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.

@HatThatWearsYou

just a few articles debunking the suggestion that trans people suffer social, economical and employment advantages as suggested by a pp

https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/QualifiedAndTransgender_FullReport_1.pdf

https://19thnews.org/2022/01/transgender-workers-wage-gap-lowest-paid-lgbtq/?amp

https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-employees-experience-harassment-job-726494

https://www.thetaskforce.org/transgender-workers-at-greater-risk-for-unemployment-and-poverty/

https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/media/knowledge/

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/being-transgender-at-work

Debunking what now? And.

You have posted US articles relating to the US employment issues to ‘debunk’ suggestions on a UK centred site discussing issues relevant to the UK.

The employment protections, or lack thereof, in the US are not applicable here. Why would you use that data to argue about the situation in the UK?

Just like the murder rate of USA for trans people is not appropriate to be used when discussing the murder rate of trans people in the UK.

Newspapers don't sell themselves (either as hard copy or on-line). They all (without exception) have to whip up a story or we'll ignore them.

Your attempt here to distract from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence at all that males who transition have a rate of committing sex crime anywhere near that of the same risk level of a female committing sex crime is unconvincing.

Yes, it highlights there is an issue with male prisoners transitioning after arrest. But this is not the case for all. If you want to make that argument, I suggest you find figures that show just how many do that.

In fact, I and others would fully encourage you find this information for the UK since that would certainly be useful in our campaigns to keep prisons single sex only.

It also completely ignores the needs of so many vulnerable female prisoners in UK prisons who have experienced violence, abuse and sex abuse/rape from male people. It causes those prisoners considerable distress in a place they simply cannot leave to be with male people.

And of course women can tell much of the time who is male and who is female. Those hips don’t lie, the size of hands, feet and proportions of other bones, plus of course, very few male people have extreme cosmetic modification of their face. And even then, it is not necessarily convincing. That is all before that male speaks as well.

There is significant harm being caused to these female prisoners by having males in their prisons. And it doesn’t even have to be a male with a history of sex crime.

Who benefits from these male prisoners being housed in the female estate?

I doubt the answer is the female prisoners who cannot just leave. In fact, we have had evidence that prison policy is to punish any female prisoner who even complains or correctly sexes that male.

But please do list the benefits to female prisoners to having male prisoners accommodated with them.

And do let us know the way for us to ascertain if a male with a charge of a sex offense is one of those ‘truly’ trans people or not.

And accurate UK sex crime rates for males with trans identities, since you have a problem with the official statistics on sex crime and the census data.

The point is that there will be many people who will try to dispute the numbers in an attempt to convey that males who have trans identities are no longer a risk at a level at least the same as the general male population.

Current figures that are available do show a higher rate of sex crimes amongst males who transition. However, without accurate reporting of sex of these prisoners, or convictions, then it remains inaccurate enough to be constantly in debate. As it is on this thread.

What this OP has ignored is that a female sex offender is also highly publicised. Due to being so unusual. So, considering that, it is likely that just on media reporting that of course these males with trans identities certainly don’t commit sex crimes at the same rate as female people.

It is therefore very important to not lose sight of the baseline. The baseline is all males. And no current UK conviction statistics show that these male criminals with trans identities have a rate of committing sex crime at a rate lower than other males.

The solution is and should always have been to record sex and gender as separate data points.

I think it is hugely important for society to know and understand specifically if female people have indeed started to commit sex crimes at an increased rate. Because that needs to be investigated and addressed. Is it better conviction rate now, are more victims reporting, or is there genuinely an increase in female people sex offending due to a significant change in behaviour and what is driving that.

There should never have been this ambiguity allowed into the data.

A very good question is, who does it benefit having those numbers so ambiguous?

It is not benefitting the female half of the population that is for sure.

Ok so what about when most sexual attacks are committed by cis men?

You lost me at that sentence!

I’m not engaging with cis nonsense.

@Helleofabore
not all links are US. So if you are debunking my debunking where is your evidence to prove the original assertion is correct?

There are UK links but I know better than to post links from certain organisations

I agree mostly OP. It's the usual dog-whistling to turn people's minds away from inconvenient facts such as nowadays it's barely worth reporting a rape attack because the police and the law don't care, chances of conviction even if case does reach court = slim to nothing, and rape victims are left traumatised by it all.

As for Transwomen committing crimes - when for example they assault natal women in prisons we need to think about who placed them there; again, it was people who couldn't care less about women. White Western Transwomen have a privilege that refugees do not have, so I can't see how there can be any comparison between these groups.

