Trans Women Should Be Allowed In Women Only Spaces

[KiBob]

I posted a few days ago that I need help arguing a case on the debating website Kialo. Thanks to your suggestions I've got one claim accepted that I was struggling with.

I'm now trying to get a new claim past admins.

As a supporting claim to:

"Allowing anyone who identifies as female into women-only spaces makes those spaces worse for cis women".

I put this:

"Trans women are 6 times more likely to commit a crime and 18 times more likely to commit a violent crime compared to female controls as found by this study In Sweden in 2011". With a link to this study:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Admin have responded:

"Hm, interesting link. However, the results don't differentiate between trans men and trans women, and also state this: "Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989." - so this might be a bit outdated - 30 years is pretty long.
Further up, in the Abstract, under results it also says "Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls."

Can you point me to the exact place where you get your numbers? Thanks!"

Help!

I know the threads moved on in a strange direction
But just wanted to respond to this
The prisoners are certainly not mostly transmen, though, however you interpret it I didn’t say they were mostly transmen at all at any point.
You call yourselves ‘gender critical’ there’s not much critical thinking going on, if you engaged your brains a bit harder to actually read the data objectively rather than just presuming I want any man in a frock in a toilet and ignoring what I say because of that.

are you saying that you'd be ok with self-ID if it was proven that the male pattern of violence was down to sociological issues like poverty etc?

You appear to read posts on here extremely selectively because you've got an obsession with statistics about violence.

As some of us have told you more than once, no, we would not be OK with self-id regardless of the statistics you've been trying to argue with.

We do not want men - including our fathers, brothers and all male relatives - in women's spaces. We want privacy and to be away from the sex that statistically is more likely to sexually assault, rape, masturbate in front of us, take photographs of us naked or semi-clothed and so on.

That's all there is to it.

You call yourselves ‘gender critical’ there’s not much critical thinking going on, if you engaged your brains a bit harder to actually read the data objectively

Ad hominem attacks don't constitute a good argument.

You appear to read posts on here extremely selectively because you've got an obsession with statistics about violence.
You appear to have missed what the OP was asking actually. There’s 100s of threads about why you don’t want transwoman in your toilets, this one specifically asked ‘where you got your numbers from’ regarding the statistics so that is what I’m commenting on. I’ve also said I’m not Ok with self ID so I don’t know what you’re going on about but you’ve obviously been very selective with what you’ve read.

Ad hominem attacks don't constitute a good argument. the irony is astounding.

Oh the irony. Accusations of ad hominem attacks and selective reading

As they say " there's none so blind as those that cannot see".

This thread is a continuation of a longer conversation about this "debate site". And it's perfectly reasonable to point out as an answer to a request for data that the onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to evidence it.

Observer article today by Kenan Malik
'Debate ends when we label views we simply disagree with as ‘hatred’

To kill off discussions on difficult subjects will only give rise to loathing and bigotry'
(extract)
‘It is better to debate a question without settling it,” observed the 18th-century French writer Joseph Joubert, “than to settle a question without debating it.”

How naive that sounds today. In this age of echo chambers and filter bubbles, it is, many insist, better to settle a question than to debate it, better to be certain that one is right than to risk being proved wrong.

On perhaps no issue has the question of what can or cannot be debated been more sharply contested than that of transgenderism. How should society, and the law, look upon people who were born male but see themselves as female? Trying to answer that question has led to bitter confrontations between trans activists, determined to secure full rights for trans people, and “gender critical” feminists worried that the notion of what it is to be a woman is being transformed to the detriment of women’s rights. (continues)

concludes:
If it is “hate speech” to question a particular definition of what it is to be a woman, or “bigoted” to express concern about non-natal women being allowed into female-only spaces, the very notion of public debate is transformed. There would seem to be little one could say on most difficult issues that could not also be construed as hatred.

To suggest that the kinds of questions posed by Stock or Murphy should not be asked is to suggest, contra Joubert, that it is better to settle questions than debate them. The trouble is, questions are rarely settled without debate. Stock and Murphy raise certain issues not because they are bigots but because of the realities facing women in society. Whatever one thinks of their arguments, these realities will not disappear simply by labelling critical feminists “hatemongers”.

All it does is to cheapen the meaning of hatred, making life easier for the real bigots and to eviscerate public debate. Joubert’s observation has rarely seemed more vital."
amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/debate-ends-when-we-label-views-we-disagree-with-us-hatred

Debate is definitely the way forward.

Interesting how many debates are shut down here by posting names of breakfast cereals or calling someone a man or posting thoughts from Bunbury.

Equally shutting down debate.

Interesting how many debates are shut down here by posting names of breakfast cereals or calling someone a man or posting thoughts from Bunbury.

Equally shutting down debate.

Weetabix You seem hostile to the study of Germaine Bunbury.

Interesting, though not at all surprising.

Weetabix You seem hostile to the study of Germaine Bunbury.

Not at all. Just when posted apropos nothing in order to end a debate.

