Why the hate?

This is another example of argument by substitution.

As a feminist, I have pre-existing concerns about the suitability of prisons for female offenders. (84% there for non-violent offences, studies showing 80%+ have had head injuries and so on). So I will be concerned if a subset of women are being imprisoned at an even higher rate.

However, I'm going to be honest here. As a feminist, I want all rapists and child abusers in prison. If you tell me that male offenders of one demographic are going to prison at a higher rate, I want to increase the rate of all other sex offenders to match.

When we are discussing male sex offenders, and how to judge their recidivism, and whether some rapists are getting preferential treatment that imperils public safety, what the hell relevance does it have if teenage shoplifters are more likely to get a custodial sentence if they're same-sex attracted? Hmm? I'll answer that for you. It has zero relevance. Zero.

I am sure you put a great deal of emphasis on evidence and statistics, fair enough.

So you will know that there are many countries now that have had more relaxed processes for gender recognition certificates for several years.

So what statistically significant evidence have you found, from the hundreds of millions of people that live in countries where these more relaxed processes have been employed, for many years, that there has been a detriment to women?

Are you putting it down to "blue brains" or something? What exactly are you trying to say here?

I wouldn't try that one. I can count, and know exactly how many posts of mine you've ignored. Shall we do a quick recap?

Any comment on how the standard risk assessment system for male sex offenders doesn't apply to those with gender recognition certificates?

Any comment on how no-one has ever claimed that same-sex attracted women are incapable of committing criminal acts? Thus no-one has ever felt the need to record offences to counter lies?

You keep trying to reflect arguments back by simply substituting words, but the arguments don't work because the context is different. For example, the ramifications of medication to interfere with puberty, followed by cross-sex hormones, are nothing like being a teenage girl dating Sandra instead of Samuel.

Why are lesbians / bisexual women incarcerated at far, far higher rates in US jails than straight women?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227944/#:~:text=Sexual%20minorities%20(those%20who%20self,in%20jail%20were%20sexual%20minorities.

And of course, to be logically consistent, you may not refer to disadvantage, discrimination, prejudice, or minority stress, as these are factors that are not considered by GC feminists in their analysis of crimes committed by trans people.

I thought the evidence wasn't that lesbians were more prone to commit offences ?

They were more prone to experiencing violence from men so involved in more crimes but not actually committing them at a noticeable higher rate

I am sure someone said that already , have you responded or are you just repeating your earlier statement ?

So just the original post from the OP to start the thread? Clearly a genuine question, then.

I'm fully aware of the broader picture around Chimamanda thanks.

Are you unable to directly address the substance of what I am specifically posting?

I've given you evidence that lesbians are statistically supposedly far, far more likely to commit crimes that straight women. What do you have to say about that?

Ooh, dear. Linking to Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie? Don't you know she's cancelled for being t**f-adjacent, and saying "transwomen are transwomen"?

Don't you remember a non-binary author making remarks about machetes in connection with Chimamanda, which Chimamanda took as a threat and encouragement to others to kill Chimamanda?

OK, at least thanks for your honesty.

So you believe it is legitimate for other forums to focus on gathering, collating and highlighting crimes committed by other minority groups, as it is important to tell "the truth" about what is happening? Putting them together in one easy-to-access location for everyone to read one, after the other, I guess so that they can be fully informed about these minority groups?

In addition to telling "the truth", can you imagine other impacts of this process?

www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en

You imagine people are fibbing about being gay? FFS there really is no point arguing with you, is there?

Well, if they can believe people might fib about being gay on a random anonymous forum, perhaps they could reach the astounding realisation that if it was claimed lesbians should be treated differently from other women, then women might lie about being gay to gain an advantage or avoid that disadvantage, just as people might "lie" about being "trans".

The reason treating men and women differently works is (a) it's virtually impossible to lie about your sex without being caught out, and (b) the difference in behaviour is huge - big enough to be worth caring about (even ignoring the totally-binary pregnancy risk issue.)

Any purported few percent statistical difference between groups of women fails as a practical tool on both those counts, just as using "trans" as a discriminator does.

Here's data showing the overrepresentation of lesbians in US prisons - 2011-12, I very much doubt that these included many male born people who identified as lesbians -

99% of sex offenders are male. Almost 90% of victims are female. I think I'll take my chance with lesbians.

