369 transpeople murdered? Channel 4 checked.

[WTFIsAGleepglorp]

An actual proper analysis of ONS statistics

Whodathunk?

It takes nothing away from women, or from children in the Yemen, for those who wish to to mark the losses in their community.

It's not about marking the losses "in out community". It's about public funds, resources and time being put into a big trans day of remembrance, and these women being pretty much ignored by the same public bodies and politicians.

The trans day of remembrance is a piece of propaganda. The point of it, is to garner sympathy for trans ideology by making people think that trans people are disproportionately at risk or murder when the opposite is demonstrably true.

Yes, Naomi Hersi's death was horrific, but so were the deaths of so many women killed last year.

I'm sorry, in order to call something "horrific" am I first supposed to list all the other things that might also be horrific?

I'm so confused. I'm well familiar with the risks to us women, but there is not only a limited amount of compassion to go around.

There was one trans person murdered in the UK last year and the case was truly horrific sad

It was horrific but there is no evidence that it was motivated by transphobia or indeed that their trans status had any bearing on their being murdered. Trans murder rates are being presented as evidence of a concerted and systematic "genocide" of trans people because they are trans, when in fact the evidence points to the opposite.

Oh, stop it! That's too transparent! Very few posters here will be made to feel guilty by that kind of emotional blackmail!

It's about public funds, resources and time being put into a big trans day of remembrance

I'm interested in this actually, what public funds were expended on this? I'm afraid I just liked a few posts on Facebook, I didn't see any big government investment anywhere.

Saying that, I think I would have supported a proportionate investment from them by way of support - proportionate with their support of other causes, that is.

That was for Rat obviously!

I'm so confused. I'm well familiar with the risks to us women, but there is not only a limited amount of compassion to go around.

There are limited public funds and resources, and public bodies are choosing to spend resources on remembering 1 trans person and not on remembering hundreds of women.

It's also about creating a false narrative where people think trans people are uniquely at risk, the most oppressed of all - and that's been pretty effective so far.

Public funds should not be used in this way. That's using public money for political propaganda.

I'm interested in this actually, what public funds were expended on this?

Anything Stonewall did on this would have been funded by the public at least in part. Also, plenty of councils, universities and government departments took park.

*part!

That's too transparent! Very few posters here will be made to feel guilty by that kind of emotional blackmail!

Oh god, here we go again. I have no idea what you're talking about.

It was horrific but there is no evidence that it was motivated by transphobia or indeed that their trans status had any bearing on their being murdered.

I see it completely differently; the murderer specifically found a trans woman on the website FabSwingers (which I've used in the past, incidentally - just to say it's not some underworld fetish site, it's just good for FWB) with the specific intent of some kinky trans related sexy stuff (he was heterosexual with a girlfriend by all accounts), and then assumed no-one would even miss her once he'd killed her because she was a trans woman on a swinging site.

It literally would not have happened to a non-trans person!

I'm interested in this actually, what public funds were expended on this?

This would be an interesting FOI I imagine.

Anything Stonewall did on this would have been funded by the public at least in part.

Well yeah, but the public that fund Stonewall are mostly the one who directly support them as a charity aren't they? I had a call from them only last night asking for monetary support. I don't know much about government funding of charities, but I wouldn't begrudge Stonewall receiving money from them, as presumably women's charities receive funding in the same way.

Also, plenty of councils, universities and government departments took park.

They took part, but it didn't cost them anything as far as I'm aware. At least I haven't seen any government space or organisations spending so much as a penny on it.

RatRolyPoly did you have the decency to have a look at twitter.com/CountDeadWomen ?

presumably women's charities receive funding in the same way

Stonewall is meant to be for women too. (Lesbians, remember them?).

Please show me what Stonewall has done to support lesbians recently? (The same-sex attracted kind).

I followed the link everybodypuuuuulllll, although it is something I've seen many times. I'm not on Twitter but I'm a member of several feminist groups, so the death toll of women in this country, whilst shocking, is not news to me.

but there is not only a limited amount of compassion to go around. That! As if other posters who are focussing on other issues, other numbers feel no compassion for transwomen, despite them having said otherwise!

It is so passive aggressive. It lessens the impact of anything you intend to say!

Stonewall is meant to be for women too. (Lesbians, remember them?).

