to think no one can define living as a woman

[funtimess]

if you are a biological man.

Or indeed define living as a man if they are a biological woman.

What is the definition, how do you define a person ‘living" as the opposite sex?

AIBU to think that nobody is going to be able to define this unless they resort to regressive stereotypes.

YABU - I can define this for you without using regressive stereotypes.
YANBU - You are right, you can’t define this without using regressive stereotypes.

Your wrong rape can only be committed with a penis or in Scotland a neo penis (skin tube surgically grafted to a woman's crotch) read the law. Penetration with any other object is a serious sexual assault

When a child is given their new adoptive name
are the place and date altered - No because they are facts
is the sex altered - no because it is a fact

for a middle aged father to get a fresh birth certificate that says they are female is an utter lie

Every transwomen is a man and like all men the pose a risk to women which is why they belong with other men not women.
Oh and transwomen also sexually assault at more than 5× the rate of men who id as men.

Exactly

I mean, fine, add a gender marker if people feel really strongly about it, but sex is sex, it never changes and we should not be creating a legal fiction that it does

More on why a sub group of male people should not be treated like female people when assessing the risk level of male people with transgender identities.

This adds to Hoardasaurass’ post.

This was a question answered in Parliament in 23 December 2024:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298.

Question from Rebecca Paul (MP Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023-2024, published on 28 November 2024, how many of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female were convicted of a sexual offence.

Answer from Sir Richard Dakin (MP Scunthorpe): 23 December 2024

Of the 245 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male (i.e. those who now identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid) on 31 March 2024, 151 were convicted of a sexual offence. This includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data was not available for 1 individual.

Of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female on 31 March 2024, the number convicted of a sexual offence is five or fewer. We do not provide exact data for such small sample sizes as it risks identification of individuals. This approach is in line with our standards on data disclosure.

Just a note on this:

Regarding the % of male prisoners in UK with transgender identities. The mentioned above for the year ending 31 March 2024 had the figure that 151 of the 243 male prisoners in the UK prisons had at least one sex offence on their record.

The ratio changed from 43.3% (88/203) having at least one sex offence to their name at 31 March 2023 to 151/243 to 62.1% as at 31 March 2024.

The increase of the overall number of male prisoners with transgender identities in the UK prisons between 2023 and 2024 was only 42 yet the increase in the sex offenders was 63.

In 2019, there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders. I haven’t looked up the stats since. But I wouldn’t expect this will be different. Last time I looked at the raw stats for female sex offences, they had remained stable numbers for a decade or more despite population growth.

For male people with transgender identities to have the same rate of committing sex offences, there would be 8 (3.3% of 243) prisoners with trans identities in the UK prison population with sex offences.

8
Not 151.

And if someone tries to suggest that the majority of these male prisoners have declared that they are women to gain access to the female prisons, I doubt this is true.

Considering the sex crime numbers for that prison population jumped from 88 to 151 male prisoners with a sex offence that declared they were women in a year (31 March 2024 to 31 March 2024) AFTER the publishing of the guidance in early February 2023, I seriously doubt these new prisoners are making declarations for the benefit of getting into the female prison.

Here is data from the MoJ

Here is an FOI request from 30 April 2024

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/populationoftransgenderoffend/response/2641337/attach/html/7/FOI%20240322022%20Annex%20A.xlsx.html

Up to the 31st March 2023, the MoJ stated that of the 88 male transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
48 rapes,
0 attempted rapes,
10 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
13 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
0 indecent assault or gross indecency
6 sexual activity with a child under 16
0 other

77 listed here.... BUT there is a total of 88 in the total so there is 11 crimes not noted.

Possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child has not been recorded in this FOI.

However, there is are further discrepancies in the data of the following when you look at TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE.
1 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
3 rapes
2 sexual activity with a child under 16
3 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,

This equals 9 additional... however the sum for TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE is 99.

Therefore 2 more sex crimes have been hidden from this data.

There were 203 males who were declared as transgender in the prison at the time.

There were 24 NB who were not segregated into male and female.

What is key here, is that THIS IS NON-GRC HOLDERS. And we all know that males holding GRCs have increased and they are excluded from this data. NO female people with transgender identities were sentenced to a principal sexual offence. There were 41 female people with transgender identities in UK prisons at that time.

As a comparison, I have stats that say as of April 2019 that the general male MoJ data for male sex offenders was just 16.8% of the male prison population.

