Trans people are NOT a threat in same sex spaces

[DonnaBe]

So says a study done in Massachusetts and reported in the Boston Globe.

“Study finds no link between transgender rights law and bathroom crimes”

www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/11/study-finds-link-between-transgender-rights-law-and-bathroom-crimes/1YWqSptLXOSiobmbH0RBMM/story.html

Maybe we can all take up hobbies now instead of hating on trans people and doctors ?

How about soup making?

I think your last sentence was way out of line. Crackpots

In what way?

I reckon Donna maintains a very good interection lol.

And do you know what, if calling out repeat GFs isn't allowed, I think a bit of mild punning is fine

dolorsit from table 3 in the localities where clear GIPANDO's were introduced, in the year before they were passed there were 0 incidents, after they were passed there 0.62 per 100,000. The study compared the incidents in areas that passed clear GIPANDO's to those that didn't pass such laws and because they increased in both, they concluded that theres no increase in danger. They don't take into account demographics in the localities or anything else they just matched localities with these laws and localities without, because they increased in both theres no problem apparently!

Dead cat Don's job is to distract.

yeah, I know. I'm off now. I've had a gutful, TBH and being chided just tops it off nicely

It's pot noodle in our house until the war on women has been won.

I think evidence that transwomen are at risk from their own biological sex in places such as changing rooms and toilets needs to be provided. So there's a job for you Donna. Rather than tell us we're not at risk from you, go and find the evidence that shows you are at risk in public toilets / changing rooms, from your own biological sex. Then we can weigh it up and have a sensible discussion. What says you? bets Donna doesn't answer this because 'Donna never does

*My father and brother are lovely people and I have no fear whatsoever that either of them are going to harm me.

I don't want to get naked in a communal changing room in front of either of them. I also don't expect my female friend to get changed in front of them because I say that I know them and they're lovely and harmless.

Women have the right to privacy and dignity, and that means single-sex spaces. It's important whether or not the men are dangerous (and some of them are!)*. Yes ! The "not all men are rapists" is a distraction from the fact that it is about basic privacy. The fact that these men are wanting access to private spaces while women are saying, please, no we don't want this - that is what tells us we need to keep them out.

I'm way past the soul destroying battle against reality denial for those who insist women and girls will be safe, always, in all situations, it will never never never go wrong (except for all the times it has). I don't care if you believe in a threat or not, Donna. My answer's no. I won't accept any male bodied people into spaces where I'm changing, toileting, sleeping or receiving intimate care. I'm not comfortable with it and I don't give consent.. Right, we shouldn't have to justify it in any way either. No is enough

Actually, too right! When the hell did it become open for negotiation?

oh my god I'm so angry at the authors of this study.

This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces.

THEY DIDN'T FIND THAT.

Their NULL HYPOTHESIS was that there was no relationship. They failed to reject their null hypothesis. This is like the most basic thing they teach in statistics! Failing to reject the null is not the same thing as accepting the null. I'm actually raging that they could report it this way. It's wrong.

Look at the confidence intervals on all their results! They should be saying "well, we went to a lot of effort to gather this data but in the end it wasn't good enough to tell us anything." But no, they're saying "well, we couldn't find anything, therefore there's nothing to find." YOU CAN'T DO THAT. You sloppy bastards. Or maybe they're just agenda-driven bastards.

The Boston Globe is even worse in how it reports it. "Study finds no link...no relation... no increase in crime" No, it should be "Study doesn't find a link" They absolutely didn't find that there is no link!

For more information. blog.minitab.com/blog/understanding-statistics/things-statisticians-say-failure-to-reject-the-null-hypothesis

I don't know whether I'm more infuriated by this failure of basic statistical reasoning or by people leveraging the statistics fail into propaganda that makes women unsafe. (See the Target study, and the Times FOIA request re unisex changing rooms, which both constitute pretty good evidence that the threat is real.) I mean, okay, it's the latter but they're both maddening.

oh - one more thing, which I'm putting in a separate comment because I'd have to double check this by re-reading the thing more carefully when I'm not steaming mad.

I think their chosen methodology massively decreases the power of the study. (ie makes it more difficult to reject the null hypothesis.) If I understand it correctly, these sloppy/biased bastards are working with "pairs of locations" not individual crime incidents.

That's going to make it quite hard to find a statistically significant result, because N(locations) is much less than N(crimes)

Sooo... if you didn't actually WANT to find a statistically significant result, that strikes me as a very good way of making sure your data isn't adequate to the task. I wonder if they tried any other analysis strategies prior to starting their fun location-pairing capers, and what they might have found if they did. Apparently these researchers are from a "think tank focused on gender identity," so they know which side their bread is buttered.

HomeStar - you'll find this a constant in any and all studies quoted by the Followers of Gender.

Hey, Donna - any response?

I was stalked for 14 years and experienced attempted rape. In the end, I got away but it was a long haul. I am deeply comfortable using unisex changing rooms, showers or toilets. Whether or not I am safe, I can't ever know. What I do know is that I do not feel safe - I am frightened and panicky, esp if on my own with one male person. Why are my feelings and the feelings of the many women like me less important? This is not groundless phobia or hatred, this is real fear that comes from experience of male violence. Why is that so hard to understand? I would march for the rights of transpeople or genderfluid people to have their own safe spaces too, they deserve to feel secure, have privacy and dignity. But kindness, consideration and respect cuts both ways.

Thank you for that analysis Homestar, very interesting!

Why are my feelings and the feelings of the many women like me less important?

OP? Care to take a stab at that very reasonable and fair question?

I'm going to guess the boilerplate answer is the shuffling sidestep "I'm a woman too." Which just circles us back into the actual reason behind Posie's billboard, really - If you can't define what a woman actually is, then the people with female bodies who are living with the negative consequences of being around male bodies have no way of being protected, or even naming why they need protection.

Instead, they get re-educated or told they're a bigot. Not that Donna has time to understand those sorts of important issues. Much full time work, prosecco to sip and goady threads to plop out and leave hanging.

Homestar, thanks for that.

Since I live in Mass this is very important to me. I have a really tenuous grasp on studies and statistics but while I read the article their comparisons made me a little suspicious. Why they wouldn't compare statistics in Newton say, before the law was passed and then after. Why compare it to an entirely different city? Wouldn't that make more sense? If you really wanted actual facts of course.

Thanks Homestar. I often find I read this kind of stuff with a "this doesn't quite feel right to me" sense, and then an expert comes along and explains how someone is playing hoey with the numbers and it all makes sense

Blackshutters - well quite! Surely what matters to the women of Newton is whether they are more at risk following the policy change or not. Not whether the women in Brighton were less at risk after some arbitrary date

Why would you post this without a link to the study?

Bizarre. 🤔

I've often found that when TRAs talk about studies without linking to them it's because the studies don't say what they want them to.

And then of course there's the "didn't actually understand the study, couldn't get through a research paper with a compass, a map, and a personal guide" contingent.

Hey Donnabe!

You always start threads about USA stories, which do definitely have some crossover, but aren’t relevant when it comes to law. We also have quite a different societal make up (no powerful Christian Right Wing, for starters) which again reduces the relevance.

So I’m wondering.are you from the USA? We have some excellent US posters, including the ever-impressive Materialist - she’s lived in the US and the U.K. so would tagging her in be helpful in us understanding wtf you are actually on about?

As i’m sure you know, UK freedom of information requests are evidencing a real need for facilities to be single sex (not single gender, which is impractical now we have 72 plus of the things).

DonnaBe whilst I haven't been physically assaulted by a TW in the toilets their aggressive behaviour made me too afraid to use those particular toilets again. But that never happens does it