More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

We don't demand that everyone uses pronouns based on sex, and cry "bigot" and go "no contact" if they don't.

There is also a long long history of social convention. I am not against questioning that, and pushing boundaries, but it should be done cautiously, because the downsides are not always immediately apparent. The contrast between the slow and careful societal changes of attitude towards gay people and their requests, and the sudden imposition of so-called progressive attitudes regarding trans people, is stark. Trans activists have pushed to far and too fast, and are unfortunately in danger of a big swing the other way. Too far, in demanding that women give up their necessary protections, and too fast in that they nearly got away with forcing change (sell-id) in about a decade with no debate.

Fucking hell, Bailey, read the things you cite first. It will save you repeated embarrassment.

Firstly, the case is about a specific question that isn't precisely what is being discussed. You've muddled different things.

But in so far as justices Holroyd and Swift compare sexual offences between transgender people and males in general, here is what they say:

"the statistical evidence shows that the proportion of transgender prisoners who have been convicted of one or more sexual offences is substantially greater than the corresponding proportions of non-transgender men and women prisoners"

Substantially greater than men prisoners (and women prisoners too).

You've been trying to use this to show me that the TIM rate is the same as females, or is unknowable, and to show Henrietta that it's not greater than men in general.

(From what I can tell, the judges' reference to "transgender prisoners" includes both TIMs and TIFs. In other words, even when you add females into a pool with TIMs in it, the overall sexual offence rate for that pool remains higher than for the male-prisoner pool).

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html

You are using a judge as authority on statistics?

We have single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity, primarily; as well as to provide protection from predation, overt voyeurism and/or physical assault.

Males are not female, and in our society females have established protections that honour the needs for the dignity and privacy of their sex in public situations of vulnerability or in sporting competition.

What about the voyeurs? 100% of voyeurs and exhibitionists in prison are male. Is 100% definitive enough?

Does a man saying he is a transwoman to enter a toilet make him any less male? Because men have been doing that to justify going into women’s toilets to commit crimes. How do we stop that @Baileyonice ?

Your trouncing seems to be really stinging. Poor you.
#sadtimes

So, since TIMs are male, our risk assessment will continue to be that they pose at least as much risk as other men ie a very high risk.

Not according to a high court judge. But you do you.

It has been amusing to watch, though, so thanks to @GeneralPeter for that.

@Baileyonice If the numbers are too low to prove anything, (which I don't actually think is the case) then you are unable to prove that TIMs sexually offend at a rate equal to or less than women. So, since TIMs are male, our risk assessment will continue to be that they pose at least as much risk as other men ie a very high risk.

It's hard to put a figure on the actual number of trans people.
"Trans :

A term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Stonewall uses ‘trans’ as an umbrella term including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, non-binary, agender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine and trans feminine."

That right there is from the Stonewall website.

I wasn't assigned male sex, it was observed at birth (I am hecka old so I think mother dearest didn't know my sex until shortly after she gave birth). So firstly, I don't have male gender for a start, even if that is a thing (not sure if it is or not).

And let's say male gender is a thing, for the sake of argument. If it is, I don't want it. It's probably a bunch of sexist old bollocks based on not crying, being the main breadwinner and wearing badly fitting jeans (if I had to guess).

I'm some kind of agender, I think. The agender subtype I most closely identify with can be summed up thusly 'gender is a bunch of tedious specious sexist bollocks that I want no part of please and thank you'.

So I'm trans, according to the Stonewalls themselves - who knew?

@Baileyonice

OK, here’s a version you might understand.

Australia has a pop of 26 million. Geelong has a pop of 130,000.

Imagine in one year 97 people died of poisoning in Geelong, while the rate for other similar sized towns in Australia was less than 1 per year (total ex Geelong for the whole of Australia of 150).

How likely is that to be just random year-to-year variation?

Or we say that something is going on in Geelong?

@Baileyonice This is Dunning-Kruger.

We’ve done the actual statistical test you wanted and it showed up the wrong way for you.

Anyway. If you truly think it’s no more than chance, go and look at other countries’ data.

