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 - so this might be a bit outdated - 30 years is pretty long.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!

Until the government compile proper data on the number of trans prisoners and their crimes surely attempts to draw any conclusions are really only going to be "best guesses"?

The small number that you are currently identifying - were they trans at the time of committing their offence or did they identify once in prison? Given that one argument is that some men might self ID only in order to access the female estate then how can you be sure that they can be used in statistics to draw any conclusions about the trans community as a whole?

Are trans men included within the number of trans prisoners? Are trans women included in the number of female prisoners?

The data seems to be so muddied that I'm not sure that many conclusions can be drawn at present.

No one is trying to present all trans people in a bad light. Stop misrepresenting what women are saying.

Allowing men to self ID and use women only spaces makes them mixed sex and unsuitable for women.
I don't care that you cant understand that. Its not our problem.

Trans people and their supporters need to campaign for a third space, or make the men's mixed sex.

YY

Eresh it’s so funny that you call me boring but most of your contributions seem to be copy and pasting what other people have said and saying ‘yes yes’ or ‘this’

I don't care that you cant understand that. Its not our problem.

And yet really it is your problem because you need more people to get on board and support the argument, surely? You need MPs to see the problems with self ID in order to stop the proposal going through.

If by being belligerent or offensive you just turn people against you and your argument what will have been achieved? The important argument against self ID is just lost amongst the other noise.

If by being belligerent or offensive you just turn people against you and your argument what will have been achieved? The important argument against self ID is just lost amongst the other noise.

YY

@EarlyWalker I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on my analysis of the numbers I pulled from the transcrimeuk website - I made a spreadsheet and everything! See my previous posts.

I tried looking at your table but on my phone it is very blurry (May just be my eyes) so I don’t really know what it says...
I think it says there were only 2 transmen convicted of any crime which we know is not true from the MOJ and FPFW analysis. So if that’s the case (and I may be wrong as I’m reading through blurred lines!) then I’d seriously doubt the credibility of where the results came from.

Their data is not all-inclusive, it's from the UK only and covers only convictions in specific years, and it comes from media reports. Of course the last point means it could be biased - but the figures are staggeringly different for the two sexes.

As are they every time anyone cares to look, anywhere.

I take your point that there are question marks on all of the sources cited thus far and I agree it's important to be thorough ... but seriously what's your hunch on it? Do you genuinely think that, say in in 20 years after a (heaven forbid) law change means self-ID people have to be allowed into biological women only spaces, that the studies we could then do (if they're possible and trans people are somehow countable) would not show significantly higher crime rates in male-to-female trans, than in natal women?

• but the figures are staggeringly different for the two sexes.

As are they every time anyone cares to look, anywhere.

Funny that. It all goes back to what Aspie said earlier. Quite simple, without the need for all the sophistry, whataboutery and noise generally in these arguments.

It’s up to those advocating change to provide conclusive data.

Arguably, this should have been done earlier when women's rights were first attacked and it went under the radar of most people. But as that didn't really happen, it needs investigation now.

I don’t think Self ID is a good idea for anyone, I struggle to see who actually benefits from it. It’s caused genuine transgender people to be ridiculed and have accusations thrown, it’s caused woman to be scared and feel vulrenable and the only people that seem to be benefiting are the TRA who probably will end up suing someone and having the last laugh, they also seem to be the only ones with a voice in all of this.
I am against Self ID completely but I’m not against the current GRC criteria. I think the constant pushing for trans to be seen as dangerous is unfair, transpeople are not dangerous. People who identify as a woman in order to be preadatory are dangerous, that is nothing to do with transgender people but everything to do with self ID. As weetabix put earlier, all the rest is just drawing attention away from Self ID as the only people ‘fighting it’ start to appear prejudice and no one takes you seriously.

@DadJoke thanks for your thoughts. But you skirted around (well, you totally ignored) my question:

Do you genuinely think that, say in in 20 years after a (heaven forbid) law change means self-ID people have to be allowed into biological women only spaces, that the studies we could then do (if they're possible and trans people are somehow countable) would not show significantly higher crime rates in male-to-female trans, than in natal women?

R.e the difference between the 2 sexes, from what I gather (this is off the top of tiny head):
There are 125 trans prisoners (serving long sentences) within the UK.
100 MTF 25 MTF
With regards to the crimes the only concrete answer is that 60 of these are serving for sexual offences, the only concrete data we have is that 35 of these were born Male.

The only ‘evidence’ Of sexual offences amongst transwoman are these 35 cases. If the estimated amount of transpeople in the UK is around 600,000, you are saying it’s an 80/20 split but to put it more in your favour let’s calculate it 50/50.

So that’s 35 confirmed out of 300,000 which is 0.01%.

There are a few reasons why this is not even reliable.

1. we don’t know the numbers of transgender people in the UK
2. these are ‘self identifed’, I wouldn’t really judge a rapist in prison when faced with a possibility of spending his term with woman to accurately declare his gender. 3)There may well be a lot more transgender sexual offenders that haven’t shown up in this data.

Until there is concrete data to draw from, there is no point speculating a risk as that will always create a bias from whichever side you want it too.

I used these own stats recently to illustrate a point of manipulating statistics to make it show that transgender people are less likely to offend than woman.

Yes I think if self ID became law, offences committed by ’transwoman’ would be considerably higher - why else would I be against it?

