Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

jj1968
So what about the trans activist propaganda against women who do not share their views? Do you approve of no platforming, violently protesting women's meetings, using the the very well financed muscle of the trans community and its allies to hound women from their jobs, the obscene and violentabuse targeting prominent and not so prominent gender critical women? Two wrongs don't make a right but the sheer amount of abuse levelled at women who are only striving to maintain the rights that they have managed to claw from the patriarchy is quite abhorrent

@334bu Everyone who produces propaganda like this believes it is necessary and that their cause is vital and their techniques are justified. But I think from an objective standpoint most people think tactics like this are not necessary and are likely to incite hatred towards already marginalised groups. Certainly a lot of people I've known who've been on the fence somewhat on the trans issue find this kind of propaganda quite horrifying and have come away from it thinking that elements of the GC movement are fuelled by prejudice as opposed to legitimate concerns. I really don't think it does your cause any favours, although I'm sure anyone from a far right group will love it and share it with all their far right friends, and perhaps most worringly feel more empowered to use these kinds of techniques against other groups they dislike.

When statistics on female crimes are skewed by including male offenders who identify as transwomen and when people with a political agenda try to minimise these offences by pretending that they were not committed by real transwomen, it is perhaps not surprising that some people might feel that the shock effect of the above video , unnecessarily lurid or not, is necessary to bring attention to a very real threat to female safety.

I think that looks a lot like propaganda to me. I think it does to most people, and I think it's why there are concerns that there are elements operating within GC circles whose agenda is to incite hatred towards trans people.

There we go again they weren't real transwomen, they only assaulted women in a mixed sex area, they weren't trans when they did it, the trans sex offenders in prison aren't really trans so it's ok that of the trans prisoners in England nearly half are sex offenders.

*So, jj, you have insisted that instances of transwoman proving a threat to women in single sex spaces 'doesn't happen'.

Evidence of exactly these instances is posted, and now you complain that bringing up examples is 'marginalising' people.*

Only 2 of the people in that video were convicted of an offence that took place in a woman's space. The same two people who come up over and over again because it's the only times it has happened. I have never said it never happens, I have said it is incredibly rare and that the risk of being assaulted by a trans woman in a women's space is probably 100s of millions to one.

Constantly changing the mantra trans women are women, constantly misrepresenting the law , lobbying for the removal of a vulnerable group's rights, cancelling anyone who doesn't agree with your views, violently disrupting peaceful meetings, targeting employers to have women removed from their jobs, denying biological because it counters your political philosophy, denying any debate on potential conflicts of rights........etc.etc. Hardly neutral acts might almost be" propaganda, the like we have seen before in history and which has led to horrific outcomes..."

‘Why the far right go on and on about grooming gangs whilst ignoring predators from other ethnicities?’

Interesting that you should use this example because, while I absolutely agree with your statement re far right groups, it’s also the case that the Asian grooming gangs where allowed to carry on offending and seriously harming young girls even once the authorities were aware of what was happening because everyone was afraid of seeming to vilify a minority group. Aren’t we in danger of doing the same if we refuse to acknowledge the crimes of transwomen (or men pretending to be transwomen)?

To come at this another way, if you were a far right group, and you sole aim was to increase social hostility towards trans people, then wouldn't a video like this be one of your go to techniques? Isn't this exactly how hate groups operate and seek to build prejudice towards minorities? Why the far right go on and on about grooming gangs whilst ignoring predators from other ethnicities? There is ample evidence that the way minorities are depicted in the media influences social perceptions of them, and the way they are treated socially. I don't think it's unreasonable if trans women are concerned that people watching a video like that might be more likely to discriminate against them, behave in a hostile way towards them, or even in some cases place them at increased risk if violence. That may not be the intention of those behind the video, I have no idea, but it is likely to be the effect and it's unnecessary to make the point the video was making. It looks like propaganda, the kind of propaganda we have seen before in history and which has led to horrifying outcomes. It is not a neutral act, whatever the intention behind it.

So, jj, you have insisted that instances of transwoman proving a threat to women in single sex spaces 'doesn't happen'.

Evidence of exactly these instances is posted, and now you complain that bringing up examples is 'marginalising' people.

So - 'this never happens', do you think that might be because we're just not allowed to talk about it?

Given that newspapers have to report pronouns as given, and police record crime as self ID sex, it's quite possible that there are more of these instances that we just don't know about.

How do you suggest the evidence be presented if factual information is considered to be 'shaming' and 'exposing'? Bearing in mind all of that information is freely available, reported in news, etc.

I think this is what makes me uncomfortable with some aspects of GC activism. I think most people on here would recognise that a video that solely consisted of a list of people from a certain ethnic group, or lesbians/gay men, or any other marginalised group, who had committed crimes, has the potential to cause social harm. And in fact it has been a common tactic both by far right groups and the right wing press who are well aware that presenting endless stories of criminality aimed at a certain group increases social disapproval of, or hatred towards that group. It's how the campaign to marginalise people on benefits was so successful. The far right uses the same tactics against Muslims and refugees.