If you are right you should find about half have TW sexual offence rates below the female one and about half above it.

The judge was deciding a different question, about lawfulness, on a different issue. It was also pre-FWS so I don’t know if the decision would be the same today or not.

We both know the relevant point being made is statistical significance but by all means keep pretending that isn't the context of this discussion.

"You talk about ‘sample size’. We are not discussing a sample. You told me the full trans population and we used that to get the denominator. We then used the full sexual offender prisoner numbers for the numerator."

"We then used the full sexual offender prisoner numbers for the numerator."

Which is a small sample size …confirmed by a high court judge.

"The court heard that in 2019 there were 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, 81 of whom had been convicted of one or more sexual offences. Of the 163, 34 were held in women’s prisons.
Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women’s prisons, of which seven appeared to be committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC. It is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC but the number of transgender prisoners with a GRC across all jails is thought to be in single figures.

Transgender Americans can choose gender on passport, state department says
Read more

Holroyde said the statistics were too low"

@Baileyonice there’s no point. Not only do you not understand my answers, you don’t even understand your own.

The judge was deciding a different question, about lawfulness, on a different issue. It was also pre-FWS so I don’t know if the decision would be the same today or not.

You talk about ‘sample size’. We are not discussing a sample. You told me the full trans population and we used that to get the denominator. We then used the full sexual offender prisoner numbers for the numerator.

No sampling was done.

You are utterly clueless about the statistical point you seem to think is your trump card.

As was the high court judge too I suppose? 😂

That's why you conveniently still haven't answered the question about why he made his judgement.

@Baileyonice

You are terribly out of your depth intellectually here.

keep digging.

"The Real Problem with Small Samples
Instead of automatic insignificance, small samples suffer from specific statistical limitations: 1]
Lower Statistical Power: Small samples have a high risk of producing Type II errors (false negatives). They are great at detecting massive, obvious differences, but usually lack the power to detect smaller, nuanced effects. 1, 2, 3]
Exaggerated Effect Sizes: If a small sample does reach statistical significance, the measured effect size is often heavily exaggerated or distorted by outliers. 1, 2]
Wide Confidence Intervals: The margin of error is inherently larger, meaning your estimates are less precise. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

You really are very bad at this. The stats we are discussing are not about tw in women’s prisons.

The example I gave of the high court ruling was to illustrate that the trans population is too low to make any statistical conclusions about.

Your claim, as revised, is that TW pose a greater threat than females where there is unconditional access?

As do cis females to other females & cis men to other cis men. See where this is going???

In other words, RISKS INCREASING HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS.

@Baileyonice You keep stepping on rakes again and again.

You say p=0.05 is the significance threshold. Fine, that’s conventional.

chi-squared stats:

Chi-square statistic: 7,794
P-value: 1.84 × 10⁻¹⁵⁵ (effectively zero)
Relative risk: 134x
95% confidence interval on relative risk: (104x, 173x)

The p-value is essentially nil. Nil chance that this is not a statistically significant result.

95% confidence that the true multiple is greater than 104x.

Judges remarks

You really are very bad at this. The stats we are discussing are not about tw in women’s prisons. Just read and think about the things you paste first and work out if they relate to the point you are trying to make or not.

Your claim, as revised, is that TW pose a greater threat than females where there is unconditional access?

We agree on that.

How much greater threat? No less than 104x you say?

Comrade Bailey, you have done great work making the GC case today and it’s not even breakfast.

Statistical significance addresses whether an observed difference between groups is likely to reflect a real difference rather than random chance. It is a function of both the size of the effect and the sample size.
For the numbers that you contested the effect size here is enormous. Transwomen137 times the female rate for imprisonment for sexual offences. You need very few observations to be statistically significant.
Don’t believe me? Run the chi-squared or Fischer tests and tell me what you come back with.

Nope. Small sample sizes matter.