Just saw you weren’t talking to me but my answer still standS!

Some interesting points Earlywalker but I see it all from a different angle, which is why discussions like this are great. Personally as a woman I’m not feeling scared but I am getting flipping angry with all the nonsense being spouted about transphobic women and demands to provide evidence as to why men in women’s spaces pose a danger. I consider those supporting self id to be misogynistic with a disregard for the safety of women and I can’t take any of themseriously. When self id supporters equally prioritise the safety of women as they do the rights of men to become “women” I might start to care about their opinions.

@EarlyWalker been a long day, I was talking to you but for some unknown reason thought you were DJ.

Yes I think if self ID became law, offences committed by ’transwoman’ would be considerably higher - why else would I be against it?

That's not what I meant. I meant if we had stats, that they would show that transwomen offend at a rate similar to that of natal males as opposed to that of natal females. Are you saying you agree with that prediction?

It depends, if they’re stupid enough to make self ID law they’re probably also stupid enough to record their crimes as whatever gender they wish. So I doubt the stats would show they commit at higher rates, it would probably show that more woman than ever are sex offenders or something equally baffling.
I don’t know if that’s your question though?
If they’re recorded as transgender, then yes the stats would almost definitely show at a higher rate than woman.

So you expect they'd likely near as damnit match the findings in all of the studies cited in this thread that you're questioning.

The point is not if I think any study would prove your points. My point this whole time has been to not use statistics that are untrue, misinterpreted, lacking key information or 40 years old and use them as fact.
You’re always so keen to point out to transgender people that ‘feelings’ are not what matters but facts are. You haven’t got the facts so can’t rely on your feelings to give you a definitive answer.
Speculate all you like, but you can’t twist data to fit your narrative.
By arguing there is already a high number of trans sex offenders is nothing to do with self ID as these offences are unlikely to have taken place in woman only settings (apart from the obvious - already convicted wtf were they thinking - Karen white

ChewyLouie I do agree with you, I don’t think you should have to show evidence at all with regards to self ID being dangerous. I think the very fact of self ID is that anyone can declare themselves it, so how on earth would you have evidence anyway? Someone could be a woman now but a bloke by midnight, who’s going to keep track? He could be a woman in the changing room but a man when he goes to court or visa Versa.
I don’t think the focus should be on trans people being dangerous though, I think it should be on the fact that any dangerous person could be trans and self ID is facilitating those people.
I really don’t like falsifying data though!

I don't think the statistics are "untrue". I think they show a clear bias and I don't think that bias can be successfully dismissed by messing with the stats unless you do so in an erroneous way. They're as good as we can currently get and (all!) point to a massive difference between offending rates of natal women and trans women.

We can't have the stats we'd need to categorically, undeniably prove with 100% certainty that allowing transwomen into women only spaces will lead to more women being subject to crime. But it's quite clearly the case that it would.

And we desperately want to avoid having to prove it, 100%, the hard way.

We can't have the stats we'd need to categorically, undeniably prove with 100% certainty that allowing transwomen into women only spaces will lead to more women being subject to crime. But it's quite clearly the case that it would.

I think that you are trying to tie yourself into a knot though by manipulating non existent data.

I don't need to see data that may or may not prove that self ID has the potential to be dangerous - you can do that well enough just by pointing out the absurdity of as early said someone being able to ID backwards and forwards.

Any statistics at the moment is just conjecture. The very thin data that we currently have poses more questions than it answers - what criteria was used to include/exclude prisoners, were they trans women/ men at the time of the offence, who are they including in the "trans" category etc.

It's again just more distraction and I'm sorry but it causes me to question the motivation behind such fervent attempts to prove something.

The same with the thread started earlier showing apparent data that proves that trans gender people are not at high risk of being murdered. The numbers, which are world wide, are miniscule. That makes no sense to me. Either something has gone very wrong with the interpretation of the data or in the collection of the numbers because otherwise you are many, many times safer as a trans man or woman than you are as a natal man or woman. Does being trans confer some sort of safety mechanism? How else can the data be interpreted?

@Weetabixandshreddies I think that you've not read the thread.

I'm arguing on an online public visible debating platform where the admins are allowing the posting of theses into the debate which are pro allowing transwomen into women only spaces, while always requiring a source of evidence for contrary theses.

Also, a 100% correllation between all data-sets from all sources, backing up the working theory that transwomen offend at a rate similar to that of natal men is really rather more than conjecture - and the only question it raises is why the hell is anyone thinking this might be a good idea!

Do you genuinely think that, say in in 20 years after a (heaven forbid) law change means self-ID people have to be allowed into biological women only spaces, that the studies we could then do (if they're possible and trans people are somehow countable) would not show significantly higher crime rates in male-to-female trans, than in natal women?

If such studies do appear it’s going to be a hell of a lot harder to resegregate women’s spaces than it was to desegregate them.

That’s if such studies are permitted to be carried out in any case.

All of the talk about crime distracts from the basic fact that women, by & large, don't want men in their private spaces, uninvited. This makes women feel uncomfortable, compromised, and tramples over their boundaries.I don't care how nice some trans-women are; they are not women.

Most women object to men redefining what it means to be a woman. We've had enough of that. and certainly when it is just about them requiring external validation of their identity.