And there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders.

I will leave you to do your own sums. But... even using the figure of 88/203 is 43.3%. (And that doesn't include making or possessing indecent photographs of a child remember.)

By the way this exercise was done in 2021. And I checked this data myself from the data source and it was correct at the time. So, it will give some back ground to the above.

The ones that say that in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.
The breakdown was
40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97 sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

This is why NO SUB GROUP OF MALE PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM RISK ASSESSMENT. This group of male people still retain the same male pattern of committing sex and violent crime, at ANY STAGE OF TRANSITION.

In addition :

Maybe this will be interesting too (particularly the final paragraph which I bolded)

PROFESSOR ALICE SULLIVAN'S LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL OFFICE REGARDING KEMP'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CRIME RATE FOR MALE PEOPLE WITH TRANSGENDER IDENTITIES

https://x.com/ProfAliceS/status/2000532626243756399?s=20

I have written to the Judicial Office for Scotland in relation to errors in the interpretation of evidence in the Sandie Peggie case.

To: Judicial Office for Scotland

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in relation to the Judgment in the case of Peggie vs Fife Health Board and Upton.

While some of these points have already been discussed in the public domain, the judgment suggests a preference for a ‘skilled witness’ regarding research evidence. As a professor of sociology at UCL with many years of experience in the field of social statistics, I trust that I meet the criteria to be considered as a skilled witness.

Paragraph 1047 suggests some confusion on the part of Judge Kemp regarding the following publication: Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A.L., Långström, N. and Landén, M., 2011. Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. PloS one, 6(2), p.e16885.

The judgment notes: ‘The following was stated “Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this, however was only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.” ‘

However, this is sentence is irrelevant to the point at hand. The judge appears to have either misinterpreted the evidence or missed the point.

The paper states ‘regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6;95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males’. In other words, the paper finds that ‘male-to-females’ retained a male pattern of criminal convictions.

The judge’s misinterpretation of Dhjene et al, combined with his dismissal of Ministry of Justice data on the grounds that clicking on hyperlinks would have been required to gain access to the relevant documents, underpinned his conclusion in paragraph 1049 ‘In our view, having read all of the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth’.

This conclusion is based in error. In addition, it misunderstands the burden of proof. It is well-established that males are far more likely to commit violent and sexual crime than females. In order to argue that this does not apply to a subset of males, one would need strong positive evidence of this point.

I would add some further evidence.* *

The most recent data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS, 2025) further supports the view that males who identify as transwomen retain a male pattern of offending. Only around 4% of the prison population in England and Wales is female. The transgender prison population in 2025 (0.4% of prisoners) included over four times as many biological males (276) as females (63). If transwomen were counted as women, they would constitute 7.3% of women prisoners.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours faithfully,
Professor Alice Sullivan, UCL

There is NO REQUIREMENT TO LIVE AS A WOMAN TO MEDICALLY TRANSITION

The above has been hidden because I posted a link to the crowdfunder for Sarah Summers. This was not to gain donations but to provide background. I recommend that posters who are seeking evidence that some female people want female single sex provisions for rape and abuse recovery read it - search google terms “Sarah summers Brighton rape crisis centre or Brighton survivors network”

In that post was also a statement by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre from a professional review.

Charity boss apologises to rape survivors over crisis centre failings

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj310jvzpd8o

”Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) came under fire when a review found it had failed to provide women-only spaces for 16 months”

Plus I had posted a paragraph from Beira’s place - opened in response to women and girl’s publicly stating that they self-excluded from ERCC because there was not female only single sex provisions there.

https://beirasplace.org.uk/about/

”Beira’s Place has been set up in response to evidence that many female survivors prefer a women-only service to safely address and recover from their trauma”.

This was posted in response to proudcat declaring their own expertise. My point was that perhaps Proudcat’s knowledge of the sector is out of date.

Here is Women’s Aid too

womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-single-sex-services-statement/#:~:text=We%20know%20from%20our%20members,reduces%20their%20distress%20and%20trauma.

“We know from our members that many women and children who have been subject to male violence and abuse need access to support and accommodation which is provided in single sex spaces as this reduces their distress and trauma”

and

”Some members conclude that it is not appropriate to include trans women (including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate) in women-only shared spaces. We support their right to make this assessment, as long as they do so lawfully.”

