Mermaids response to JK Rowling

[SapphosRock]

Interesting to read the other side:

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/

Helen watts has asked richard Garside about the prisons stuff on twitter

twitter.com/mshelenwatts/status/1271750279973818368?s=21

Amazingly he thinks mermaids are politely talking shite as well

That is nothing more than mermaids trying to get away from the shit they can see heading their way.

If transwomen don't retain male pattern violence, how come approximately half of the 120 transwomen in prison are sex offenders?

Or could it just be that a significant number of sex offenders think it is advantageous to identify as trans? How can Mermaids present statistics on trans people when nobody can agree what a trans person is?

Also are these people with a GRC? I was under the impression that the figures only included people who don't yet have a GRC, so we don't actually know how many people in prison are trans.

Given that the 'trans' can now include pretty much anyone, I think its also relevant to ask why these sex offenders are identifying as trans.

I am also pretty sure that JKR knows all these stats and knows that Mermaids are being disingenuous.

There's also the survey Helen Staniland crowd-funded, which found that 55% of women thought that a person who identifies as female but has male genitalia should not be in women's changing rooms

twitter.com/helenstaniland/status/1055128983803703297

It was conducted by a proper survey organisation.

I agree with Team Evil.
It is absolutely evil to lie on issues like this, where the consequences are so serious, women getting raped in prison, children sterilised.
This is why lobby groups like Mermaids should never gain too much power. They are not impartial, they are totally agenda driven.

I used to commission surveys for a business. You can make them say pretty much what you want. It’s really not hard to slant it.

@Datun

ItsLateHumpty

Is it made clear that those are biological women, and not 'legal' women?

Hey Datun I’m assuming this is re prison stats (sorry - I went on a bit of mission! )

I can only assume they are referencing female, not males IDing as women except I was bought short on this stat.

Women’s prison population

• Women make up around 5% of the overall prison population in the UK.
• The number of women in prison in England and Wales was 3,641 on 27 March 2020.
• There were a total of 7,206 receptions into women’s prisons in the year ending September 2019.
• Women accounted for 10% of all prison receptions during this time period.
• The women’s prison population in England and Wales more than doubled between 1995 and 2010, from 1,979 to 4,236 and has since remained around 4,000.

I cannot see why the numbers have more than doubled, and of course they can’t ‘out’ transwomen prisoners.

It is troubling that the numbers going up have coincided with the push for self ID, and the seeming consensus to report transwomen crimes under sex category female.

Q. 5. "Do you think someone who identifies as a woman but was born male and still has male genitalia should or should not be free to use female changing rooms where women/girls are undressing/showering?"

Seems pretty clearcut to me. Not surprising that 55% of women wanted people with male genitalia kept out.

Should also have said there were only 17% who thought they should be allowed in - the rest were all 'dont knows'

merrymouse

My understanding is that transwomen with a GRC are automatically housed in the female prison, and statistically they will be counted as women. So they are effectively disappeared because legally they are women.

Those without a GRC are subject to a panel assessment. Presumably they will not be counted as women if they are housed in a female prison, but as transwomen.

The highest security unit possible, is not something that is ever present in female prisons, as far as I'm aware. Because it's not necessary.

So in the unlikely event that a woman would commit a crime that necessitated incarceration in such a unit, it would have to be in the men's estate.

Since they first wrote that rebuttal, mermaids have made 61 deletions and 161 additions.

Either they don't they don't know what they're talking about, or they think they can get away with bollocks.

Either way, it tells you much you need to know.

In terms of whether or not men are purposely identifying as women to get into the female estate, then yes, obviously. They are using the women and their presence in a softer prison, as a loophole for an easier ride.

Any men who insist on accessing female toilets, are using women as a validation service. It doesn't matter how they identify, or how much they believe it.

Which ever way you look at it, women are being used.

Let’s look at another lie shall we?

We know of no evidence of transgender women being a threat to other women in refuges

Meet Christopher Hambrook, who “falsely claimed” to be trans (if he says he is, he is, isn’t he?) who then sexually assaulted two women — a deaf and homeless Quebec woman and a Toronto survivor of domestic violence — while he was living at a Dundas St. W. shelter and the Fred Victor women’s shelter in January and February 2012.

torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender/wcm/fc2c70f0-b1a1-41e2-85db-bec9d0012ce5

Just seen Glinner retweeting this regarding the Mermaids statement.

twitter.com/zeno001/status/1271760923477368834?s=09

Should also have said there were only 17% who thought they should be allowed in - the rest were all 'dont knows'

This is more relevant than you initial 55%.

1. The process of legal transitioning is not lengthy, medicalized, or complicated. Those are three lies. No medicine or surgery is required. The process takes a few months, not years as some have suggested. And the paperwork is not complicated. They need to get doctors to sign off on it? What doctor would dare not to in this era.

We know of no evidence of transgender women being a threat to other women in refuges

Leaving aside the fact of TW being present at all is a threat to female people who are traumatised and terrified of biological males, and will exclude females from access to refuge at potential threat to their lives if there are reasons why they cannot cope with a male present.

However distressing it is for TW to have to face that they never, at any point stop being biological males, this is a fact and a reality, and has a significant impact on female people. There should be refuges available for TW. Some of them are likely to be shared with female people who are privileged enough to not mind mixed sex spaces. There will need to be refuges available that are female only. That some TW will take the existence of any female only refuge as a personal offense and threat to their identity and would prefer female people to suffer or be excluded or in the case of refuges actually die rather than have their personal identity go unvalidated, is not something that reflects well on them.

