To think the media over exaggerate trans women and refugees?

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

I have noticed in the media when trans women and refugees do crimes it is highlighted to such an extent compared to if say men commit rapes. When it is a trans women raping someone it leads to "women being unsafe" and the funny thing is a lot of people doing this faux outrage and pretending they care about women is from some men. It is strange when you hear things like "as a father or mother I worry for my child's safety they are not safe." Ok so what about when most sexual attacks are committed by cis men? You never heard them protest about that.

It is the same with refugees you only hear the bad stories "oh he is gaining the system" "oh a lot of these refugees are rapists." There is no middle ground in both of these issues. Rape/sexual assault gaining the system is done by a minority of all people (black, Asian, White etc..) But when it is refugees or trans men doing crime it is highlighted to such as extent to which other groups that do the same crime e.g. white Brits is less highlighted and outrage is not as much.

Ok so to clarify. Where would you prefer someone biologically born a woman who now identifies as a man to use the loo? The ladies by your "logic" but I can see you kicking off about that making you feel unsafe too. You can't have it both ways.

Yes I'm absolutely sure it is possible.

If you have been mocked, belittled or personally insulted that's not right.

Do you feel you have been insulted and mocked repeatedly here, and is that the reason you have been mocking, belittled and insulted other posters? I'm not sure I understood your last post which is why I asked a further clarifying question earlier.

I am not trying to be pushy but you've not responded to any of the content of the other posts since your last. That feels deliberate to me.

Why did you take the time to change the wording in my quote above? It seems to me that wouldn't be a logical thing to do, it would take extra time, and you exchanged the short acronym "GC" to the longer word "other" - that looks to me like a subconscious positioning of yourself on the other or opposing side to GC feminism - generally accepted to be the TRA side.

That's just my thoughts on it, why I found it interesting. Of course I may be wrong but like I said earlier, added to your use of language and antagonistic and mocking position against the GC posters here sure makes it look that way.

You've now agreed that the 3 points underpinning your links that prove transphobic discrimination, you don't find transphobic but you've yet to engage properly with @Helleofabore about that.

I can't shake the feeling that you don't want anyone to look too closely in case they see something dodgy, and if they do see something a bit suss I feel like you'd rather no one pointed it out because that would be "transphobic". I again could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm strongly getting from you. Of course that's just my uneducated opinion.

That sub GCSE comment earlier was pointedly aimed to be mean - education is a wonderful thing but having a bunch of grades to your name doesn't mean you can't have an opinion or join the discussion. I'm not well educated and I know women with literally one or two of the equivalent to todays GCSE's who have valid and intelligent points to make on all this for all that they aren't as wordy or educated as you.

@TheHoover I'm assuming you mean @Helleofabore's replies to you, I can see frustration at your discussion style but no personal attacks, mocking or belittling.

“So what do you say to”

I say ‘hurrah’ you have actually finally done something more than plonk down a report and not engage with it !

”56% of young trans people likely to be unemployed”
”1 in 3 employers would not hire a trans person”
”1 in 8 trans people have been physically attacked by customers or colleagues”

I say that is very concerning and should be researched further by an independent government department responsible for employment and employees safety. I say that the numbers should be verified, they could be even worse, and that employers should receive impartial, balanced and accurate guidance on how to get young people (how surprising that they separated out ‘young people’ ….) into meaningful employment, and to prevent any violence towards this group by making sure that the message about violence at work specifically mentions their needs.

Actually, women can have it both ways. And if you talk with many female transitioners you would know that they understand the distress that their modified appearance causes other females. I mean testosterone modified appearance which is more successful at changing the appearance of females to have male facial cues. We even quite often get these female people dropping by on MN to discuss this with us.

They understand the changes that testosterone makes and seek alternative solutions for their needs.

Perhaps the question that should be asked is, if every woman and girl understood that no male person ever entered single sex spaces and fully and always respected female people’s needs, would women and girls still feel distress with a female who had testosterone modified features entering a female space. Ie. Knowing 100% that that person was female too.

@HatThatWearsYou
being accused of prejudice, having a political agenda, goady (was that you?), incoherent multiple times.

nb I’m not defending my incoherency; I can actually write properly; just cba with my thumb on this kind of stuff.

I'm not sure that we can ever realistically be 100% sure that a person of male appearance in the ladies isn't in fact a male. Men can still choose to ignore any law and follow a lone woman in while nobody is watching. Although granted it'd be much worse if it was legal and nobody could challenge them.

@Helleofabore
getting better data is vital. This means getting trans people to feel safe enough to declare their identity on their job application. Stonewall are experts in helping employers this field - but I have seen multiple posts on MN sharing the view that any organisation who is still a member of stonewall has been brainwashed and is pushing the trans agenda on its employees.

I have problems with Stonewall but the vast majority of their past and current work is invaluable.

(another centrist view)

Who decides its centrist? Stonewall seem very right wing to me

Trans people are much more likely to have been in care, be autistic and have other mental health problems. These numbers are awful but we need to benchmark them against that cohort for full interpretation.

