Aren't transpeople still a tiny minority?

Thirded!! I am NOT a cis-gender woman. I am
just a woman. Being a woman is enough. Women do not need to be defined by comparison against what we are not. There are women, and then there are trans women (who are biological males).

@Waheymum I'm querying whether, statistically, I'm better off crossing the road to avoid a cisgender man or a transgender woman

I would avoid the trans-identified male everytime because, as PP said, he is already demonstrating a disrespect for women's boundaries.

This is going to seem harsh @Diverze , but if my adult son identified as a 6 year old or as a rabbit, I would not be meeting him halfway in the deception, even if it did relieve some of his distress. I would not be saying, 'well he learnt it at school, nothing I can do about that now'. I would not be finding ways for him to live as a 6 year old or as a rabbit without talking facilities and rights away from other people. I would be re-mortgaging the house to buy him any professional help that I could possibly find.
What is it about this 'man identifies as woman' story that makes so many people, including parents and educators, so passive?

"You are using different statistics together to lead to a conclusion without understanding the contact of the data eg how it was collected, what possible flaws there could be, slightly different definitions, different dates or time frames etc etc"

actually, I am confused here.

I presented the data across two posts. What were the 'different statistics' that you think I was using? Do you mean that I used the 2019 % of female sex offenders in prison to extrapolate what should be the likely % of male people with transgender identities sex offences in prison if their offending rate was the same or lower than female people in the UK, and not a more current % ?

As I stated, that % of female sex offenders had been relatively stable over decades. Do you think that this will have dramatically changed?

Do you understand the point I was making? That we can extrapolate the % to come up with some kind of estimate (of course not exact) of what should be the numbers we are seeing in prison that are sex offenders. The numbers are not even close. I can come back tomorrow and do more splicing if you want.

But at this stage, I am not sure that you can come up with a convincing argument as to why the statistics presented should not be considered as showing that

This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people in the UK.

Yes, there are limitations on those figures. But I cannot understand why they cannot be said to show what I have stated. Others may make other assumptions and use the data I have posted how they wish. It is always interesting to see what others do with it.

However, these are the points you mentioned:

We are comparing a group of 200 transwomen with a group of 10s of 1000s of men. If we get 50 more sex offenders in the trans group it will have a dramatic impact on the percentage of sex offenders in the trans group. If the same happens with the male group, it will scarcely change the percentage. For this reason, It is not viable to compare percentages with such widely differing bases.

I disagree to a point on this. We are looking at crime patterns and whether they hold stable to be assessed as this group having lower risk or the same risk as female people. The % of sex offenders in that group current are in no way even close to female people. Yes, if we get 50 more sex offenders in the group it will be a dramatic impact. But the pattern is consistent that this group are not being imprisoned with sex crimes to their names in anyway near the % of female people.

"Also we need to understand that the numbers relating to people in custody simply show us who is being caught and convicted. They don’t necessarily give us a true picture of who is more likely to commit a sexual offense."

Yes. Is there a reason that you think that this group of male people are being caught and convicted disproportionately more than female people are being caught and convicted? Do you think that this group of male people are being caught and convicted disproportionately more than other male people are being caught and convicted? Why? Where is your evidence that there is this disproportion?

"Another way to look a this would be be to calculate the proportion of transwoman sex offenders as a percentage of the overall transwoman population but I don’t think we have that figure."

I have already answered this.

"We need to remember that these figures don’t tell us anything about who offended but wasn’t caught or anyone who received non-custodial sentences."

I have also been though a number of convictions where the person has pleaded being vulnerable and received non-custodial sentences. When I did this, I noticed that the % was actually pretty high so if those male people with transgender identities were included, the number would be even more strongly supporting that :

This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people in the UK.

I understand that you want to warn people of misusing statistics but I am not sure that you have understood the aim of me posting these statistics in the first place.

Regarding the prison statistics, if it was down to a small subset of men, and one or two sex offenders could disproportionately effect the percentages, we should see that reflected in other crimes, too. And sometimes the percentage of sex offenders would be very low.

So sometimes the proportion of sex offence is high, other times drug dealers, sometimes fraud. Sometimes, very few, if any sex, offenders.

But the percentage of sex offenders stays high on every report.

It could be than only the very dangerous trans identifying men get a prison sentence, and other criminals, who would be imprisoned if they didn't identify as trans, get a more lenient sentence? But that wouldn't be right, would it?

I agree. I experience it as extremely cruel TO ME when people wrongly sex others. Not only because I have sex realist beliefs but because it's a mangling of normal, grammatical English which I find akin to a continuous stroop test, and it has safeguarding implications too when talking about those who may be looking after children (see girl guides controversy).

When people lie, it contributes to loss of trust in society too. If words no longer mean what they have meant for long periods of time, and people can unilaterally change the meaning, it's difficult to trust other people and institutions (hello NHS with your lack of truly single sex spaces or women's rights).

This. Furthermore use whatever pronouns or descriptions you want but please extend the same to others, and on a public thread it is reasonable for posters to clarify that the correct term is he, the correct description is son. You're free to use whatever you want and if you want and are happy to abuse women's rights and keep pushing women's boundaries do so but you don't have the right to not be called out for it. Son he him.

Previous 2 comments were deleted…..the thought police are out in force, it is starting to get really rather silly MNHQ.

TWANW, note the Not.

It's just not constructive. I am not asking you to respect someone's pronouns, but surely you can see an entire post that just says the word "he" in response to me explaining a viewpoint is just inflammatory and unnecessary?

