I have a family member whose “gotcha” response to the trans debate is that treating trans identified men as potential threats is exactly the same as racists who say that all Muslims are terrorists.

It's also practically significant if you are comparing men's and women's offending rates because the total number of women in prison is so small and there may be e.g. no women incarcerated in Scotland for sexual offences in a given year.

The Scottish female prison population is around 230 and the total number of male prisoners in prison for sex offences in 24/25 was 1,614. You only need a small percentage of those men to decide that they would prefer to be in a women's prison to significantly change the profile of the women's estate.

ok noooooo. 🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲. I am sooooooo sorry I made you sad with my lack of emojis. How will I cope 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

"Smile, love"

And again. Snippy snippy snippy. Why don't you cheer up?

Don't bother looking for somewhere where I've commented that 250 subjects is too small for a clinical trial on trans issues, because I've never said that. Not a hive mind, remember?

Just remember: 62% of trans identifying men in prison in the UK are there for sex crimes.

For women, the equivalent is 4%. Clearly trans identifying men are men, not women. Even for men who don't identify as women, the figure is "only" 20%.

A sample size of 250 with a 62% positive rate is enough to nail down the underlying rate to within a 6% error at a 95% confidence interval. So, yes, significant.

It really is such fucking nonsense. Honestly, what the hell are these guys on?

I'd love to see your source showing lesbians offend at higher rates that gay men. Truly. In violent crimes? You've got to be joking.

Exactly this. As KJK said to Piers Morgan call me transphobic all you want. Let's talk about how we keep men on it of womens spaces.

What is snippy about putting facts? Did you want me to put emojis and flowers?

The confusion is part of the con.

Not at all - quite the opposite, your post highlights precisely why single sex spaces have to exclude all males including transwomen. Yes different demographic groups within the male sex offend at different rates - poorer, younger, straight men offend at higher rates than older, wealthier or gay men - but it would be absolutely abhorent for businesses to provide one toilet or changing room to older, wealthier or gay men and a different one for the rest. Therefore logically if it's inappropriate to treat one demographic differently because they are a higher risk it would be equally inappropriate to treat one demographic differently because they might be lower risk (it is far from proven that transwomen should be regarded a lower risk - other posters have highlighted that there may be some evidence of the opposite but I don't know enough about the statistics to draw a conclusion and I don't need to precisely because making such a decision on the basis of such statistics would be inappropriate).

In the terrorism analogy - allowing one group of males (the transwomen) into single sex spaces would be akin to exempting a small subgroup of muslims (say the Sufi group who make up 5% of the global muslim population) should be exempt from any of the security procedures that all the rest of us, muslim and non-muslim alike, are subjected to.

You are really quite wrong about the division of facilities is more about the differing requirements like urinals and obviously either haven't thought about or don't care about why women might want to be in a situation where there are no males present, or you don't think that womens needs are important enough to be allowed to inconvenience any male who might prefer to be present, and your reference to single-user fully-enclused unisex facilities in places like airlines, cafes and private homes further emphasises this lack of thought and understanding. This is further highlighted by your final paragraph. This is about women in situations where they are taking their clothes off or otherwise lowering their guard and becoming more vulnerable in the presence of complete strangers - or potentially people who aren't complete stangers but are nevertherless not in the category of "people I know so well I am comfortable being completely naked and vulnerable with them". We have the right to spaces where we only need do that if all other persons present are female. You do not get to take that right away. The fact that some women exist who don't want to avail themselves of that right does not mean they are allowed to surrender the rights of other women either.

We are quite used to living with the risks from being out in the world with males and being subjected to all kinds of sexism and harrassment on a daily basis. The world is a sexist place. It's ridiculous to suggest that the rational, proportionate and legitimate need for single-sex spaces in particular situations of elevated vulnerability should by the same logic be applied to the whole of the rest of our lives too.

Yes, thanks for the snippy response. I'm unashamedly gender critical but when I read this thread title I thought it was about F to M since trans identified MEN suggests (to silly little me at least) as someone who identifies as male.

Exactly this

If they are male, they go to the men’s. It is that simple. There is no justification for granting exemptions to specific groups of men.

It is not feasible to do risk assessements on every person who uses a public facility. They are by nature public, and therefore open to all.

The reason we have single sex facilities in public spaces is because it has proved to be the best way to meet female safeguarding needs. That is to exclude all male people.