I agree there should be debate too, But if you’re on the opposing side on the debates you are equally shut down as ‘not caring about woman’ or similar whereas people Giving opposing views rarely call you all transphobic (on MN) I don’t think the ‘no debate’ only happens on the TRA side as you would all have us believe.
My thoughts/facts are usually ignored and anything I say is only really responded too if you want to accuse me of not caring about woman.
A few people in this thread have come back and said ‘you’re right’ but otherwise it’s just full of the usual twisting and turning.. which is a shame.

Telling someone they've read selectively isn't ad hominem.

Accusing them on 'not using their brains' is.

Moreover, this very thread is an attempt to tell women they've nothing to fear from men in their spaces because - apparently - men are no more dangerous to women than women are.

So I'll keep on telling you that we don't want any men in our spaces, thanks.

MN & FWR especially has always been a place of discussion, civilised discussion rather than 'debate'.
I think there is a subtle yet important difference which may perhaps be characterised by the need to 'win' and the clear demonstration of seizing possible points of contention rather than listening/ considering what has been written

It is usually obvious to those reading when posters are motivated by a need to 'win the debate' rather than discuss.

As happened in the Commons this week there are also ways of 'winning' by using the 'rules' of the host of the 'debate' which are entirely morally reprehensible:
inews.co.uk/news/uk/chope-71-is-said-to-object-to-private-members-bills/

As Justine Roberts said back in April when she went public about the pressures being brought against the site by trans activists,

Times:
'Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site'
“What’s worrying to me is the thought-police action around speech and the shutting down of the right to be able to disagree and immediately labelling it as transphobic,” Roberts said.

The threats are the latest move in a campaign by transgender activists to inhibit discussion of potential legal changes that would allow people born male to self-identify as women.

Feminists say the plans threaten women’s rights and protected spaces. Trans activists say that to oppose them is bigotry. They have pressurised dozens of venues into cancelling meetings on the subject.

One meeting that went ahead at the House of Commons led to a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner against David Davies, the MP who organised it.

Trans activists bombarded the Commons authorities with demands that the meeting be cancelled with one, Ariel Moss, boasting on Twitter that she “rang them three times today under different voices and phones”.

Sometimes attempts to break up meetings have turned violent. Last week a trans activist, Tara Wolf, was convicted of assaulting a feminist who was attending a rally against the proposals.

Mumsnet, which has 12m monthly users but does not hold physical meetings, has become a prominent online forum for debate on trans subjects. A recent discussion about whether self-identified trans women should be allowed to use female-only cabins on the Caledonian Sleeper train made national news.

Roberts said: “A significant minority of our users feel very strongly about women’s rights and very uneasy [about the proposals]. This is an issue that needs to be discussed and that’s why we’re prepared to take any potential advertising hit.”

Roberts said no advertiser had yet pulled out. “There is a section of the hardline trans side which thinks that any discussion at all is by definition transphobic, but we’ve explained we’re working very hard to keep it civil,” she said.

“We have some guidelines, we keep people within [them], we ban anyone that’s persistently mean and that’s the way we’re handling it for now. Hopefully we’ll be able to hold that line because we think it’s important.”
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-transgender-activists-try-to-curb-free-speech-on-site-z3sr3nf6q?shareToken=b2eb62822dd26aecc0f88653978ed23a

I think there is a subtle yet important difference which may perhaps be characterised by the need to 'win' and the clear demonstration of seizing possible points of contention rather than listening/ considering what has been written

Completely agree there.

Yep absolutely agree with that too!
My aim of commenting was to hopefully educate those that use the statistics regularly as ‘fact’ that they are not as concrete as you would believe. It’s a shame this has largely gone ignored in exchange for the usual arguments.

the usual arguments.

Which are what? You can't change sex and women need spaces private from men? That's all most of us are bothered about, frankly.

Thanks for everyone's input on this.

As I've said above, when sampling all media reported trans crime between Jan 1st 2014 and November 2018, then researching each case meticulously to confirm actual facts (work done by transcrimeuk.com) the results are that there were 128 confirmed convictions of M2F trans people, and 2 confirmed convictions of F2M trans people during that time period.

Media bias towards reporting more M2F crime than F2M crime is not impossible and the probable fact that there are fewer F2M in society (proposed at a ratio of 1:4) cannot account for this massive difference in the results for the two groups (64 times).

The clear implication is that M2F trans commit crime at a significantly higher rate than do F2M.

So I'll keep on telling you that we don't want any men in our spaces, thanks.

Me too.

I'd say the usual arguments are more than enough reason that men should not be in women's spaces.

Women saying no should be enough.

But as always those who continue to ignore the no and try to fight against it prove the need for the women's spaces in the first place - the no is never enough for them it would seem...

Earlywalker, could you possibly link to where you found that 25 of the 125 prisoners stated by the MOJ were FTM? Is that an MOJ statement? Can't find.

I've not for a second said that I believe those US stats - I even put a disclaimer in the post.

I'm pointing out that it's easy to find stats to prove a point against a particular demographic, as you're doing with trans people. It's very hypocritical to use crime stats to try and tarnish transwomen and then criticise me when I give an example of what you're doing - in my case I'm not actually trying to argue against black people's character, merely using the stats as a comparison.

Can you post a link?