But as ever, scaremongering about the big bad foreigners is the lazy fallback of a government who aren't committed to justice and protection for all. & the stuff of right wing media with no morals whatsoever

Which were the non USA links? I looked through them and didn’t find any that were not US centric.

And sorry, if you are arguing a point, it is up to you to evidence it. If you are atempting to ‘debunk’ someone’s point you need to do it with relevant information (ie stats that can be related to a country with similar discrimination protections in place) and from sources using good methodology (eg. Not a poll run by a organisation with a clear bias drawing data from poorly designed questions)

For instance, that first link was to a study exercise that failed to compare the discrimination measured to the discrimination against female employment seekers. It also pointed out that the applicant they said had high potential discrimination stated they were activists. Unless the role was specifically aimed at activism, why would an admin / restaurant etc employer hire a passionate activist?

And throughout that exercise they stated the numbers were small and even pointed out one of the conclusions was based on a number too small to consider strong at all.

One of the other links discussed harassment as being asked to use the toilets for their sex amongst other things.

No body wants this group of people to be discriminated negatively against for employment, housing, health etc. However, it is also clear that the USA and the UK have different protections. One of those differences is that in the UK, a male candidate can be excluded under enacting one of the exceptions of the EA from applying for a role designation for female people (and vice versa). And it is also becoming clearer that single sex toilets can be maintained as single sex toilets.

If you (general you, aimed at no poster in particular ) are someone who believes that female people have no right to single sex spaces, sports, opportunities that progress or celebrate achievements of female people due to a millennia of negative sexist discrimination, roles where sex matters, you might find using an argument that trans people are collectively more oppressed and use arguments about employment discrimination to justify males accessing female single sex spaces.

And someone who believes that one person’s ideological belief of pronouns should be prioritised in policy above other people’s belief that pronouns are sex based and sex based only whereas names can be changed and used, I guess you would find a paper outlining harassment as being asked to use same sex toilets and having pronouns not respected convincing.

Still not a reason to wedge open access to female single sex spaces to accommodate male people.

Women sex offenders are very rare and always get reported. If trans women are women then it is unsurprising that they are also being reported. If transwomen are not women, then given that they are men demanding to be allowed in women’s spaces, it is unsurprising that their crimes against women are reported. Either way, it’s news.

And as for women who don’t mind transwomen coming into single sex spaces, those accommodating women know perfectly well that huge numbers of other women don’t feel the same way. They know that they are acquiescing to a handful of transwomen at the expense of the women who don’t want them there. They are putting the feelings of men above women. It’s impossible to “be kind” to transwomen without being aware that you’re giving the finger to about half the female population at the same time. Personally, I don’t think that’s very kind at all.

@Helleofabore

https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces
no, if you read up thread you will see that I asked first for evidence to support suggestions that trans people have an advantage.

i saw a large dataset looking into unconscious bias a few years ago in my field of work where blind shortlisting is standard practice. The research showed overwhelmingly that blind shortlisting works in that there is no disadvantage for anyone with a protected characteristic. But it was a different story post interview when comparing success rates. The focus was all on BAME staff where white people were over twice as likely to be hired post interview than a BAME candidate even though at shortlisting there was no difference. There was also evidence of bias against LGB applicants. But what stood out was the ratio of trans applicants to non-trans which was a shocking 1:15. n was too low to use it in any meaningful sense and indeed the focus was on BAME but it has always stuck with me.

There is a common, uneducated narrative that BAME people are no longer un-represented and are making it to the top more easily than non-white groups, borne from people swayed by a few visible examples. But the data proves that there is still a very long way to go to even reach equity. The post I was originally challenging about supposed trans advantage is similar uneducated nonsense.

If trans people are 0.1% of the population then of course they won't commit as much crime as 'cis' men. Even if every single one was convicted they wouldn't commit as much crime as 'cis' men as there aren't enough of them

As a group though trans women are no less likely to commit a sex crime than men and what is more dangerous is that they are demanding easier access to victims

Most 'TERFS' are pretty damn reasonable- we don't deny the right of trans people to live authentic lives but there must be safeguards in place to protect biological women from the undeniable risk that biological men pose to us both in health and opportunity. Third spaces is not what trans people want - they want all barriers removed to allow any one who says they are a woman to access women's spaces with no requirement to have even seen a Dr about dysphoria or started any hormone treatment- and any woman saying no is an evil terf who must die.

https://www.tumblr.com/edinburghath/163521055802/trans-health-manifesto

This is what they want

Firstly cis is an offensive term, stop using it.

Secondly, transwomen are MEN! Therefore transwomen are capable, and many guilty of, commiting rape.