I think you've come to the wrong online forum... you're looking for the one called... don't think I can say the actual name on here....a clue for you .. think New Zealand and a bird that doesn't fly. 🐥

if it is legitimate to have a thread on these boards documenting crimes committed by trans people, why is it not legitimate for other forums to do exactly the same with other minority groups that they are fearful of?

You've had that answered multiple times for you by me and others.

If people on FWR (many of whom purport to be lesbians)

You imagine people are fibbing about being gay? FFS there really is no point arguing with you, is there?

i Have only skim read that so I may have missed something, but it seems to include gay men and lesbians and doesn’t seem to say lesbians alone are responsible for sexual assaults, so I’m unsure of what it means.

They're not crimes committed by "trans people" though, are they? They're committed by male trans people, in the same way as other males are statistically more likely to do. In response to people claiming that there have never been any incidents of these male people being violent to women, and suggesting that these male people pose no greater risk to women, than other women do. A little more honesty, please.

why is it not legitimate for other forums to do exactly the same with other minority groups that they are fearful of?

It's should always be legitimate to tell the truth. Do you disagree with that?

Are you saying that some people have to be blocked from telling the truth, and this will somehow help you deal with people telling lies?

My point is, that if it is legitimate to have a thread on these boards documenting crimes committed by trans people, why is it not legitimate for other forums to do exactly the same with other minority groups that they are fearful of?

These may exist already, I don't know. But the presence on these boards of that thread seems to me to legitimise a similar approach by others who may feel hostile towards other minorities, for example, lesbians,

If people on FWR (many of whom purport to be lesbians) wanted to protest other forums recording, collating and publishing lesbian crimes, in a nice easy-to-access spot for any reader to rile themselves up about and foster feelings of hostility towards lesbians, what leg do they have to stand on when they stand by and watch what is happening here?

You are giving the go ahead to others. They would be using the same toolbox, singing from the same hymn sheet.

What do you say to the people posting that on their forums

What do we say when imaginary people post imaginary comments on an imaginary website, you mean?

extract

Do you live in England or Wales? Did you miss the deadline of 16 May to complete the Scottish Government’s survey on its proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act?

It’s not too late to make your voice heard.

You can still write to, or meet with, your MP and ask them to lobby Ministers at Westminster to refuse cross-border recognition of GRCs issued in Scotland based on self-ID.

You might ask: why should I? After all, it only affects Scotland, doesn’t it?

Well no, as Claire Loneragan points out in her article, Self ID in the UK, and as Fair Play For Women explains here. Take Action: Say NO to letting Sex Self-ID in through the back door. • Fair Play For Women. If you haven’t already, please take a look.

But even if you think those reasons, however justified, are too remote to concern you, let me give you a compelling reason why this rush by the Scottish Government towards easily-obtained GRCs has serious implications for each and every one of us living in the UK.

Quite simply, it presents a wholly foreseeable threat to public protection. Wherever we live in the UK, we will pay the price. Let me explain.

Protecting the public was my legal responsibility for nearly 28 years. I served in English prisons first as a prison officer and thereafter rising through the grades to mid-ranking prison governor. Dealing with recidivists and risk assessing their potential for further offending was my bread and butter.

In March 2021, HM Prison Service introduced a new risk predictor tool known as OSP (OASys Sexual reoffending Predictor) to assess all adult male prisoners in England and Wales who were convicted of a current or previous sexual or sexually motivated offence. It proved to be rather more accurate than all previous processes used to predict a male sex offender’s likelihood of future offending and it enabled prisons and the Probation Service to tailor the management of these higher risk offenders more effectively both during custody and after release.

The reason why OSP is exclusively a risk predictor tool for men and why it cannot - and is not - used for women is because female sex offenders (statistically a vanishingly small group indeed) have vastly different motivations and patterns of offending. They have their own risk assessment process, an exclusively female-centred one.

I think you know where I am going with this.

OSP is not used for male sex offenders who have GRCs. They are automatically excluded because their legal sex is female. Instead, the risk assessment process for biologically female sex offenders is used, even though it is completely invalid for male-pattern sex offending and useless at predicting their future risk. [bold mine]

We know that at last count, there were 158 male prisoners (including 12 cross dressers) in male prisons in England and Wales who claim to be transgender, and that nearly 60% of them have current or previous convictions for sex offences. For comparison, the overall proportion of sex offenders in the general male prison population is less than 15%. There is an undeniable pattern here.