Well yes, but it's not a women's charity is it, like Women's Aid or Refuge. It's an LGBT charity.

Please show me what Stonewall has done to support lesbians recently? (The same-sex attracted kind).

I don't know, I'm not a member of the LGBT community and whilst I follow and "like" Stonewall posts on Facebook I'm not an expert on their activism.

And no, women's charities don't receive funding in the same way. Increasingly, women's charities are being asked to demonstrate they're "inclusive" before they receive funding - meaning they include transwomen.

Including transwomen often means excluding many women eg if your service caters for religious women or women traumatised by male violence.

So transwomen are getting increased resources through LGBT orgs and also through women's groups.

Meanwhile women are losing resources as those meant to represent us (eg Stonewall) seem to have forgotten about us - except in relations to transwomen, and our single sex services are being given over to transwomen too meaning we can't access them.

It's why women are so fucked off. No, we are not receiving funding in the same way, and it's precisely because of propaganda such as TDOR presenting a false narrative about who needs the most support.

I don't know, I'm not a member of the LGBT community and whilst I follow and "like" Stonewall posts on Facebook I'm not an expert on their activism.

Well, let me enlighten you - Stonewall have done close to fuck all for lesbians recently.

That! As if other posters who are focussing on other issues, other numbers feel no compassion for transwomen, despite them having said otherwise!

That's totally not what I meant by that phrase

The pp was knocking Trans Day of Remembrance because children have died in the Yemen, and because women are murdered relentlessly in the UK.

What I was saying was that just because I have compassion for the children of the Yemen, doesn't mean I can't have compassion for trans murder victims too. My compassion doesn't run out if I expend it on only one group; I can remember dead children in the Yemen and still mark the trans dead.

So... we both think it's possible to feel compassion for more than one group at a time. I never said otherwise. A pp did. Which I refuted. And you agree with me

RatRolyPoly you seem to think we're against transwomen because of a position of hate. As long as you see things through this distorted lens, you're going to be missing the point.

When you start understanding that women have very sound, practical reasons why we're concerned about the rise of trans ideology - because it affects us in real, material ways - you might start understanding what we're on about here.

Incidentally, most of us were staunch trans allies for many years.

It's ridiculous seeing younger people saying stuff like "if GC feminists had been around for section 28 they would have been against hay rights".

It's just baloney, because you know what? Many of us were around for section 28. We don't need to imagine what ifs. And guess what - we were the ones fighting FOR gay rights FFS!

*gay rights not hay rights, obvs!

So you were saying specifically that everybodypuuuuulllll said she had no compassion for transwomen because of Yemeni children?

I didn't read that in her post. I doubt anyone else did either! But your post I followed the link everybodypuuuuulllll, although it is something I've seen many times. I'm not on Twitter but I'm a member of several feminist groups, so the death toll of women in this country, whilst shocking, is not news to me. did come across a bit dismissive!

Maybe it is all in the lack of tone in the written word, hey?

RatRolyPoly you seem to think we're against transwomen because of a position of hate. As long as you see things through this distorted lens, you're going to be missing the point.

No, I don't think that at all. I do see the point that many of the posters on this board are making; for me though the numbers don't stack up, so to speak.

I don't think most of the women here are haters, I don't even think they're categorically wrong in many cases (although in some cases I definitely do), but I do think that for many of the arguments the founding assumptions are incorrect, the stats are misleading, the logic is flawed and the outcome will be counterproductive to the advancement of female liberation.

Probably best I don't stray into the wider arguments, best to stay on topic with the thread. I have never seen that murder stat portrayed as UK-only, and in fact everything in that fact check is exactly as I understood it from "trans positive" sources.

So you were saying specifically that everybodypuuuuulllll said she had no compassion for transwomen because of Yemeni children?

No, that's not what i said either!

did come across a bit dismissive!

I really think you're colouring my posts with far too much of your own interpretation. I said I'm a staunch, lifelong feminist, so extremely familiar with the shocking stats regarding the murder of women. If you're finding "dismissive" in that, it's because you're putting it there.

Yes, perhaps it's tone. I also think we all project onto other in some degree when talking on here. I know I've been really guilty of it in the past; in fact I've thoroughly flipped when I've perceived someone as being aggressive or whatever, and sometimes it's turned out that aggression was more in my reading of their post than their writing of it.