It's not the same. We know that males as a class are way more dangerous and risky than women. The statistics clearly show this. This is not the case for Muslims vs Christian, Black vs White, gay vs straight etc. When black people weren't allowed to share with white people that wasn't based on anything concrete. We don't allow males to share with females because the facts show that as a class males are a risk to female.

The reason that this video has been made is to illustrate that it doesn't matter if a male puts on a dress, wears make up, adopts a feminine name, if they are a dangerous, criminal male, they will remain a dangerous criminal male however they 'identify'. And the vast majority of dangerous criminals are male.

Of course that is not to show that all transwoman are dangerous criminals. In the same way that if I made a video of 71 males who identify as males who had committed crimes, it wouldn't mean all men are dangerous criminals.

As I said before, my DH is not a dangerous predator, but he is still not allowed in the ladies because he is in the male sex class - is that wrong?

Society tries to make women sacrifice themselves to save poor troubled men.

This whole argument is more of the same.

Either prisons need to be sex segregated or they don't.

Male prisoners being mentally unwell is a bad reason to require non-consenting female prisoners to live with them.

It would not surprise me if that underlies the ability of so many people to accept this. The idea that a transwomen will have had surgery, so must be seriously ill, and women are tough creatures used to abuse ...

Many people in prison suffer from mental health issues. Many male prisoners are very vulnerable in male prisons because of mental health issues. However, nobody is asking for these men to be transferred to women's prisons because it is accepted that male prisoners pose a serious risk to the physical and mental health of female prisoners. Transwomen are equally members of the male sex, so why are they treated differently.? What peer reviewed evidence is there to prove that transition in itself reduces the propensity for violence in this subset of the male sex?

Now I understand there is an argument that it's different when it comes to trans people, that there is a situation of urgency and women are at risk and so this kind of thing is necessary. Well okay, I'm not sure I agree, but even accepting that then surely there should be a recognition that it should be done very, very carefully. To claim that this video represents 71 dangerous and predatory people, when indeed some are, but some are also very low level and in some cases non violent offences (and not everyone was even convicted, a couple of people on that list were aquitted), feels really dubious to me. I think it could be perceived by trans people as an attempt in incite hatred towards them.

I also think this is one reason that much of the refuge and VAWG sector has not swung behind the GC movement. As someone who has worked with (so called) 'vulnerable' people I felt very uncomfortable that some of the people on that list seemed to have obvious mental health problems and had not committed serious offences but were being paraded alongside child abusers. People working in refuge's work with women who've committed these kinds of offences all the time. I think many people working in social care would feel deeply uncomfortable with vulnerable and damaged people being shamed and exposed on social media like this in order to make a political point.

When posts start getting deleted you know that the people reporting have run out of arguments.

As I said yesterday, whilst protection from actual physical harm is one of the reasons why we have single sex spaces, it is not purely about freedom from assault, but also freedom from the imposition of sexual fetish in intimate spaces, and also about the inherent need for the privacy and dignity of one's sex.

By the relentless lobbying for self Id and by extending the demographic and variety of people now defined as trans under the trans umbrella, along with the repeated chanting of TWAW...the cause has not been served well at all.

Here's a selection of 17 dangerous predatory MTFs for you, jj1968:

Just to say, for the benefit of @jj1968 and any other 'this never happens'ers, it's actually 71 dangerous predatory MTFs.

PS there are many awesome contributors on this thread, and I much admire your patience and knowledge

With respect you are implying things that have not been said.

And not listening to the things that have.

Like much of the TRA rhetoric, traffic is only ever one way.

Again jj www.womenarehuman.com/tag/united-kingdom/

Personally I do not care if transwomen commit crimes at a comparable rate to women (they don’t).

I want to retain single sex spaces as the status quo because it’s what I want, and I shouldn’t have to justify my reasons or prove I’ve suffered from male violence.

If the status quo needs to be changed, then TRAs need to present compelling evidence, that works universally for all women, and girls, not just for (generally) privileged western non-religious women.

I’ve not yet seen a compelling argument let alone evidence.

It is always lawful under those circumstances, but the decision as to whether an exception is used is either down to other regulations (like the school building regulations) or those providing the provision in question.

Stopthisnow

Yes we are now 19 pages into transgender bingo and I believe all the balls have been drawn but I might be wrong there still could be one or two more to come.

Yes it is blatantly obvious that jj1968 believes that transwomen's rights to be validated in their gender identity trump's all women's rights to safety,privacy and dignity.
Any evidence that could show that this is unfair and often dangerous for women is to be ignored, minimised and when all else fails be lied about.
Misrepresentation of the law is repeated over and over again. As someone said several pages ago their argument is basically a long and incredibly verbose" fuck off to women."

And now you are admitting that you don't actually know the men's is dangerous

You aren't making much sense