In one of your posts you referred to your trans child as your daughter. I understand that it is now perfectly normal and natural to you to refer to your child as your daughter. I did have to read back through one of your posts to work out who you were referring to though. I don't flip son/daughter, man/trans woman, she/he around so easily and fluidly in my own mind.

The entire issue is about words. Material reality did not change.

Trans identified males told society that TWAW.

Society nodded along, being 'kind'.

And through our schools and institutions and media told children that this was fact. And children believed it.

If society had drawn the line in the same way that women draw the line on here, we would not be in this mess.

It is not a complex societal issue at all. It's words being redifined to tell lies and being presented as facts.

We need to go back to telling the truth, even if that's painful for some. Having a society willing to tell such fundamental lies to our children to placate a small minority is dangerous and harmful to everyone.

Don’t be disingenuous. You know female language means language pertaining to or discription of females. Pronouns are clearly part of that language and the destruction of female language is violence towards women. By using female language for men you are destroying it; you are destroying the means by which women can describe ourselves as a distinct category, destroy the means by which we can record our oppression or campaign against it, you are destroying our healthcare, our spaces, our protections in law. You dehumanise females by turning us into body parts or functions.

Your use of ‘she’, ‘her ‘, and ‘daughter’ to describe your son is abuse towards all women.

It’s not about creating a ‘out’ group.

Ministry of Justice statistics show that trans-identifying men are more likely than other men to be in prison for sex offences. So that tiny minority is more dangerous than other men.

Read Helleofabore’s posts above for full and incontrovertible details.

Yes. This has long been considered as part of the issue. And it has been prevented from being collected too through the obfuscation of recording male crime as female crimes and not capturing gender identity status.

It creates a situation where we are left with prisoner records to review. Not ideal but they are usable to make significant points in relation to safeguarding female people.

If you would like to present alternative data sets that assure women that this group of male people for risk assessment, have a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people, please link it up.

You would also need to objectively define who is and isn't included in this group, which is a problem if nobody else is using that criteria.

You are, as you point out, free to call your son what you want.

I hope you have made it clear that others are under no compulsion to refer to him as a woman (either directly, via pronouns, via descriptors).

They have very valid reasons not to wish to lie to him on this topic.

Diverze, you were accusing a poster of not trying to look for solutions because they called you on the lie. I'm trying to explain that truthful language is important to seeking solutions. Particularly in this field where there have been many attempts to manipulate the deceptive language to leverage women's rights away.

Speaking for the more local northern part of the planet, in the UK there are more reports of sexual assault in mixed sex changing rooms than in single sex changing rooms.

We also know that men are far more likely to commit crimes like indecent exposure and voyeurism, but the Wii Spa case in California shows that it is very difficult to claim that such a crime has been committed if a man has a right to use a space, and that in these circumstances nobody really cares if the man is or isn't trans.

Daughter is a female descriptor and I don't believe that adding the adjective 'trans' to it makes it not a female descriptor.

You have also made reference that you don't like people referring to your child as 'he'. Yet to refer to him in any other way is not accurate for these discussions.

i'm happily surprised at the number of pp who got that reference 😀

I do understand the limitations of the data rather well. I have spent a lot of time going over the difference data sets from the UK and from other countries.

Can you explain to me please what new data is going to dramatically change the point, or to disprove the point, that I am making.

This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people.

You already agree with Flirts' logic who pointed out that we need to make the point about appropriate comparators, which is what I pointed out on page one in the post before the one you quoted. We need to stop referring to male people as being a relevant comparator for safeguarding risk assessment and many of us have been making this point for years now.

Would you like to splice the data another way or for me to? I have already done this on other threads previously. The thing is, those % also get rejected by some people who wish to dismiss that 'This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people.' What population base would you recommend we use for UK male people with transgender identities?

The prisoner statistics are what we have. It is not perfect, yet the logic holds. If you would like to present alternative data sets that assure women that this group of male people for risk assessment, have a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people, please link it up. I have been searching for that data for a few years now and I would welcome seeing it.

Well, you go ahead and prefer it then, knock yourself out.

Posters here have free will. If I can't police you calling my trans daughter my son, and using 'he' pronouns, then it is true the other way too. I can call her she if I want to. I could also claim to own 25 racehorses and be the world champion at ballroom dancing. People lie online all the time. You have no way of policing that.

Men are 50% of the population, commit 80% of violent crime and 99% of all sex crime.

Using the word daughter even with a trans in front is part of the lie. Using the word she is part of the lie. All the tussles about whether there should be a space in "trans women" or not, about whether sea horses are horses or not, about whether trans is being used as an adjective or a modifier - that word women there is being used as a crowbar. It's not harmless politeness when it's being weaponised against us.

You choose to lie to your son. This here is not you in your house talking to your son, it's a discussion board about women's rights, women's needs, and women's spaces. Not participating in sleight of hand lies about what sex people are is increasingly preferred here.

Diverze, I think I see where you are coming from, which I acknowledge is a place that I have no personal experience of; I agree with some of what you say but not with all of it. I think that's as far as you and I are going to get, and I think that's OK, so I'm leaving it at that, with good wishes for you and your child

Well, for an example, Amnesty are pretty good about campaigning for single sex toilets in India because not having any, or having mixed sex toilets in India is very dangerous for women in India. We know that because Amnesty have done studies and therefore campaign for toilets for women in India.

In the "global North" or whatever you like to call where we live Amnesty are very keen that we share them with men.