”We will continue to support trans women to approach Women’s Aid for help directly. When they do, we will support where we can as ever, and signpost to specialist services that best respond to their specific needs and circumstances as appropriate.”

So… not a hypothesis. But hey, female people’s voices are sometimes overwhelmed by male people’s voices so those female people get dismissed.

Don’t let’s forget the CEO of ERCC, who was employed as a male person in a position that used a declared exception under the EA in the advertised position stating only ‘female’ people apply telling women who didn’t believe that male people were female people that they, abused and healing women and girl’s were to ‘reframe their trauma’ to overcome their bigotry.

https://forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

Anyone who doesn’t know that then happened at ERCC regarding Wadhwa’s employment can just search mumsnet for ERCC threads. There are plenty. You will even find women who wrote posts on MN stating clearly that Wahwa caused them to self-exclude because there was no female single sex provisions provided.

So a few posters have linked evidence to show I am not wrong.

No apology I see?

posters such as @ProudCat @BoxesBoxesEverywhere @FuckRealityBringMeABook

won’t respond to your facts and clear links @Helleofabore

I must admit, OP, that I find it disconcerting to read posts by people who claim to have worked in women’s or children’s support services that seem to have little knowledge of the principles of safeguarding female people or children. It is sadly not a rare occurrence on MN. There are people posting who claim to be in positions of safeguarding that still don’t understand the principles. They follow policies without any question at times when they should be raising red flags about the policies their employer has developed.

What tends to show their lack of understanding is comments such as ‘you cannot exclude all the population of a group because of the actions of a few’. Well, yes. You can when it is justified. The issue is not recognising the legitimate justification.

I agree.

It’s really worrying.

When @Tomselleckhaskindeyes posted

"Until you've had periods, are at risk of being and getting pregnant, being afraid of walking down a road by yourself, being leered at by older men, being touched inappropriately, dealing with childbirth, going through the menopause, having and dealing with endometriosis, breast feeding your child, being raped and sexual assault, domestic violence or all female experiences of that a man will probably never experience "living as a woman." So yes it's reductive stereotypes."

-----------------

The response from @BoxesBoxesEverywhere was

"That's a list of things that aren't every woman's experience though.
So saying "until you've experienced these" is 🙄"

----------------

We all know that list is an example of what 99% of women face but 0% of men and transwomen"

I know you mean that the list in its entirety is only what female people may experience. However, I think some posters took issue because they separated out the events, such as rape and sexual assault which, of course, male people can experience, and used that deconstruction to dismiss the point being made.

But if it doesn't affect men its not real and doesn't matter according to certain posters

Apparently.

I was disappointed to not have clarified what supposedly was hypothetical and not factual though.

I did wonder if the poster would come back and say that there was no evidence that single sex provisions benefitted some female rape and abuse survivors. And I wondered just how that would be studied with robust methodology.

I mean, there could be surveys. But who the fuck is going to demand a traumatised woman fill in such a survey to measure whether female people respond better to single sex provisions or not?

And we have enough self published anecdotal evidence from female people to prove that it benefits some female people, and maybe enough female people to make generalisations because I have not come across much anecdotal evidence that women have benefitted more with male inclusion.

Ah but you're forgetting about the benefits to male women. And we all know that their the most important and vulnerable type of women so everything must be arranged for their benefit even when it harms the old fashioned type of women ie the female ones

I came across this again tonight and thought it was apt to post here

https://x.com/womenreadwomen/status/1633399532544495617?s=46

"Female is real, and it's sex, and femininity is unreal, and it's gender.

For that to become the given identity of women is a profoundly disabling notion."

— Germaine Greer

This is brilliant and interesting on so many levels, and - I know this isn't the point of the discussion - but baby girls are left to cry longer and are fed for shorter times than boy babies??? WTAF?????

Don't you just feed the baby until it turns its head away, signalling it doesn't want any more, regardless of gender??

Sorry, I know that this is SO not the point on this thread, but I'm floored.

A crying baby boy is percieved as crying because he needs something. A crying baby girl is more likely to be judged as 'attention seeking' (which of course she is - that's what crying is for, in babies of both sexes).

Yes, it's a fact unfortunately.

A hungry boy baby is also regarded as a positive (He's going to grow up to be a big strong man) and how much he feeds is a badge of honour. People are less keen on the idea of an oversized 'greedy' baby girl.