"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 3

Statistics are peculiar things.
Imagine:
Utopia is in anarchy. It no longer has a viable police force. Its crime rates are through the roof and it is bottom of the international league of law abiding countries.
Till suddenly one day it's top of the league. No crimes at all. Overrnight.
If you decriminalise everything, there aren't any "crimes" to report.

Women and children are sold a line that being kind to these men benefits them, morally.

it’s a socially manufactured moral benefit.

and it’s opinion, that they will benefit. not fact.

What’s the benefit for vulnerable children with cognitive and physical disabilities if trans identified men are allowed to give personal care with no second thought?

On the same score, what’s the benefit for children if trans identified men are allowed free access to women’s toilets?

flip it:

What’s the BENEFIT to women if they allow trans identified men into their single sex spaces?

where’s the evidence of benefit for women?

Yes, and to come at it from a view that centers the men - why should some groups of men that are at greater risk of male violence be "protected" by being granted entry to female spaces?

I mean, elderly and disabled men probably are less of a risk to women's safety.

Yet no one's used that as an argument to let these groups access women's spaces.

No one is required to change your mind. Who cares what you think?

But you don't get to consent on behalf of other women. You know that right?

Why do you think some groups of males are less of a risk to women than other groups of males?

Haha, what do you think I am doing here? I read nothing but rebuttals to my thoughts on this matter, my mind is not changed.

No one needs to prove that there's a greater risk to women.

Womem say no. End of story.

We keep men out of women's spaces for safeguarding reasons. There are literally zero grounds to exempt this one group of men from that requirement.

I disagree that it is biased. It challenges logic and maths in a sound manner, you could replace 'trans woman's with any other demographic and it would generate the same response.

In reference to 'put shit in, get shit out' well...it was your 'shit' that was put in!

The argument that “76 trans women in prison means 3,000+ have committed sexual offences” is statistically and logically flawed for several reasons:
1. Misapplied conviction rate: The 2% conviction figure refers to all reported sexual assaults, not offences by trans women. It cannot be reliably used to extrapolate how many trans women may have committed offences. Applying a general rate to a small subgroup without adjusting for differences in population size, reporting patterns, or legal outcomes is invalid.
2. Lack of population context: The figure “76” means nothing without knowing how many trans women exist in the population overall. Without this denominator, we can't assess whether the rate of offending is higher, lower, or similar to other groups (e.g., cisgender men).
3. Invalid scaling logic: Multiplying 76 by 50 (based on 2%) assumes that the criminal justice system misses 98% of offenders in a mathematically neat and consistent way. This is not how crime data or convictions work — it ignores reporting bias, repeat offenders, false reports, and variation in prosecution practices.
4. Selection bias: Prisoners represent a small, highly filtered group — only those reported, charged, and sentenced to custody. They are not a representative sample of the whole population. Scaling from prison numbers to an estimated total of unknown offenders is methodologically unsound.
5. No comparative rate: Even if the estimate were accurate (which it isn't), it still doesn’t show whether trans women offend at higher rates than others. Without comparing the per-capita offence rate of trans women to that of cis men, such claims are misleading.
In short, this argument draws sweeping conclusions from narrow and misused data. If we want to understand patterns of offending, we need rigorous, peer-reviewed research — not arithmetic built on speculative assumptions.

Safeguarding law, specifically for children, relies on ONE instance of harm occurring and then the safeguards are put in place to ensure it cannot be repeated.

At least that is how it should work.

there are documented cases whereby transwomen have assaulted children in public single sex toilets in the U.K.

you are not going to convince anyone that that doesn’t matter.

you should be campaigning to make sure predatory men do not identify as transwomen. But, there’s the issue; how do we tell which is which? 🤔

In my experience @suggestionsplease1 , the ‘GC’ women I know spend a lot of time rigorously testing their ideas. They tend to seek out opposing arguments, and read around articles, data and reports. Particularly those that support their views, rather than just blindly accepting them. It might help you to do the same.

Helene Forsberg says “I don’t believe” there is a threat to women’s rights.

She’s not giving evidence. She’s giving her own opinion.

that’s opinion.

the evidence is clear. rates of offending amongst trans identified males are the same as men, if not higher.

just because other countries arr doing it and seem quite happy (according to one individual) doesn’t mean it’s right and progressive.

So women just have to put up with the kind of vile male behaviours in women's single sex spaces that you seem to determined to ignore, do we suggestionsplease1?

I find your determination to put men first quite shocking in the light of the things that we know happens in women's single sex spaces when we let men (including those with trans identities) in.

I’m not asking how it’s working out somewhere else. That’s interesting, but not relevant. It may work well statistically, it may work well for a majority, it may be catastrophic for some people who haven’t been taken into account. It may be that the future reveals issues that aren’t yet visible. It may be that it’s a singularly enlightened country ready to navigate these things.
That isn’t the question.

I’m asking whether everyone who says they are trans is trans.

We have been unable to find evidence that any mechanism was put in place for evaluating the impact of the change on the experience of women and girls, for example in relation to single sex services and spaces. This may reflect the wider context: in 2014 the European Agency for Fundamental Rights ranked Denmark as the EU country with the highest occurrence of male physical violence and sexual assault against women.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/18/lessons-from-denmark/

It doesn’t matter.

we do not have self ID in the uk.

single sex provision is necessary for safeguarding.

Other counties will have these issues now which will eventually make more headlines and will reverse policy.

"In August 2022, authorities in Denmark told Transgender Europe there had been no cases of individuals using the self-determination process with fraudulent or criminal intentions since its introduction.

"I wouldn't say that self-ID has been any threat to women's rights movement in Denmark - actually I would more say the opposite," said Helene Forsberg, director of the Women's Council Denmark, an umbrella NGO for more than 40 rights organisations, who noted it was not one of the group’s focus points.

"Many parts of society unfortunately try to make some kind of opposition between (trans rights and women's rights), which I don't believe there is."