Help me with the argument that trans rights aren't the same as gay rights hence we are NOT on "the wrong side of history"

[flashbac]

I'm sure you've all heard the the line, constantly pushed, "you're on the wrong side of history, the gay rights movement went through the same resistance" and so on.

I have an argument about who each sets of rights affects hence the difference but there has to be a better line than "this thing doesn't affect me personally so it's fine whereas that thing redefines my identity and seeks to erase the biological reality on which my oppression is based hence its not fine"
Or am I just lacking in conviction/confidence here?

"Wrong side of history" is a fatuous thought terminating cliche. History is written by the winners, there's no morality involved.

There is no evidence they behave identical to other males, at all.

The swedish study that is leaned into, shows a raised criminality related to poverty crime.... sot an overlap of sexual crimes that some anti-trans provocateurs try to pretend.

The Foi relating to trans prisoners is clearly nonsensical to repeat as percentages, when nobody has a clue how many trans people pass through prison for petty crimes.

Even if we look at things like sexuality.

Cis men, are 95% heterosexual.

Trans women are much more queer and varied.

There is no evidence whatsoever that trans women and cis men overlap, without propaganda, misinformation, or distorted with thetoric.

Even Liz Truss and Baroness Nicholson daren't raise anti-trans propaganda, or the debunked FOI request, marked as 'unreliable' by the MOJ themselves..

And for very good reason.

"Wrong side of history" is a fatuous thought terminating cliche. History is written by the winners, there's no morality involved.

I suspect you know transphobia is on the wrong side of history. This statement feels fuelled by cognitive dissonance.

Cisgender men, and transgender women, do not overlap on any behavioral metric.

Really? What is it about being transgender which makes you substantially less likely to rape or assault women?

While we're on it - if self identification is sufficient for a biological male to be recognised as a woman (and my apologies if this is a notion you in fact disagree with), how are we supposed to differentiate between an opportunistic sexual predator able to utter the words "But I'm a woman" and a transwoman who "just wants to pee"/get changed/access services (and who, according to you, isn't a threat to us at all, by virtue of being transgender)?

"There is no evidence whatsoever that trans women and cis men overlap, without propaganda, misinformation, or distorted with thetoric."

Babble fish translation: I reject all available evidence of these things

There is no evidence whatsoever that trans women and cis men overlap, without propaganda, misinformation, or distorted with thetoric.

Very sorry but there is absolutely no evidence that they don't overlap and therefore, as both groups are members of the male sex; the sex that commits almost all sexual offences and more than 85% of all violent crimes then it would be totally illogical to treat them differently when it comes to safeguarding women when they are vulnerable.

There are tens of thousands of trans women currently using womens spaces.

Even Liz Truss spelled that out recently....so lets not pretend trans women having been using womens spaces for decades, they have.

Where was the assaults yesterday? The day before? the day before?
The day before that?

The issues are almost non-existent...given the numbers involved, and the incidents that are so few and far between....

Nobody even noticed until GRA reform was used to radicalise people against the wider LGBTQ+ family.

And here we are, people queuing up to abuse and demonise hardworking groups like mermaids and stonewall, on the basis of the danger of trans women.

Except its been going on gradually over 6 years, and there is still no evidence of harm.

There's propaganda, misinformation, and rhetoric for sure....

But if trans women, were really the risk they are painted on here, and by anti-trans groups....there would be hundreds of cases every single day, of every week, of every year.

There are tens of thousands of trans women currently using womens spaces.

This is not true.

It is a conservative estimate of those who are entitled to be covered by gender reassignment..

And here we are, people queuing up to abuse and demonise hardworking groups like mermaids and stonewall, on the basis of the danger of trans women.

In just the last 2 and a half months 5 males who identify as women have been convicted of sexual offences against women and children. in the UK.

There have not been tens of thousands of transwomen using female spaces

In terms of assault , wasn't Dundee a particularly nasty case involving a child ?

Certainly round our way transwomwn have been given their own space and many transwomen actually argue for that - third spaces

I suspect you know transphobia is on the wrong side of history. This statement feels fuelled by cognitive dissonance.

Whatever.

It is a conservative estimate of those who are entitled to be covered by gender reassignment..

From where? Link please.

Babble fish translation: I reject all available evidence of these things

It does sound like AI rather than an actual reasoned, informed argument.

I'd also like some links to statistics which show that makes who identify as women show different patterns if criminality from other males. Please.

Transphobia is the wrong side of history

Pretending that transphobia == supporting females is also the wrong side of history

Transphobia isn't about not accepting that trans people are the sex to which they identify . It's about stoping trans people living their lives , hating them for how they present

males who identify..

Whenever I read the trans comments on mumsnet, I always think they read like they are accusing the vast majority of trans women of being rapists or trying to harm women, when I expect most of them just want to live their lives as the gender they believe they are.

How could anyone explain their concerns without causing you to "think they read like they are accusing the vast majority of trans women of being rapists or trying to harm women"?

How could anyone explain their concerns without causing you to "think they read like they are accusing the vast majority of trans women of being rapists or trying to harm women"?

Well, anything that points out they're functionally the same as men - which is why we merely wish to treat them the same - is automatically out as per earlier post:

Referring to trans women as if they are identical to cis men on the basis of being male, is basic transphobia.

Jane Clare Jones pointed out a particularly blatant example of this "logic" on Twitter yesterday.

And I'll have you know, referring to men called Bob as if they are identical to non-Bob men on the basis of being male, is basic Bobphobia.

There is no evidence they behave identical to other males, at all.

