To think that if a man has had bottom surgery they should be put in a woman’s prison?

[Bex5490]

Genuinely interested in this and not trying to goad just want to understand.

When people talk of the threat of a man in women’s spaces, I assume the danger is because of their penis.

So if that’s gone then should they be categorised as a woman?

I’m kind of of the opinion that if you’re willing to put that much effort in (as in penis removal) regardless of your chromosomes, I’m happy for you to be called a woman…is this wrong?

Because you know there isn't one.

Do you think there isn’t one? So are you saying trans people don’t really exist?
Someone else just said they are all just pretending...

Are you trying to get posts showing how horrible us women on mumsnet are to put on your anti - women forums Lostcat?

Because you're posting in ever such a strange way and refusing to answer reasonable questions.

It's pretending to be the sex that you are not. It's great that you're finally understanding.

Right, but do you see the obvious problem with allowing someone access to spaces and categories which are supposed to exclude them, purely on the basis of what they say they believe?

I'm not transphobic, I don't have a phobia. I'm just aware that women have needs and rights based on their sex.
All of this is just men trying to tell women what to do.

I know there isn't one. As do you.

TW are men who would like to be treated as if they were women. They exist.

Which part are you confused by?

I think @Lostcat is either trying to fill the thread up or just fishing for "transphobic" screen shots to share on some trans activist forum.

And since you were so keen to include some information that supplemented the study, I did too.

the author said this in the TransAdvocate interview:

"The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse. "

So, again, would you like to point out where the team controlled for this mental health treatment effect by controlling it for the data they compared the data post 1989?

If this is all you could say after my points, it seems that you simply cannot acknowledge what the study says and doesn't say.

Why is that do you think? That you cannot acknowledge the things that you are posting don't say the things you want to them to support. yet you double down.

The paper also states these points very clearly that you choose to ignore:

"This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. "

and then further down

"In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females."

You can continue to try and present this study as stating that with transition male pattern crime changes, however, it simply does not say this in several places, AND in the interview that I believe YOU posted it hypothesised that it was likely that any decrease was due to mental health treatment. Meaning that post 1989, they were not comparing like for like so COULD NOT draw the conclusion you want them to be drawing. Hence, it was not mentioned in the conclusions - because the author likely recognised the discrepancy would mean the paper would have to be retracted at some point if they tried to make that point.

Despite your attempts to dismiss two facts that I don't believe can be dismissed as false and that is:

There is no evidence that a male person in the UK at any stage of transition has a lower risk of committing sex related crime than another other male person in the UK.

Plus, there is no evidence that a male person in the UK at any stage of transition has the same or lower risk of committing sex related crime than another female person in the UK.

And both of these facts need to be considered to evaluate the safeguarding needs of all female people.

Yes and I'd go so far as to say it's appropriation of something they are not.

People don't approve of black face do they? What's the difference? There is a much stronger argument that race is a spectrum than sex is.

I’m trying to confirm what it actually is that you lot are trying to say since you insist you acknowledge that trans people exist and that you are not transphobic, yet you also say you don’t know “what they are” , that there is really nothing that distinguishes them, and that they are all just “pretending” …

Oh sorry, silly me. That particular no debate slogan was Stonewall. The Amnesty International one was #IAmWhoISayIAm

I know there isn't one

So how do you know they exist?

Which is clearly a matter of some dispute.

I don't believe that TW are biological males, I know it, as it's a fact.

You know it too, and so does Lostcat. She can't tell us what the difference between a man and a transwoman is, because she knows there isn't any.

Anyway I still don't think men with out penises are women.

And I still don't think those men should be in women's prisons.

How do I know a person exists when I can see them.in front of me?

Same way as you I guess. I can see men who would like to be treated as if they are women. They're not invisible.

Trans women are male people who call themselves women.

Do you agree or disagree?

You know there is a person, but you don’t believe in their existence as a trans person. Like someone who didn’t believe in the existence of gay people. Yes they would see a person in front of them, but they wouldn’t believe they were gay- being gay is just a pretence/ not actually a thing. Similarly this is what it is to deny trans existence.

Ok so if you see an item in front of you and you don't know what it is, do you question whether it exists or not?

Is this a thought experiment or are you really really high?

I agree completely, @NewGreenDuck.

And I see no good reason why I should be expected to change my belief in biological fact, to ‘affirm’ the identities of trans people.

A man with no penis is still a man.

A trans person is just a person who calls themselves the opposite sex to the one they actually are. Some of them may have undergone some body modifications but this is not necessary to the definition.

Do you agree or disagree?

Women in prison, one of the most vulnerable groups in society, have been forced to share cells with men, shower naked with men, they have been disciplined for referring to men in a way those men didn't like. Some of the men are rapists. Some of them are paedophiles. Some of them have murdered women.

Give your moral compass a wobble.

See above

You know there is a person, but you don’t believe in their existence as a trans person. Like someone who didn’t believe in being gay/ that people are gay/ that gay people exist . Yes they would see a person in front of them, but they wouldn’t believe they were gay. (Perhaps they believe that being gay is just a mental illness, a pretence, a lifestyle, someone who just “calls themself gay”, an ideology, a preference for deception, deviance or criminality). It would be reasonable to say that this person does not believe in the existence of gay people. It would also be reasonable to say this person is deeply homophobic

Men are men. The end.