There are many accounts and growing research showing that hormone therapy does not necessarily render a person infertile, although it has been suggested that taking oestrogen or testosterone can, over time, lead to a complete loss of fertility. This however has not been proven in any clinical trial

No. Nothing has been studied long term. That’s the concern. But no mention - deliberately here of course - that puberty blockers are what leads to infertility. Tbe whole point of puberty is tbe development of secondary sexual characteristics, which include maturation of sperm and ova and the ability to deliver them. Puberty blockers mean this doesn’t happen. Mermaids advocates for puberty blockers.

Some surgeries do render people infertile, but they are not available in the UK until 18, at which point the decision has been made by an adult with the full understanding of the consequences, and there are lots of discussions around freezing eggs and sperm for the future.

Not forgetting that Susie Green’s child had permanent surgery on their 16th birthday, it’s a bit rich to say the decision is now made by adults at 18. Can’t go to Thailand any more, hey Susie? And you can’t freeze eggs and sperm that haven’t matured as a result of puberty blockers. When they say lots of discussions, I imagine it’s “yeah, we can’t do that now, too late, soz”.

It’s worth remembering that surgical regret is proportionately very low amongst gender affirmation outpatients and research suggesting otherwise has been broadly disproven.

Surgical regret is low, but no one has any idea about the regret for puberty blockers because there is no study of the thousands of girls who are only just reaching their 20s now.

Honestly I don’t know why I bother. They’re ruining children, and it just makes me so angry.

Glad this thread was started, it has been an interesting read for a trans issue novice.
It all seems so very complicated/nuanced and some of you are very invested with your facts and figures which I look forward to reading in further detail.
I read both sides of the argument and find myself yes but , every time I read something.
I don't want to label trans people as potential perverts on the actions of a few, but I do want people to be safe.
I'm a bit when I see so many speaking out against what JK Rowling said because some of it appears to be so obvious it makes me wonder what am I seeing that they are not or vice versa?

And I’ve just read the tweet above in the thread showing they’ve made multiple changes since it went live and they STILL publish lies and bullshit. To paraphrase Dave Eggers, it’s a heartbreaking work of staggering evil and ineptitude. This is an organisation that purports to care for children.

I hope someone is archiving the different versions, before Winston Smith gets his pen out and puts things down the memory hole.

I don't want to label trans people as potential perverts on the actions of a few

People want you to think that some feminists are doing this but we are not (well, most of us aren't). If they say we are, they are lying.

There are many different types of trans people, just as there are different types of non-trans people. Some are racist, some are perverts perhaps, some are homophobic, some are Tory... most are just "normal" people who wear clothes/make up/have surgery etc to appear in the opposite sex. ("Normal" in inverted commas as I'm not sure anyone is a normal person!). The problem is that the TRA line is to insist anyone who says they are trans are trans. No question. Acceptance without exception.

People can lie. We are worried about potential perverts labelling themselves as trans, just as they can be priests, school teachers, doctors. No-one would say all school teachers are perverts just because some criminals might become school teachers.

I'm on team 'we are on the gravy train and need to keep the money rolling in, so we will just chat utter nonsense and hope no one notices'

Some people involved in mermaids are also desperate to validate their own personal decisions, so they can not change direction.

Having said that, the results of these lies are team evil.

I hope someone is archiving the different versions, before Winston Smith gets his pen out and puts things down the memory hole.

The strange thing is that the only people who will read any of it are their supporters and us, and none of us will change their minds.

I'm sure JKR isn't interested.

For those of you who are new to this debate I would strongly suggest that if a source is referenced to check the reference.

It's an old internet tactic to post a link to a source which doesn't support what you are claiming or is taken out of context. Most people don't read links.

Also be aware when a medical or science piece is referenced that the source may be an opinion editorial or an interpretation of the implications of the original paper. You will need to check the references to find the original paper. Sometimes you may need to go through a string of opinion/ interpretation pieces before you get to the actual study.

It's a pain in the arse to do, but you will eventually get an idea of who supports their arguments with evidenced links and who sometimes posts links which they don't appear to have even read because it contradicts their point in the first paragraph.

It's also worth doing for other contentious topics

I'm a bit hmm when I see so many speaking out against what JK Rowling said because some of it appears to be so obvious it makes me wonder what am I seeing that they are not or vice versa?

Leaking, it's the massive and disproportionate vitriol Which makes you think hang on a minute, there must be something more to this.

But there isn't. It's a lot misogynists finding each other online.

It stands to reason, that if you accept society as a whole is sexist, you are going to find innumerable people who represent it, gathering together.

Although it might take a bit longer, can I suggest that you go to the source of claims. Because that's the only way you lose any spin.

FairPlay for women has a lot of source material. They are pro women, but their source material is neutral. They go out of their way to make sure of it. So they cannot be accused of bias.

dolorsit

Well we crossposted there !

Yes, source material is vital. It's also long been noted that reading material put up by transactivists will make you gender critical.

I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending that people read as much as they possibly can from both sides of the debate. Although, I have to say, reading about transgenderism from transgenderists will get you there quicker.