And it has to be in the media because these predators are trying to access womens spaces!

Refugees are different, many are escaping war and torture not being butt hurt over a man being referred to as a man.

Thank you for that link. The page you linked to in the other post was not this page so this is interesting. It is however from 2018 which is actually a long time ago when considering the amount of work Stonewall has done since, and the amount of media coverage of trans issues since 2018.

It also does not link to the data and methodology. Do you have that by any chance?

I am fully aware that many people think that racial discrimination in the workplace in the UK is further toward equality than reality shows. This is the same for sex discrimination as well though too (obviously further progressed than racial discrimination).

Unfortunately, I think you might find there is a two streamed issue here. One stream is well established mature males who have already benefitted from being supported by their wives / partners and from being a male in a sexist society for employment purposes before their transition. Those mature males are different to young males with trans identities who transitioned earlier in life.

However, there are also several issues here brought up in the section called ‘transphobia outside the workplace’.

“More than half (51%) think Women’s Aid the UK domestic violence charity, is wrong to consider lifting its ban on transgender women working in their refuges”

This has been listed in this article as ‘transphobia’. Do you believe that where women’s domestic violence charities, created to protect and assist female people and their children, should be hiring males with trans identities if they are not hiring ‘men’? What in your mind is the difference ?

Do you know the history of Mridul Wadhwa?

Currently, it has been confirmed by the EHRC that sex specific services CAN legally claim exceptions to allow them to legally discriminate. (Making sure, of course, that people realise that discrimination in itself is not always negative.)

Shortlists are also mentioned in this section and therefore is listed as ‘transphobic’/. “And, nearly a quarter (23%) think that the Labour Party was wrong to open its all-women shortlists to self-identifying transgender women.”

So here whoever compiled this article is making it clear that males who have not experienced negative sexist discrimination, suffered by females since birth, and across millennia, that males should be allowed to diminish those protections set up to protect women from negative sexist discrimination. So now you have male with completely different priorities, taking ‘women’s officer’ roles. We know many of those males have not been identifying as ‘women’ long. Some for mere months.

Are you fully comfortable for these males to be in policy influencing roles meant to ensure considerations for female people’s needs are fully considered?

Are you fully comfortable with a ‘gender balanced’ board rather than a sex balanced board? Again, where sex was supposed to be balanced to protect female people against negative sexist discrimination and encourage female people to apply where previously they would not due to low expectation of attaining a position. There was one supposedly balanced board that ended up 75% male a couple of years ago .

This was also included in that list of transphobia. “Over a third (37%) feel transgender women should not have a choice to take hormone therapy so they can potentially breastfeed their baby”

Do you consider this to be transphobic? Do you consider people not wanting males to feed their infants hormone laden milk that is not meant to be fed to infants trans phobic? And by the way the supply is very poor as well and the male breast has no ability to adjust the components of that substance they are producing that suits the infant’s stage of development.

So considering these that are mentioned in this article too, yes, I would expect to see the data and the methodology before considering this a quality source of information.

All of this.

People need to be aware of the dangers posed by allowing a specific group of males into spaces designated for women and which girls and women expect to be safe from predatory males. Furthermore, as the recent SNP debacle proved, it HAS been practice to place trans-identifying males in women's prisons - including known sex offenders.

You surely cannot think this is acceptable? I'm glad that the media - which still (in my opinion) obscures the truth in these cases by using female pronouns for male sex offenders - is finally showing people what's been going on.

Unfortunately, I think you might find there is a two streamed issue here. One stream is well established mature males who have already benefitted from being supported by their wives / partners and from being a male in a sexist society for employment purposes before their transition. Those mature males are different to young males with trans identities who transitioned earlier in life.

painting allegories such as this is not a strong foundation for an argument.

interesting you mention the work of stonewall over the last 4 years. Not sure if you think this is positive or negative work? Part of the problem with obtaining data is that trans people will exclude their identity on equality monitoring forms even with blind shortlisting because they fear discrimination. The same was the case for LGB applicants for years and years (and we aren’t still there). Stonewall work with organisations to help overcome this (through multi-stranded programmes of work) with the aim of - at the very least - getting a dataset. But the entirety of stonewall’s work is generally discredited on here (hence me not posting any of their research). But if you think all research is slanted then post me some links to show that discrimination has gone away and I will be prepared to move my viewpoint. But despite your perspective of trans movement momentum, 4 years is nowhere near enough time for the dial to shift.

The other day it was one guy talking about reparations and slavery and then the media exaggerates to "all black people want reparations"

That sounds unusual OP. Do you have a link?

No. I am asking for the data for what you have posted. You have found it convincing, why?

