Just despair - HOW do some women just not get it!

Because it’s the ultimate validation, and that’s what they’re looking for.

Any intrusion of reality into their world view threatens their sense of self, which is ultimately incredibly fragile. We are talking about people with a psychological condition, in the vast majority of cases.

All the nodding yes-men and handmaidens in the world can’t change the scientific truth, and when they’re confronted with it, they get nasty.

So we have to accommodate the lie, because we’re socialised to do so. Unlike them. Because they’re men.

Correction: "And I seriously have no problem with individuals"

Sorry, I ended up having to skip to the end to write what I want to say.

So all this talk about statistics and how many angels can dance on the end of a needle, when in fact, locking women up with just one male rapist, be they genuine or pretend trans, is cruel and unusual punishment.

And I seriously have problem with individuals who are trans and believe that their human rights are every bit as important as anyone else's, but why on earth do people think they have a right to enter the spaces of the other sex?

Does anyone mind if I go back to an earlier post which is more on-topic?

Agatha very concisely said - for what TWAW types believe the definition of woman is -
"Sure. They say things like: gender is the social meaning of sex, where that means it's the collection of traits, behaviours, preferences and personality types that are socially ascribed to people who have, or are perceived to have, a given body type. Being a woman is identifying with the gender that society ascribes to women (in the sex sense).

To be clear, I am what they would call a TERF - I think that sex, and sex based discrimination is what matters. But I am not baffled by their position, I don't think it's incoherent or deranged or so insane it's staggering that anyone could think it. I just think that they're wrong, and my interest in finding out exactly what they think and how they define things like 'women' comes from wanting to really point out where they go wrong (unless of course they change my mind before I change theirs...)"

So - essentially, femininy socially determined traits are inherently linked with being female, and masculine ones with being male.

The difference between a GC and a TRA sort of person is that a GC person believes that feminine and female can be mutually exclusive - being one doesn't mean you're the other - vs believing that the traits are linked to being female, and, broadly, can't be uncoupled.

So I can understand this in my grandad's generation, and even today, loads of people have 'traditional' views about sex and gender.

But so often, as in the OP, it's people who have clearly thought about this, have been conscious of avoiding gendered stereotypes for their kids, are aware of the specific issues that come with having a sexed body - that sex does matter in some situations, such as medically, in sports, in relationships - but still insist that having THOSE traits mean you are THAT sex, there's no getting away from it, that sex is who you truly are.

Often it's intelligent people who have thought about it - to a point. Then I think the thought-terminating cliches kick in.

LaughingPriest · Today 10:03
I've wondered this over the years and after thoughtful consideration, my analysis is they're either lying or thick.

That wasn't addressed at anyone on this thread - you @Onnabugeisha hadn't even posted yet so to say it was aimed at you is... I don't know how to say 'untrue' without you claiming it's an attack on you, so, kindly, "it isn't borne out by the available information."

It was immediately followed with me saying "Seriously though" and a less flippant analysis.

You have been incredibly rude by saying transphobic stuff like you believe that some TW aren't really trans women (I paraphrase - you think it's possible to claim to be trans but not really be) then when given the option to expand on that you repeatedly refused. I haven't called you out on that until now, but it's been noted that you either can't answer or you don't want to say because it might look bad.

I really struggle with talking calmly and politely with a person who shows no misgivings at all about locking women prisoners up with rapists, and would rather lecture about statistics than engage with that fundamental fact

others on this board are much more collected and I salute them

I really agree with this. I do think it’s mostly that many ‘good’ intentioned people don’t get it - why would they? The dominating voices are trans, anyone dissenting is crushed. They don’t see it, hear it, read it.

And even in this thread, you can see how ‘twisty’ even obvious facts such as prisons are overlaid with strange arguments - the barrier is there so that the stark realities of what very clear safeguarding issues such as TW in women’s prisons don’t get to see the light of day.

Perhaps a useful article from KPSS on data and the prison service.

kpssinfo.org/how-are-male-prisoners-who-identify-as-transgender-recorded-in-the-data/

Second this. Thanks for this @Helleofabore

I think lots actually don't get it. They outsource their personal opinions to The Guardian and BBC. They see themselves as 'good' and therefore follow whatever the 'good' people are meant to believe, which is still TWAW, as pushed by The Guardian and BBC. Lots of people just don't engage brain beyond that.

At this point I think they're just flailing around, flinging shit in all directions.

To be fair, I haven't got a better tactical suggestion for them, if they're committed to keep fighting for the side they're on.

Very bizarre behaviour.

At this point I think they're just flailing around, flinging shit in all directions.

For a poster who seems to pride themselves on precision?

Yet, I consider their posts making accusations rather hypocritical. Strange that. And that they seem to have glanced a website with lots of FOI information (some deleted but screenshots still exist) and denounced it declaring some kind of superiority of statistics knowledge.

Very bizarre behaviour.

I think that post was aimed at me Helle.

No. The questions are NOT derails or irrelevant.

Why do you think that safeguarding exists?

What statistics do you think shape safeguarding guidelines?

What a lot of blustering. There's no actual point to it.

Now.

How about you engage with the FOI statistics provided by the MoJ?

Are you disputing these FOI request answers?

www.sexsegregatedprisons.info/fois

The ones that say that in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

Me: For trans people you should compare the percentage of transmen who are sexual offenders out of the female prison population, versus transwomen in the male prison population.

Onna: You got it! Yay, my example was an illustration of why the figures do not say what everyone is thinking they say. Their mistake is apples to pears. That’s why I wrote FALSE in front of conclusion.

So now we are clear, lets calculate.

1 (apparantly) transman but unclear if they are in for sex offences. So 0%

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

This shows male trans people have a significant higher rate of sexual offences than female trans people, just like with men and women. Funny that...

So why break the Genevan convention and put male prisoners in the same cells as female prisoners? It is not wartime?

WTAF!

Where did I 'attack' you?

In fact, I believe that is quite a projection.

"Please understand I am not playing your game. You like to send anyone you disagrees with you off on rabbit hunts. Yet you sit and spout and link stuff that doesn’t even support what you say. Why should I back up my claims when you don’t?"

Quite the accusation really.

"You are. You always do. Sick of it. Please get this, get that…demanding what you never provide."

I can only conclude that you have name changed then, because I don't believe I have had all that much contact with your user name before.

And you two posts were rather disproportionate in response to my posts and where ad hom attacks in comparison.

What happened to Be Kind?

yes. It is quite noticeable.

As is the questions that they don't answer or hand wave away.

Yes. I think that somewhere a poster has taken a very superficial look at a website and made some pretty false conclusions based on some year ranges on some graphics.

I suspect that a poster has not looked at the data that this woman has been collating and from where.

There are many conclusions to draw from this data, but that transitioned males offend sex crimes at any rate near female people is certainly not one of those.

It's also worth noting that figures and stats can easily be discussed without concurrently throwing insults and disparaging remarks. Personal attacks may seem like pointless nastiness, but they often help inform readers about the person making them.

'in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97 sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

Thanks for those informative figures.