Trans Women Should Be Allowed In Women Only Spaces

If anyone here is actually using statistics to PAINT ALL and don't believe NAMALT please do tell us now...

you cannot keep acting as if this is a scientifically proven fact when it is not.

Who actually is? "Science" is a weird categorisation here?

Again you talk about "painting". That is again weird. Who is actually saying ALL transwomen are dangerous.

If you mean that people FAIL to say NAMALT when discussing sex segregation then you should understand that posters here are using the assumption that NAMALT is a given. Otherwise you are suggesting that by talking about male offending we are saying all men are criminal offenders and the entire male population ought to be imprisoned.

Its a bit wearying listening to the NAMALT when no-one is saying ALL. Thank very much for pointing out NAMALT over and over again. We get it. We were not "painting" it in the first place but it's very kind of you to remind people not to "paint". NAMALT NAMALT NAMALT, there is that better?
So stop accusing people of PAINTING ALL. Thanks for listening.

They include ALL media reports they can find of ALL trans people committing and being found guilty of crime.

They might well do but the point is that it is all that they can find. That isn't necessarily accurate. There will be some that aren't reported or some that are reported wrongly, some that are exaggerated. They aren't a reliable source.

Men offend at rates far higher than women. Self-id opens up all women's spaces to any man who wants to be in there, knowing he cannot be challenged any more.

I do not want men in spaces where I am vulnerable or need privacy from men. I don't care if they're "real" (sic) transwomen or the opportunistic men entering women's spaces on the coattails of self-id. I just don't want people born with penises (a catch-all term, if you like) in there. And the vast majority of women do not want this, either (and the ones that think they don't mind will mind if this goes ahead).

The stats show that men offend at rates far higher than women. That's all I need to know.

EarlyWalker

Well said.

Electron so you disagree that the data is not sufficient? The above quoted post was not me but you seem to be referring to me in your text.
No one is saying you need to agree that transwoman are woman, I don’t believe they are biological woman I believe they are transwoman and there’s nothing wrong with that.
What I don’t agree with as I’ve said over and over on here is constantly misusing statistics, or having half a picture on them and painting the rest in order to make transwoman look dangerous.
If you think they are dangerous - that is absolutely your right to believe and campaign as you wish but you cannot keep acting as if this is a scientifically proven fact when it is not.
If you think the data is correct, then argue your case because so far nobody has been able to disprove what I’ve said r.e the data. I’m not arguing transwoman dont offend at the same rate as men (although I could definitely twist the statistics to make it look like the same rate of woman if you want)
I’m arguing that your statistics showing that they transwomen offend at the same rate as men are unproven and unreliable and cannot be used as fact.
Continue using them by all means, but mostpeople are not stupid and it’s fairly easy to find the holes which makes your whole argument fall apart.

do I really need to keep explaining to you why a website who selectively chooses which media reports to put up may not be the best place to get reliable data?

Not really no, but no doubt you will.

I'm generally wary of self-ID, but I've nonetheless not seen a decent explanation of why some classes can be analysed by their criminal tendencies whilst others seemingly can't.

Because women are forced into it. Because the liberal support for "gendered souls" is pathetically naïve and ivory towered. Because the magical thinking that men are women really needs to be punctured. You refer to the "bible" up thread as a sneer about the stats that were put together, and yet that data is a response to the ideological "saints and sinners" religious fervour demonstrated by the liberal believers. Non believer's are bigots according to the most "fundamental". We are the sinners for failing to believe. So berating women for "painting" just sounds like more of this bigot shit. Every time women respond to the "painting" accusation with proportionate data this is then dismissed as more "painting" and incorrect. It's no wonder women here are bored of this pathetic carry on.

Are there any statistics for men pre op, who are not even having treatment, but would want to use the rooms set aside for pure born females.

That isn't the Stonewall definition. You're a transphobe to Stonewall and most Transactivists I don’t care if they think I’m transphobic, I think they are transphobic as they’re doing genuine trans people a great disservice.

KiBob do I really need to keep explaining to you why a website who selectively chooses which media reports to put up may not be the best place to get reliable data? As opposed to the MOJ. Perhaps someone else could have a go.

Because I was responding to this also - As has been established on multiple threads, you don't have a coherent definition of what a "trans woman" is, other than that they have a bit of paper saying so. This is not just about self ID

Paris Lees may pass as a woman - due to all of the surgery; a naturally slender physique, and much, much practice at the performance of femininity. However, when watching an episode of Celebrity Island in which s/he featured I was completely bemused at how artificial it all looked and seemed. Swimming across a lagoon, exhausted; then to say that all s/he wanted was " scented candles" was an open-mouthed moment.

All of these people trying to force the idea that Trans Women are Women' seem to have little empathy or understanding of actual women, and the situations they face on account of being women; in a female body. Camp'ness and effeminacy is a superficial approximation of womanhood. A mere dressing up and performance.

the trans-women who are largely 'accepted' by women, are those who have genuine empathy and understanding, and as a result who do not attempt to force their way in; who know they are male, even as they identify with women.

There is a huge group between 'transwomen with a GRC' and 'self-iding chancers'.

For famous examples, Shon Faye, Paris Lees, Lily M, Munroe, Jess Bradley, as far as I know none of them have a GRC (I could be wrong though?) Then you have the Pips Bunce types. Where do they all fit in?

Some things are really quite simple, and that includes the fact that women's private spaces are very much valued, and very much required. Admitting men into women's spaces means that they are no longer women's single-sex spaces. The vast majority of women want to retain single sex spaces for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety.

Exactly. It's surprising how some people just cannot grasp this.

Early Walker

Some things are really quite simple, and that includes the fact that women's private spaces are very much valued, and very much required. Admitting men into women's spaces means that they are no longer women's single-sex spaces. The vast majority of women want to retain single sex spaces for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety.
It matters not how lovely a particular trans-woman is.

Self ID risks the admittance of anyone who claims to be a woman into women's spaces/short-lists/sporting competitions. this has already happened, and is continuing to happen around the world. Women reserve the hard won right to say "No" to this. We cannot wake up to find women self-excluding from women's spaces because they feel too uncomfortable, compromised, or unsafe. This is already happening in Norway, which has self ID.

The trans agenda is in direct opposition to women's rights and safe spaces.

But there is no evidence that transwoman are the same as males in terms of pradatory or abusive behaviour.
Where is the evidence that they are not?

So you are talking about 5000 people in the whole of the UK then (a number so small that most people are actually unlikely to ever come across someone with a GRC)? Thats not really who we are discussing here is it? What about the other thousands who come under the 'trans umbrella' and would deem you highly transphobic for excluding them and not seeing them as 'transwomen'? 'Transwomen' as a group now is far bigger than just those with a GRC, but it's impossible to define that group.

I think a lot of people would probably agree with you on the GRC criteria. After all that is the current law. How many transwomen in prison have a GRC? Did Karen White have a GRC? (Genuine questions)

That isn't the Stonewall definition. You're a transphobe to Stonewall and most transactivists.

Plenty of trans people by Stonewall's definition, in fact possibly the majority, don't take hormones so the testosterone issue is moot.

I think when people are arguing against self-id they are using the self-id definition of transwomen, which comes without any inference of lowered testosterone levels. Why would you use the GRC definition to argue against self-id?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689101/t452-eng.pdf

This might be of interest to some of you, apologies if you’ve already seen it.

When I talk about transwoman I refer to the GRC criteria.
So someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphroia, is receiving treatment for this, has had surgery or is planning to have surgery (or can provide a very good reason why they are not) have lived as their reassigned sex for atleast 2 years and plans to for the rest of their lives.