I am getting back to this post.
What was your orginal point?
”just a few articles debunking the suggestion that trans people suffer social, economical and employment advantages as suggested by a pp”
Maybe you would like to go back and discuss that actual post that you were talking about here?
Was it this part of BoredOfThisMansWorld’s post?
“Transwomen as a class keep the physical, economic and structural benefits of being male, with the added benefit of a rights movement that bypassed the grass-roots stage and went straight to the boardrooms, civil service and political parties.”
Which in its entirety was this:
BoredOfThisMansWorld · Yesterday 15:52
Weird to create a poll where two almost diametrically opposite groups are teamed together.
Refugees are by definition vulnerable due to being forced to leave their homes and seek asylum in a foreign country. This may also intersect with other vulnerabilities such as race, being a child, female, not speaking the language of the new country.
Transwomen are not especially vulnerable. Firstly, as males, as a class they are not as vulnerable to the effect of male violence as women, nor as likely to be raped, nor can they get pregnant from rape. Stats show transwomen are a very safe demographic in the UK. As males they are economically and structurally advantaged.
Second, the term has been broadened to the extent that it no longer refers to dysphoric homosexual males driven to surgery after being subjected to homophobic and sexist upbringings. Historically, most women felt sympathy for these transwomen, even if on reflection they realise they were never asked for consent re space sharing. These transwomen are vulnerable in the same way gay, effeminate or insufficiently macho men are. The term "transwomen" now is just as likely to refer to a straight male who may or may not engage in degrees of stereotyped dressing, hormones or fake tits. These transwomen are not especially vulnerable. Many transition minimally and after fathering kids and reaping the rewards of a male pattern career.
Transwomen as a class keep the physical, economic and structural benefits of being male, with the added benefit of a rights movement that bypassed the grass-roots stage and went straight to the boardrooms, civil service and political parties.
Refugees have.... absolutely none of that. They leave their families behind, risk their lives and use their savings to get here, and end up, if they're lucky, being housed in flats full of mould in crime-ridden concrete jungles. They may have been a professional in their previous life but now might be prevented from working.
Re the media, you may be interested to learn that it was trans lobby groups who insisted that transwomen are referred to as women when reporting about crimes (which they commit at same rate as any other male, quite obviously!) This leads to the clickbait headlines. Nobody has the energy to read about all the violence committed by men, but see "woman exposes herself/ rapes / murders/ kidnaps" and you're so surprised that you have to click.
Points to note about this post of ”bored”’s is that you clipped the bit that is relevant to what I have been discussing: mature male transitioners mentioned in the paragraph before the segment you clipped.
They were making the same point that I have been making.
There is a group of already established mature males who have transitioned who have not been discriminated against as a trans person in the same way as a young person who has transitioned.
The point “bored” made was also much broader than employment. It also covered ‘physical’. Something you have cherry picked to ignore.
There is plenty of reviews of studies and studies themselves that show that males with male pubertal advantages do not lose advantage over female people with transition.
Bored also discussed the ‘structural’ advantages that these mature male people continue to have. This is important too. This though can apply to all male people with trans identities. They are male people. They have not been discriminated against since birth as female people have. They do not experience the same sexist discrimination that female people face for having a body that is female. That means no periods. No chance of pregnancy which brings its own oppression. They are socialised as male people for a certain part of their life and that seems to become noticeably different, women don’t threaten to rape or kill people they disagree with, is just the tip of that iceberg.
I have mentioned a couple of times now that males are taking positions meant for female people to assist female people to achieve equal representation on policy influence, and for safety.
You have tried to say this was a weak ‘allegory’. Meaning I expect, that I was creating a fiction about these males. And demanding data, while twisting my posts, and MN, as being prejudiced about research. Which was projection on the prejudice that you seem to have towards women who disagree with you. Certainly, you seem to have now conceded that the focus on issues such as misgendering and single sex toilets, and employment for refuges is rather causing data to have strong conclusions being drawn that are not supported if you pull apart the very low bar for definitions of abuse, harassment etc that is being reported in the links you post.
Then you posted this:
“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.”
Where you seem to have forgotten the other aspects of the post you seem to have taken exception to originally- which included what I have been discussing in my posts. So… did you deliberately attempt to narrow the focus to employment or just want to attempt to frame my posts as irrelevant and ‘strawmanning’? (more projection really that strawmanning..)
And you posted this:
“back to the whole point of this - which is evidence of the advantages brought about by being part of or directly as a result of the trans-rights movement.”
Again, read the post you took exception to. It is significant that you have tried to focus on ‘employment’ when the post was wide ranging. It is also significant that the post in question points out that they have drawn a distinction between males who have trans identities and are referring to the same group I keep discussing. The group who cannot unboil their egg!
You seem to be trying to twist people’s post to suit your own political agenda.
By all means … keep demanding data about this particular group. We love to keep discussing the advantages they have had all their life as a male person and how they certainly may suffer some discrimination for their trans status but you cannot account or even acknowledge that prior advantage. The advantages that meant they had careers, some had families, and did not experience discrimination until after they had accrued education, employment, social and other advantages from being male.
Meanwhile you have done absolutely not a thing to show Stonewall as having produced a fully transparent study available to the public to analyse for ourselves. And have tried repeatedly to imply we were simply prejudiced and not pointing out the outcomes that we have experienced in the past when attempting to scrutinise the strength of the conclusions to the data gathered.
So, was bored’s the post you took exception to?