totally agree that this needs to be facts lead debate happy to debate it in that way and hopefully demonstrate as we have done in the past that a lot of the fears are not founded. That is not to say that they are not genuine. I don't have the figures to hand at the moment as last time it was on twitter but its something to do with overall populations and it works out close to the number of other woman who are in prison for sexual offences. Though I actually agree that there does appear to be a number of men who are trying to use this. I only. Hope that they are scrutinised a lot and people can tell when they are not Truely genuine in there belief but I'm worried about that too.
People were not simply disagreeing with my strongly but taking what had been said and using it out of context to make there point. When we actually get to the point when we debate self id then I look forward to working out an actual solution. When all the rights we have now we're given we were debating them with people who were interested but at the time there were a lot less of us on both sides but both sides were still represented. As people are now learning about things that have been going on for years they are having to catch up and have not done a lot of the reading but they have a view and that is still valid but they make a lot of assumptions to fill in the gaps in there knowledge.

In my defence, I did suggest that a poster last night moderated herself a bit-not because she was angry, but because she was likely to get deleted.

It’s very interesting that that is always thrown at women isn't it? That we are hysterical, emotional and angry.

Yes we are not allowed to be angry or emotional because it is seen as a flaw, a reason to ingnore what we are saying. Two normal human emotions but when displayed by women they are used against us.
Men have a tendancy to be show violence when they are angry and upset which is usually ok'd because "he was angry its understandable, you upset him what do you expect"

Women showing any form of negative emotion is usually met with dismissal. We are meant to be doll like and show nothing but a smile on our pretty porcelain faces.

That's perfect - 'emotionally incontinent' is very apt here.

The GC critical side in this is not the emotionally incontinent one.

I'd honestly be too embarrassed to have the kind of public meltdowns the other side often has. Had learned that that wasn't appropriate for someone of my age by the time I was about 5.

Are you aware that the 41% is not correct either

Can you provide statistics to rebut that? The ones I’ve seen are solid. 41% is correct.

People disagreeing, even disagreeing strongly with you, is not attack. It is not hatred. It is argument and disagreement, which are necessary to thrash out consensus in a free society.

Women are worried about the implications of self ID and we are speaking up. If disagreement and argument and debate upsets someone, they are free to step away from the debate if it upsets them emotionally.

But what I’m seeing here is women arguing their case and being met with extreme emotion from the other side. It’s not us directing angry personal abuse at transpeople. The vast majority on this board want transpeople to be able to live and have the protections they have under law. What we do t want is self ID or any law changes that reduce safeguarding for children.

Another point about bringing emotion into it. The current university climate of no platforming, #nodebate etc has removed the ability to debate. When I went to uni, we’d go to see speakers we didn’t agree with, sit politely and listen then we’d let rip in the Q and A with hard questions. We sharpened our debating claws. We listened to opinions we found distasteful and debunked them with logic, data and argument. This generation has almost lost that, and that’s a HUGE own goal for them. Because now they have no way of persuading other than to shout ‘bigot! TRANSPHOBE!’ And direct personal abuse at people. Massive own goal. Look at how people like Greer can argue - I do t see any of the aggressive activists able to bring that level of skill to the table.

That will lose them the argument, because when you’ve got no facts, no data, your position is based on feelings and emotions and you can’t argue well, you’re going to lose, as long as your opponents keep making their voices heard.

The GC critical side in this is not the emotionally incontinent one.

Are you aware that the 41% is not correct either but it's early and I can not remember to maths to demonstrate that also the 52% of young people suiside rate is floored too as they all are as someone as said we need to define what we are looking at first and yes I would welcome stonewall spending some of its money on this as I would. Much rather argue from a point of reality than just assumptions which is what I have been saying in my previous posts.

I also do not think. That all other woman are angry or emotional, but if you actually read the thread you will see unless the posts have now been deleted that jolly did appear every upset for very good reason if you read the post and we were trying to suggest that she take a minute before she got herself banded I think in that context that saying that is a kind thing to do. Maybe you think. Differently. If you want to attack people then that's upto you

I'm just someone who is debating this topic with people you seem angry and emotional

It’s very interesting that that is always thrown at women isn't it? That we are hysterical, emotional and angry.

And yet when you look at it dispassionately you come up against the statistic that only 2% of violent crime is committed by this section of angry, emotional hysterics called women. It’s almost as though we aren’t the ones incapable of allowing our emotions to harm others isn’t it? Funny that. Doubly ironic when we are using science and logic to debunk a movement based on feelings.

Of course it’s also a centuries old ‘shut up’ technique isn’t it? Silly women. Hysterical women. Just shut up.

And frankly no. I shan’t. If you’d like to call me angry you can. I think my posts are fairly calm. If you’d like to call me emotional as well you can. It doesn’t impact my argument, which is sound, and based on cold, hard, dispassionate facts

Leaving the Swedish study to one side, Bespin, are you aware that of the transwomen currently in British prisons, 41% are sex offenders? This compares to 17% in the general population.

The Swedish study is indeed flawed, not least because it only looked at transsexuals, who are a tiny subset of the rapidly growing disparate group of people under the 'trans umbrella'.

How astonishing that transactivists have never sought to conduct any better research to prove their extraordinary claim that tw are less violent than men.

Hi fallingirl, the study that you quote as a number of issues from. Sample size and timescale to not allowing for other factors and socioeconomic factors. It also does not explicitly say violant or sezualoaed. Crime. But insinuates that this comparison can be made though it does. Not have that evidence exactly.