I notice you have not discussed the other points that that article raised or that I have raised.

I come from an industrial relations background, so I don’t believe that any group should experience negative discrimination unless it is warranted. And one of those aspects is if one groups needs conflict with another groups desires.

“painting allegories such as this is not a strong foundation for an argument.”

Please tell us how a male who has not transitioned until late in their career has experienced discrimination due to them being trans during that time?

Please also tell us how females, are not still discriminated against from birth, even if it is them self limiting due to their perception of what is appropriate for a ‘girl’ to do, compared to a male?

I agree there is discrimination being experienced by trans people. It is hugely different depending on the sex of the trans person. It is hugely different depending on the time of transition.

It has also been twisted by what some people consider ‘transphobia’ and what they consider discrimination that should not be allowed.

You attempting to draw a comparison with LGB discrimination is not relevant here. I consider that you have attempted to do this through forced teaming to again present trans discrimination as comparative to sexual orientation. (And of course there is still some negative discrimination against sexual orientation and there is an intersection with some trans people also experiencing discrimination for their sexual orientation too)

People discriminated against for their sexual orientation did not demand additional accommodations. They demand equal accommodations to heterosexual orientation employees. They also don’t expect to have their demands prioritised above other groups, or for people to believe their ideological beliefs.

Regarding Research methodology, it is analysed here for all research that is presented with the view to establishing laws and policies. Regardless of who is conducting research. It is analysed at original source level to check the validity of the conclusions as well as methodology of collection.

If Stonewall has robust research that stands up to scrutiny, why wouldn’t people acknowledge it. Or is it poorly conducted and the conclusions poorly drawn?

And as for women who don’t mind transwomen coming into single sex spaces, those accommodating women know perfectly well that huge numbers of other women don’t feel the same way. They know that they are acquiescing to a handful of transwomen at the expense of the women who don’t want them there. They are putting the feelings of men above women. It’s impossible to “be kind” to transwomen without being aware that you’re giving the finger to about half the female population at the same time. Personally, I don’t think that’s very kind at all.

///

Absolutely. It's interesting that the "pro men in ladies spaces" posters brush this under the carpet. And this is all to accommodate feelings. Not reality. Feelings.

@Helleofabore
Why do you want to keep drawing me into issues that are not relevant to my point? You are straw manning all over the place trying to get me to agree to something else entirely in order to try and knock me down. The simple point in question is the assertion that trans people have an advantage in the workplace.

the methodology for getting trans people confident enough to declare this on an application form is exactly the same as for LGB people. Simple as that and anything else you think I am trying to say is just your own internal bias and yet more straw manning.

So on one hand there is a ton of data available to demonstrate trans discrimination which you have painstakingly rejected or rebuffed for various reasons.

Ans on the other hand we have allegory, supposition, polemic and a whole ton of illogical reasoning. For example me accepting that MN will not accept stonewall data is being twisted back to me as supposed evidence that stonewall data is unsound!

Anyway you will believe what you want to believe about trans discrimination in the workplace so there really is no point…gcs do not want checks and balances to their argument

We’re constantly being told about high rates of suicide ideation in the trans population, high usage of camhs, high levels of autism. Unless studies control for this, “trans populations are disadvantaged in the workplace” could easily be “autistic people are disadvantaged in the workplace” or “people with mental health issues are disadvantaged in the workplace”. Not getting to pee in toilets designed for the opposite sex is not being disadvantaged. Unless we get to see what is being counted, again, we can’t draw good conclusions.
It seems to me that your issue isn’t that Hellebore didn’t look at your evidence, more that she did, and found it lacking.

I think that the suicide ideation is hugely problematic. I also think it’s very irresponsible for ideology groups to push the ‘but people will be suicidal if you don’t do X or Y… ‘ which is akin to emotional blackmail and also puts thoughts of suicide in young brains which should not be there.

Just because a survey is done saying that one group has suicide ideation, does not show the cause. If say trans communities are more likely to have suicide ideation - we have NO idea of why that should be - it could be that the community itself is talking a lot of this and as part of ‘group think’ and social contagion it grows. It could be that unhappy people are more drawn to an ideology (as previous research has found, people are more likely to join religion etc).

I really do not think suicidal thoughts from surveys should be used as a tool to assume cause of these and push for ideological change.

I agree, @SpringCherryPie - and the TRAs want to push the theory that there is only one cure for any suicidal ideation - which is completely wrong. Counselling and therapy are proven, safe treatments, unlike gender reassignment surgery!

@Nellodee
ahem, this all started with me asking for evidence of advantage as claimed upthread. Im still waiting.