The vast majority of women and girls, regardless of age, creed, background or race prefer the privacy of single sex facilities in public situations of undress or pre-occupation with biological function. This is well established and the reasons for it are still valid. It doesn't matter how lovely your gay male friend or trans friend is, if they are male then they have no place in a women's facility. Women's feelings matter too, and we have established protections which consider them important.

Are you saying TIM do not have a personal history of being male? I mean according to your criteria, mild mannered white collar criminals should be in female prison also right even if they are not TIM? Or any man who hasn’t a history of violence. But then you’d have to put any TIM with a history of violence or committing SA in male prisons.

@Northernlightsss“And let's not forget the division of facilities is more about the differing requirements like urinals although we seem to cope fine on airlines, in cafes, restaurants, theatres & even in our own homes with unisex facilities.”

This sentence has made it plainly evident to everyone who reads it that you lack the capability for rational and logical thought.

All of these places you have listed has single use isolated all inclusive rooms. You walk through a lockable door with no gaps around the edge, into a room that has a toilet, sink, bin in it and you do not have any shared areas or ability to peek under or over a door. They are not the same as a communal changing room with no cubicles, or a public toilet with a row of cubicles you can see over/under and a shared multiple sink space.

The home argument is even more ridiculous because your home is not open to the public, there are no strangers using the facilities and even with a stable, happy, well adjusted family there are usually natural instinctual boundaries that we put in place between male and female members of the family, so my daughter may nip into the bathroom to grab her hairbrush while I’m showering but she won’t do it when her dad is showering and vice versa.

It doesn’t assume all males offend at the same rate. In fact it doesn’t assume anything. It uses the well documented fact, repeated across time and cultures, that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual crimes against women to mitigate risk in a number of clearly defined circumstances.

The parallel with Muslims is inaccurate, not least because there is no evidence they now and have always made up 80-90% terrorists. Indeed, it’s only the racists who draw the parallel who seem to think they do.

It is patently clear that not all males offend at the same rate. However within cohorts it is men who offend more than women. More rich men than rich women; more poor men than poor women; more young men than young women. There is a group where the ‘women’ offend more than the ‘men’. Transwomen offend more than transmen. No data shows lesbians offending more than gay men.

You appear though to be being a little more transparent about your underlying desire to see an end to all single-sex facilities, so I suppose that’s some type of progression for you.

He sounds a bit thick. If he wants to make silly arguments then tell him saying single sex spaces shouldn't exist makes him sounds the same as a rapist Then tell him that by denying your lived experience, he is exactly the same as racists and being a racist rapist is not very nice and he should try to be kinder. It might make him realise how fatuous he is being.

…

Yes, like their personal history of being male.

I'm not saying anything. I'm only showing you what the high court concluded in terms of statistical conclusions. And no, that's not how risk assessment is done. It's determined on the individual's likelihood of being a danger to others based on their own personal history….not of the average male or female. If it were, that might be a risk for both men & women. Surely you can understand why?

you Brought it up as an example, not me bud.
the risk assessment would have to use the comparator as “any other male”. You claim there is not enough data to prove TIM are a threat to women in prison. There is therefore no data to prove they are not a threat. So how many women are you saying it’s ok to traumatise and be assaulted before we do have enough data?
Are you saying we should let TIM into female prisons and if women get raped and assaulted then “oops. Our bad but at least we’ve got the data now”? Is that really what you are suggesting? or should we treat TIM the same as every other male, giving them the right to be imprisoned in a facility relevant to their sex? If not, as Women’s prisons are statistically safer, would this not open the justice system to claims of discrimination from non TIM?

Are you saying because males and females share a toilet at home we should let males into women’s prisons?

Not at all. You seem to be projecting bat shit yourself with that kind of wild connection. The judge specifically states risk assessment matters. Do you even understand what that means? Apparently not.

Ah yeah he was given he explicitly says so. And no 250 is not a significant sample size as argued by those who reject gender affirming care research for the same kind of numbers.

Can't have it both ways.

Are you saying because males and females share a toilet at home we should let males into women’s prisons? You win batshit comment of the week.
why are you so invested in trying to convince people mixed sex prisons are good? Because if there’s no great danger to women when men put on a dress, why don’t we make all prisons mixed sex but just make the men wear dresses? Because that is the only difference between a TIM and a non TIM. What they wear. Both men, both statistically proven to be of the same danger to women.

two TIM rapists have been convicted this week. Should they go into female prison? If not, why not?