"A statistically insignificant result means the observed differences, patterns, or trends in your data are likely due to random chance. This is typically indicated by a p-value greater than 0.05 (meaning there is more than a 5% probability the outcome happened accidentally). 1, 2, 3,

Key Characteristics & Thresholds
The P-value: If a p-value is greater than 0.05, scientists usually fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means the test cannot confidently prove the variable being studied caused the observed effect. 1, 2, 3, 4]
Small Sample Sizes: One of the most common causes for insignificance. If you only survey 10 people, it is much harder to prove a trend compared to surveying 1,000 people. 1, 2]
Practical vs. Statistical: Something can be "statistically significant" but lack real-world value. Conversely, an insignificant finding doesn't mean your study is a failure; it simply means the evidence isn't strong enough to make a definitive claim. 1, 2, 3]

Common Reasons for Insignificant Results
Low Statistical Power: There are not enough participants or observations to detect an actual effect.
Weak Effect Size: The actual difference between your test groups (e.g., control vs. experimental) is incredibly small.
High Variance: The data is too noisy, spread out, or inconsistent to isolate a clear trend. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

"Cass did not look at offending. She complained about the paucity and poor quality of clinical research."

I never said Cass was about offending. The point was a lot of research wasn't included based on small sample sizes.

"Did you read the judge’s quote you pasted? It supports the idea that transwomen are a greater risk than females."

Did you? Or don't you understand the the implication of the words "unconditional" or "risk assessment"

“I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk "

As the judge goes on to say:

"But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

In other words its the unconditional introduction that raises the risk like it would for any prisoner not being trans that did. Prison policy requires risk assessment for housing for this reason. For example their policies requires not housing prisoners who have committed violent crimes with the non violent.

And if its still not obvious to you why do you think the Judge ruled it was lawful to imprison trans women in women's prisons if the risk was increased?

@Baileyonice you really don’t know what you are talking about, at least on statistical significance.

Statistical significance

Statistical significance addresses whether an observed difference between groups is likely to reflect a real difference rather than random chance. It is a function of both the size of the effect and the sample size.

For the numbers that you contested the effect size here is enormous. Transwomen137 times the female rate for imprisonment for sexual offences. You need very few observations to be statistically significant.

Don’t believe me? Run the chi-squared or Fischer tests and tell me what you come back with.

Cass did not look at offending. She complained about the paucity and poor quality of clinical research.

Did you read the judge’s quote you pasted? It supports the idea that transwomen are a greater risk than females.

Different countries

Goalposts moved again.

Poverty

You are funny. I ask whether poverty is the primary driver of sexual crime (because that’s the single factor you picked out in the thing I’m replying to). Not whether it has any correlation at all.

You not only don’t answer, you then provide a bunch of quotes supporting the idea that we should expect transwomen to be higher sexual offender risks. Is it your contention that transwomen are poorer than females in the UK? Because that seemed to be the premise when you first raised it.

It would be amusing to conclude that you are a plant for team GC at this point.

We are to be obedient to the demands of the ideology we don't hold.

As are others to your ideology which by your logic is coercive control.

Whatever happened to accepting each others differences? No one is suggesting you agree with another's choices rather you respect them by accepting they have the right to them. Your demands conformity reek of authoritarianism.

As for identity, perhaps the biggest problem with gender identity is that it comes to dominate so many people's self-perception. Our identities are formed around many aspects of ourselves. Is it not unhealthy for gender to become to the one defining aspect of one's personality?

You could say this about any identity category depending upon the individual. But people do tend to focus on their identity when their rights are being compromised because of it as you are doing now.

The trans population being comparatively minuscule is a fact.

Miniscule, but also entitled, self-centred, self-absorbed and selfish. The entire population is expected to make way and acomodate, to the disadvantage of everyone else.

In other words, me, me, me, me, me.

"The impact is far lower than being asserted".

Mate. I'm trying to run with your logic and methods as far as they take us. You wanted a share-of-population as the measure of what's important. You wanted to look at serious issues. The relevant population for many trans debates is the female one (as often the crux is about access or inclusion of transwomen into female areas or categories). We look at the numbers. Suddenly you aren't so keen on numbers any more, the trans population is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from numbers.