What we don’t know - and even though Scottish male prisoners were ten-a-penny in the various prisons at which I served in the North of England, I’d be amazed if the Prison Service even knew - is how many of those have a Scottish birth certificate or are “ordinarily resident” in Scotland.

Either would qualify a Scottish prisoner in prison anywhere in the UK for a GRC in a matter of months when the Scottish Government has its way and amends the Act. It has already confirmed that being in prison is not a bar. It has already confirmed that being a sex offender is not a bar. After all, it’s wonderfully inclusive.

Current England and Wales Prison Service transgender policy - preferred pronouns, access to ‘the preferred facilities list’ meaning make-up, women’s clothing, etc - will have the unintended consequence of supporting that quick and easy path to a Scottish GRC.

In short, an unquantifiable number of Scottish-born male prisoners in England and Wales - statistically likely to include a high proportion of sex offenders - will be able to obtain a GRC, and those GRCs will not only mean they have a right to be transferred to a women’s prison but if they are sex offenders, they will automatically be excluded from any meaningful risk assessment that will predict with any accuracy their potential for committing further sex offences after release. [bold mine- this means they will be treated differently to other male sexual offenders.]Without a meaningful risk assessment, it will be impossible for the Prison Service or the Probation Service to put into place appropriate licence conditions and safeguards to mitigate the risk to the public on release.Outraged? I am. I have written to my MP and laid the facts bare. She can’t now claim that no one told her, that she didn’t know. In fact, I pointed out to her that I can see no good reason why any male sex offender with GRC - whether born in Scotland or not - should be excused from a risk predictor tool known to be highly accurate. I certainly don’t see why a bad policy decision should be made worse by the Scottish Government’s determination to rush through a policy that doesn’t even have majority support from Scottish voters.

Women's Rights Network

So it was just a phase, and I'm sure they regretted it

There's a very good reason why hardly anyone regrets a lesbian "phase" or experimental period - because there's no harm done.

By contrast, when a child or young person identifies as transgender and is affirmed by being put on hormones and lined up for and in many cases given surgery (especially girls) they go through irreversible changes and are likely to suffer damage to their health - a much more regrettable situation if they change their minds.

GC feminists don't give a hoot if a child doesn't conform to gender roles - in fact that is what we have been fighting for the right to do for centuries - for girls and women to be able to break free of the stereotypes and gendered expectations imposted on females.

Having harmful treatments that vainly attempt to make you the opposite sex to "match" your gender identity is not that though. It's regressively enforcing gender stereotypes. It's not even necessary. If gender identity wasn't so muddled as a concept, you could be "transgender" and stay the same sex (since you can't change it whatever you do) and just do whatever you like gender-wise. Like many feminists already do.

Then there would be nothing to regret.

We're going to ask you again.

Has anyone ever claimed that being same-sex attracted makes women zero risk? Has anyone ever said that treating same-attracted women exactly the same as other women for the purposes of safeguarding rules, was homophobic?

Did anyone listen to them?

I assure you that if you ever successfully mount a campaign claiming that being same-sex attracted makes women incapable of crime, you will get pushback. So far, no-one ever has launched such a silly campaign though... Funny that.

I have no idea whether male people with gender dysphoria are "disproportionately" represented in prison for sexual violence. If you claimed this, I'd observe that given the poor prosecution statistics for sexual violence, I don't think any subset of male people are being falsely convicted at any significant rate. To me, it would seem more indicative of habitual under-conviction in other demographics, and I'd want to solve that by increasing the conviction rates of male people without transgender identities. To match.

Or, it would mean ordinary male sexual offenders were claiming to be trans as part of the trial process, in an attempt to secure more lenient sentencing.

But like I said, no idea. Why? Because I don't think it's relevant. What I seek to provide, is not evidence that these male people are a higher risk and should be treated differently from other male people. It's the reverse. Trans activists are the ones who want trans offenders treated differently. We point out reasons why male people with trans identities shouldn't be treated differently, and should be treated like every other male for the purposes of safeguarding.

Got an interesting post about that actually, but MN won't let me put it in this one.

This is the post I wanted to write. I would be fascinated to read @Aqublu‘s answers - if they come back.

Is it hate, or just an understanding that men are the problem, no matter how they 'identify'?

Once you view everything through that lens, it should become clear to you.