Gc people are not blind to this. They just say it does not mean men should be in the ladies. If tw stopped trying to abuse women by infiltrating their spaces, i think society could better accept them.

Let’s start with these:

I mean logic really isn’t your strong point

Literally your comprehension and critical reasoning is sub gcse level.

your logic has been pretty bollocks at times

These are personal attacks. They are not “attacking flawed argumental constructs”.

This is just the last few pages and only posts to me. I have not checked the others.

And by the way,

“and for the second time, posting data sources does not mean I am engaging in discussion in relation to the entire text.”

You have not engaged with the substance of the report you posted until this post. Despite being questioned about it.

And again, you have just yourself pointed out that some the conclusions, the three questions I repeatedly asked that ARE relevant to the report, were based on falsehoods.

I asked to see the data and the data collection mechanic because it is important to understand how the questions were asked and what the answers were. And this was a YouGov project and the majority of people were NOT trans. So what was this data telling us compared to the rest of the respondent data?

My very ‘minimising tone’ was a sarcastic comment towards your statement.

“So, of course I have challenged your links. Has anyone else provided links that were relevant to the UK situation? So, how have I challenged 'every data source' available. Seriously, if your links were it, then that is a shocking paucity of data to be supporting such serious claims of discrimination .”

Your removing the context of my comment removed the clearly sarcastic comment about the quality of your links.

Which by the way refer to conclusions of discrimination such as misgendering and being asked to not use female only single sex spaces if the employee was not female and mentioned the transphobia that you now agree was not transphobia, to support conclusions about levels of abuse, harassment and discrimination.

So, no. I don’t consider your links to be very high quality for reliable accuracy. I have been very upfront about that from the first you posted them. I am very happy to read other studies where the data is included with the data collection questions. I usually like yougov because they provide that information.

As I also said pages ago, it is weird that I cannot find the Yougov data for that report. I asked if you had it. You obviously don’t or you would have provided it.

It was me that used goady, yes.

I was describing my feelings on your posting style. I wasn't directly attacking you and saying "you are clearly being deliberately goady", I was saying that I feel your posts come across as goady sometimes. Like the one where you ha ha'd at a poster for example. I don't think I would be alone in feeling that way. By not directly attacking you and instead pointing out how it comes across to me (and possibly others? Still unclear on one of your earlier posts sorry!), I had hoped you would possibly see why I might feel like that, and also see that this is not helping move the conversation forward.

You seem to be acting like Helleofabore (for example) is attacking you, I don't think they are and I don't think it comes across like that to others. What they are doing is intelligently pointing out a few issues they have with the links you kindly provided. You yourself agree with some of the points that Helleofabore pointed out were suspect but you won't engage with that because maybe you feel like if you do you'll be gotcha'd? I don't know, so I'm massively guessing here.

It is ok to say trans people can suffer from discrimination because of they are trans and that is absolutely wrong and should be stopped, while also seeing flaws in the links because they are categorising some things as transphobic that clearly aren't - as you agree yourself - and including this in their stats to support the statement that trans people are suffering huge levels of transphobic discrimination in the workplace.

And that's just the point on employment for younger trans people. Then there were all the other very good points in @BoredOfThisMansWorld's post way back in the early pages that included the physical, structural and political advantages men have in todays world already which @Helleofabore has then covered the late transitioning trans women who clearly have had all those advantages and still have them.

I've clearly missed the other posters saying you are definitively prejudiced etc. I wonder since you included my feelings of goady-ness (?) as an example here maybe you could have taken someone using a variation of prejudiced/prejudicial regarding their feelings on your views as an attack?

I think the coherency would be helped a little if you quote the post you are replying to, I struggle a little to untangle things when sometimes I'm not sure what points in which post you are replying to.

I'm tired of people using the centrist view comment as a descriptor as it's very often used by people to make others look extreme. A bit like Braverman supporters claiming to be centrist. They aren't but it forces the whole argument to move away from the central position.

@TheHoover your claim to be centrist reminds me of this, your arguments are not on common ground and your language is similar to that used against gc women by many in the transgender debate and your refusal to engage in genuine debate make me question your motives. A debate which allows us to grow and learn as people means answering questions that make us question our viewpoint. You have neither asked or answered questions in a straightforward manner. I find your claim to be a centrist disingenuous.

I don’t disagree with you literal.

And we know from other sources, including the Cass report, that Trans people are much more likely to have been in care, be autistic and have other mental health problems.”

The information around these three points of high unemployment, violence and recruitment need to be further checked to make sure all issues are considered and guidance and policy changes were needed.

And it needs to be broken down by sex, gender identity and age
as well as any other useful category.

It most definitely does not mean that female people’s sex based rights are overridden to achieve this.

@HatThatWearsYou what you have failed to grasp is that 3/4 of Hellebore’s content is effectively going:

’are you saying this, we’ll then that….’

and occasionally

‘you have just said this!’ When I haven’t.

With a tone of - yes - condescension and belittlement. Not saying I haven’t done the same but the tone was set early on and not by me. I mean let’s address the elephant in the room: I have seen what happens to anyone not 100% with the agenda and she was just merrily lining up the usual guns with a crooked smile
on her face….