It's not that I'm not "keen on numbers" but rather there are no numbers to write home about. The trans population being comparatively minuscule is a fact. Built into that fact is statistical insignificance. The very same statistical insignificance that the Cass report used to dismiss research & the very same statistical insignificance the UK high court used to dismiss the numbers of trans women incarcerated.

"Holroyde said the statistics were too low and had insufficient detail to provide a safe basis for conclusions, adding: “I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced. But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue.
OK, this is the measure now is it? Let's take a brief tour:
In the US, multiple states have restricted trans women from female prisons, sports and bathrooms, Title IX changes have been reversed. Sport Australia and other sports bodies have restricted trans women from female competition. Canada is reviewing its prison policies after high-profile cases of transwomen sex offenders in female prisons. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have all retreated from self-ID. Germany significantly watered down its proposed Self-Determination Act following public debate. Plenty more examples.

No bathroom bans (the context of this thread & Wiseman's critique) in most US states, Canada, Australia, most European countries, Scandanavia & many countries in Asia.

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems ... by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty

Is sexual crime primarily driven by poverty? The one overwhelming factor predicting the risk of sexual offending is being male. Do you dispute this?

"there is a clear but complex correlation between poverty and the perpetration of sex crimes. While sex offenses occur across all socioeconomic backgrounds, studies show higher rates of perpetration and victimization in communities experiencing concentrated poverty, economic instability, and lack of neighborhood resources. 1, 2, 3, 4]
How Poverty Correlates with Perpetration
Environmental Stressors: Concentrated poverty is linked to severe psychological and health issues, including higher levels of stress, depression, and substance abuse. These factors can reduce impulse control and impair judgment, elevating the risk of violent behavior. 1]
Social Disorganization: Disadvantaged neighborhoods often suffer from lower collective efficacy and fewer community support systems, which can embolden offenders and reduce the likelihood that crimes are deterred or reported. 1, 2]
Cycle of Abuse: Economic hardship often exacerbates domestic friction and child maltreatment. Individuals who experience childhood sexual abuse—which is statistically more prevalent in highly disadvantaged environments—are at a significantly higher risk of becoming perpetrators themselves. 1, 2, 3, 4]"

I'm not exaggerating. My personal experience is the complete upending of my immediate family. I have little doubt that my son feels something very similar. I know DW does. DD is also severely affected, and she's a trans ally. And yet DS will not discuss even the peripheral aspects of his rather sudden deep dive into gender identity as the defining characteristic of his life. We are to be obedient to the demands of the ideology we don't hold. This is coercive control even if he doesn't see it, except that we have our boundaries so are not easy to control, even DD who is very sympathetic.

As for identity, perhaps the biggest problem with gender identity is that it comes to dominate so many people's self-perception. Our identities are formed around many aspects of ourselves. Is it not unhealthy for gender to become to the one defining aspect of one's personality?

@Baileyonice I again appreciate your assistance in providing supporting references for my claims, albeit on the fairly minor point about prostitution laws.

"The impact is far lower than being asserted".

Mate. I'm trying to run with your logic and methods as far as they take us. You wanted a share-of-population as the measure of what's important. You wanted to look at serious issues. The relevant population for many trans debates is the female one (as often the crux is about access or inclusion of transwomen into female areas or categories). We look at the numbers. Suddenly you aren't so keen on numbers any more, the trans population is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from numbers.

its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue.

OK, this is the measure now is it? Let's take a brief tour:

In the US, multiple states have restricted trans women from female prisons, sports and bathrooms, Title IX changes have been reversed. Sport Australia and other sports bodies have restricted trans women from female competition. Canada is reviewing its prison policies after high-profile cases of transwomen sex offenders in female prisons. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have all retreated from self-ID. Germany significantly watered down its proposed Self-Determination Act following public debate. Plenty more examples.

Now, no doubt, the goalposts are about to move again.

Why should they pay attention to the actual risks

Pays attention to actual risks.
>> No, no. Not those ones!

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems ... by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty

Is sexual crime primarily driven by poverty? The one overwhelming factor predicting the risk of sexual offending is being male. Do you dispute this?

Unknown? Only if you don’t accept prison stats, or don’t want to know.

Irrelevant???