More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

That doesn’t mean it is working fine for women.

But it’s not about reality for you, is it?

Just about how things look, and whether you can hand wave away women’s concerns whilst spouting self righteous word wankery.

Surely even you know how dishonest you are trying to be with statistics there.

And everyone in the PRC is fine with the political situation in their country, and their "rights" therein, evidenced by the fact that there is "no broad spread movement for change nor is it an election defining issue in either country."

See also North Korea.

Prostitution is not illegal (though some related activities are).

"People are imprisoned or prosecuted for prostitution in the UK for the following main reasons:
Brothel-Keeping: Under UK law, any premises used by more than one person for sex work is considered a brothel. Because working alone can be highly dangerous, sex workers often share apartments or spaces for safety. However, doing so is illegal and can lead to prosecution. 1, 2, 3, 4]
Soliciting and Kerb-Crawling: It is illegal to loiter or solicit sex in a public street or in a vehicle (kerb-crawling). 1, 2]
Pimping and Trafficking: The highest penalties—up to seven years in prison—are reserved for third-party exploiters, pimps, and those engaged in human trafficking or forcing people into prostitution. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Failure to Pay Fines: Many individuals, particularly street-based workers, accumulate repeated fines for soliciting. When these fines go unpaid, or they breach community orders or Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), they can face prison sentences. 1, 2]"

Your point was that it's illegitimate for women to be concerned about this (a 'moral panic').
Why should women not be concerned about incarceration rates?

Again the point being made is the impact is far lower than being asserted.

Why must they use your preferred numbers, draw your preferred (lack of) conclusions?

Why should they pay attention to the actual risks & not the ginned up one's? They can do what they want but its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue. Most other western countries in Scandinavia, Europe, North America & Australia & Asian countries don't consider the risk worth changing the structure of society over.

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems on minorities like the UK does by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty caused by bad governance.

They so often combine a surface logic with stubborn wrongness, which suckers me in every time! Like those Twitter posts that include a distracting error for engagement-farming purposes. I have not learned my lesson.

Need to do some work today so must put on all my internet blockers.

AIBU to mourn the simple times when everyone knew perfectly well who was a man and who was a woman and didn’t ever give it a second thought?

Now 20,000 angels must dance on the head of a pin in every single bloody thread thanks to men like Bailey. It’s exhausting.

I actually think that, most of the time, they're all the same person! 😏

You don't seem to know much about statistics either.

Prostitution is not illegal (though some related activities are).

Your point was that it's illegitimate for women to be concerned about this (a 'moral panic').

Why should women not be concerned about incarceration rates? Why must they use your preferred numbers, draw your preferred (lack of) conclusions?

We know from the figures that 46 of the transwomen are in prison for rape or attempted rape.

So, re-run the numbers only with those figures and without adjusting downwards the female figures and you get a ratio of 64x.

I've used your figures for the denominator here. I've erred in your favour on every calc. It still comes out really bad.

This bogus analysis has been debunked a zillion times on MR. Incarceration is not offending & in any case the trans population is too small to make any meaningful statistical conclusions about.

Sexual offences can include prostitution btw that trans women are more likely to be involved in.

"Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Not what was said at all."

You said that removing rights from 51% of the population does not count. You wanted examples of "trampling".

What did you mean by that then?

Unknown & irrelevant.

Known (see my answer). You don't seem to know much about this issue if you were unaware of that basic fact.

"Existential" threat? Firstly, some women are killed, but no, that is not what most women are arguing about. Again you seem very new to this terrain.

You were railing against people taking positions based on ignorance earlier. Start with yourself.

Well there's no broad spread movement for change nor is it an election defining issue in either country.

Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Not what was said at all.

Does a transwoman commit more or less sexual crime than the average woman, for example?

Unknown & irrelevant.

The over arching point being made that you are clearly missing was the actual impact isn't the existential threat being made out not that there wasn't any impact.

They do not work fine.
Not looking at the legal situation Australia and Canada. Perhaps ask some Canadian and Australian women.

@Baileyonice -- I've got some numbers for you.

Let's go with 0.5% of the pop is trans (I don't know how accurate this is, but it's your figure). So let's say about 130,000 adult transwomen.

MoJ figures (Nov 2023): between 95 and 99 trans-identifying male prisoners without a GRC (so this is probably an undercount) are in for a primarily sexual offence.

That is 1 in 1,313 of transwomen currently in prison for a sexual offence.

Total adult female population about 27,000,000.

MoJ figures: female prisoners serving for a primarily sexual offence: 150.

That is 1 in 180,000 women currently in prison for a sexual offence.

So, a 137x difference in sexual offence rate on those numbers.

This also means that 95/245 = 39% of the group of "women+" (i.e. women plus trans-identifying-males-without-GRC) prisoners in for a sexual offence are trans women.

At all stages of the calculation, I've hedged in your favour (haven't adjusted for GRC-holders, used the lower number provided by the MoJ).

At what level does it become acceptable to be concerned about this?

You've raised a really good point. Why don't we look at data.

If women's concerns were about "trans people existing" then 0.5% might be a sensible number to refer to.

But it's not. Mostly, women's concerns are about harms to safety, dignity and fairness.

Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Does a transwoman commit more or less sexual crime than the average woman, for example?

(This is relevant because often we're considering how adding transwomen to a group previously restricted to women changes the risk profile).

By roughly what multiple? Up or down?

One man thinking he has the right to access women's spaces can have an impact on countless women.

All womem deserve their rights to single sex spaces upheld. If they don't want to exercise those rights, that's up to them, but there may well come a time when they're glad they exist.

Yeah they "trample" 0.5% of the time being the point.

PS You don't get to speak for all women so 52% is a false total.

And don't you dare dictate to others that (using your stats) you are over cooking the impact here particularly given its 0.5% of people involved when those 0.5% of people are trampling on the rights of 52% of the population to safety, privacy and dignity.

The irony.

Don’t you dare tell women that a man with a fetish is one of them and to be tolerated.

Don't YOU dare dictate to others on the validity of their identity & exaggerate the impact.

A moral panic is an exaggerated public fear that a specific group or behaviour threatens a society's core values and interests.

In other words, you are over cooking the impact here particularly given its 0.5% of people involved.

Has it occured to you that most people are probably centre right on social and cultural issues.

No because that's not true.

The left like the right isn't a monolith. The overwhelming majority would not want open borders rather sustainable & orderly immigration as opposed to the new right who's real issue isn't sustainable & orderly immigration but being racially replaced.

As far as knowing the difference between sex, most people are far less likely to dehumanise, demonise & discriminate against trans people which is the exclusive purview of the far right. So no, most aren't centre right on trans people's basic rights.

and they don't like being shamed and shunned because they don't like the totalitarianism of progressive identity politics.

Most people aren't being shamed & shunned because most people aren't invested in this issue. You are exaggerating the public interest in this issue.

Both Canadian & Australian have exemptions under specific circumstances for cis women that work fine.