I have said this poster has shown prejudice Hat. I have pointed out why I have said it and Hoover has not really engaged with the substance of where I pointed it out. Certainly not adjusted their posts to reflect the fact that there seemed to a lot of false or hyperbolic preconceived ideas motivating their posts.

Here:

”I am addressing the points in the article you posted. I am also addressing your own prejudice that MN ‘will not accept Stonewall data’. Which is a falsehood. It is not that people will not accept ‘stonewall data’, it is that the data doesn’t necessarily point to the conclusion that is drawn or is poor collection.”

because of comments such as this:

”gcs do not want checks and balances to their argument”

(Where I also pointed out that ‘GCs’ is a dehumanising term and shows prejudice. It is not a neutral term at all)

and I said it again here:

“And you have built yourself a strawman based on your own prejudice of people who disagree with the degree of disadvantage being portrayed by you and your links. You have done this in introducing denial of discrimination against sexual orientation and race, while continuing to attempt to force team. Who is doing this? Anyone? Or do you just want to add to that forced teaming you have been attempting on this thread.”

and here

“Your posts have shown your prejudice in your comments against people who disagree with you, I have pointed out that you also have used dehumanising language in your posts. Rather hypocritical to then claim ‘ad hom’ in light of that.”

And here

“Because you keep trying to belittle me and other posters yet I can only assume it is because you have a prejudice against people on MN who challenge you about this topic. I can see no other reason for your reactions here.”

I am referring to motivation of posting style. Of the insults, the false accusations etc.

I have also given examples of the I consistencies and lack of coherence in posting style. I am not going to go back and c&p these. People can do that themselves if they have doubts.

Gosh! And you wonder where the idea that you held some prejudices towards people who don’t agree with you came from?

Would you like to point out the condescension please? And the belittlement from my posts?

Would you also like to point out where I have said you have said something, when you haven’t where you have told me you haven’t said it?

I think you are just viewing the posts from a very different perspective. I suspect you feel personally attacked, you really aren't being.

You have been asked a lot of questions because having a direct conversation with you (from the outside) has looked like trying to grab an eel with buttery fingers.

I'm not reading condescension or belittlement from anyone but you in those exchanges, disagreeing with the links and pointing out obvious flaws in the data collection and how that dodgy data has been used to massage figures in a study isn't a personal attack. Pointing it out isn't condescending to you, it's just having a conversation about a source you provided.

I think you are saying you are not really bothered by this but for some reason you are taking the discussion too personally and using that as an excuse to "react" in a hostile way towards one particular poster.

They have been attempting to engage you in an intelligent discussion of facts and you have been pretty horrible towards them. I on the other hand whilst agreeing with that poster have been politely disapproving of your posting style - because belittling, mocking positioning yourself as centrist when you appear to actually position yourself as anti GC, calling other posters illogical (this isn't irony I know, it's the other thing but I don't know what it is so - oh the irony!) etc and you politely engage with me in a discussion.

Seems a bit... distracting from the topic at hand really, I appreciate that I'm enabling it a bit now but that also jumps out at me in your posting style.

You keep slipping around the actual discussion, which is now pretty far removed from the OP because you ridiculed @BoredOfThisMansWorld's post and I asked you for something to back up your assertion they were being absurd. You mock, belittle and say you are taking all this lightheartedly (when it's a very important and hot button topic for a lot of women notfunnily enough), ha ha-ing at posters and positioning yourself as anti-GC while describing yourself as centrist.

Some might begin to wonder if you are not the one "100% with the agenda... just merrily lining up the usual guns with a crooked smile
on (their) face…."?

Ah well there you go, this is exactly what I meant - I would not class these as personal attacks, I don't think anyone else would. I doubt they would break MNHQ t&c's or even invite a wrist slap.

Youre both amazing. Utterly, utterly blind to the self righteousness and condescension in the argument and now utterly blind to the self righteousness and condescension in your tone-policing.

Anyway sleep well

I suspect you are completely blind to the hypocrisy that is glaringly evident in this post.

By the way hoover, would you now like to answer the other questions I have raised about the links you have posted that directly related to discrimination. I have asked a couple of times about these as well.

Do you or do you not think that excluding male applicants from charities that have been set up with female single sex groups/shelters is transphobic discrimination?

Do you or do you not think the exclusion of male candidates taking the place of a female on a board that is supposed to be balanced by sex by intention is transphobic?

These are two more examples of transphobia from the links you posted. They have been directly used as examples of transphobic discrimination in employment.

Do you agree with the report that they are transphobic discrimination examples? I am not asking if they are discrimination or not, because they are discrimination. They are, of course, legally allowed discrimination scenarios.

I am asking if you think they are examples of transphobia?

I'm well aware of how my last post reads.

I'm also pretty sure that people reading the thread will understand the frustration and my little poke about logic, and be able to see that you've avoided a good faith discussion of the links you provided.

And sure I could be accused of tone policing, but not before you are accused of being provocative and hostile for no reason.