There is no evidence that "behave identical to other males" either.

Should they use the ladies'?

And on a self-ID basis?

The swedish study that is leaned into, shows a raised criminality related to poverty crime.... sot an overlap of sexual crimes that some anti-trans provocateurs try to pretend.

Can you expand on this point with some data please? The Ministry of Justice figures show a significantly higher proportion of sex offenders among those registered as trans (approx 50% compared with 17% in general male prison population).

As we know, even getting the police to charge for rape is extremely difficult with only 1.4% of all reported rapes resulting in a charge (not even a conviction)

As to your claim on criminality related to poverty, we see quite a lot of trans people are not in poverty. Quite the contrary in fact, jobs at Stonewall, many other well funded charities, high profile paid positions in the SU, a mayor in Wales, people who have reached the top of their careers in banking, industry, barristers, tv personalities, authors, political advisors, business coaches, healthcare professionals etc.

Due to the interference of Stonewall in data gathering such as the census we don’t know exactly how many trans people there are but bearing in mind all the positive stories for trans people we haven’t seen any actual evidence that as a group they are worse affected by poverty than any other group in society.

@SunbowRainshine31

Referring to trans women as if they are identical to cis men on the basis of being male, is basic transphobia.

Whatabouting and finding reasons to pretend all males are the same, is not only unconvincing to most people who support trans people, its blatant sexism.

Cisgender men, and transgender women, do not overlap on any behavioral metric.

Unless you attempt to propagandize that with dodgy data and rhetoric from anti-trans groups.
Whilst people who hold anti-trans prejudice might lap up those 'interpretations'.... they dont stand up to unbiased scrutiny, at all.

THIS! THIS for anyone lurking who is currently sat on the fence, wondering if MNers are hideously hateful or not. THIS is all you need to read to see what it is we are all shouting about!

Referring to trans women as if they are identical to cis men on the basis of being male, is basic transphobia.

Recognising the sex of transwomen, their sexed bodies is basic transphobia . So anyone who recognises a man as a man, no matter what he says he is, is transphobic. THAT IS IT! You cannot escape the accusation unless you acquiesce to the delusion, the lie, that man who says he is a woman has literally changed his sex! You cannot notice him, let alone fear him or even just want him not to be in what you thought was a single sex space. No reason would be acceptable, you are transphobic!

Whatabouting and finding reasons to pretend all males are the same, is not only unconvincing to most people who support trans people, its blatant sexism.

And THIS?! THIS means that every scrap of safeguarding, for kids, vulnerable adult, women, men, EVERYONE, is sexist and wrong. The law, based on the statistic around violence, is wrong.

This baloney requires you to believe that we cannot even begin to try to ensure men cannot access vulnerable women and kids because recognising that men, as a class of people, are the perpetrators of the vast majority of violent crimes against every class of people. Why? Well, erm, summink summink, it's not nice?!?!

Cisgender men, and transgender women, do not overlap on any behavioral metric.

Leaving aside the cis crap - this is measurably utter balderdash. ONS data, MoJ stats, even when hampered by having recorded male crimes as female because of self id - which isn't even blooody law here - say otherwise. Quite the opposite in some specific cohorts. But I suppose mentioning the statistics around men in prison for sex crimes and transwomen in prison for sex crimes is in and of itself transphobic? Even when that data is from the ONS, the MoJ, is based in reality.

For anyone who has not seen that data, here, written by a transwoman (who people like @SunbowRainshine31 have at times referred to as Truscum - a traitor to transwomen, transhibic etc etc etc)

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/prison-service-needs-work-facts-not-fiction

"In 2018, the BBC Reality Check team found that 48 per cent of transgender offenders were serving time for a sexual offence (the figure for the general prison population is just 19 per cent). This is not a group that should be housed with women."

Square that away with the sentiments expressed above if you can!

Unless you attempt to propagandize that with dodgy data and rhetoric from anti-trans groups.

Yes, because the ONS, MoJ etc are dodgy groups, aren't they? We here are mostly women, not inherently stupid!

Whilst people who hold anti-trans prejudice might lap up those 'interpretations'.... they dont stand up to unbiased scrutiny, at all

Except most arguments from the women here are based in facts. Facts that we can point to, have archived all over the fora, discuss all the time.

And you can say 'anti trans' all you like. Women here are standing up for the rights of women, rights those people you are attempting to hagiographise are resolutely trying to undermine, reduce, remove.

We can see through you and al your rhetoric. We recognise lies, obfuscations, distractions and sheer stupidities when we see them.

If you want to have a debate, to help be part of the solutuon to all of this then stop throwing out all the overly emotional, inaccurate guff and come here in all honesty, listen, digest and respond to what is actually being said. Leave your preconceptions at the door!

The Swedish study does not show that male people who identify as women are any more likely than other males to commit serious crimes or indeed any particular crime. However, what it did show was that there was no real difference in patterns of criminality and that male people, no matter their gender identity, will commit crime in a male pattern of criminality. Moreover, this would appear to be confirmed by crime statistics in the UK. Given the risk to women from members of the male sex, it seems therefore highly illogical to allow a subset of males access to female only safe spaces.

@334bu

The Swedish study does not show that male people who identify as women are any more likely than other males to commit serious crimes or indeed any particular crime. However, what it did show was that there was no real difference in patterns of criminality and that male people, no matter their gender identity, will commit crime in a male pattern of criminality. Moreover, this would appear to be confirmed by crime statistics in the UK. Given the risk to women from members of the male sex, it seems therefore highly illogical to allow a subset of males access to female only safe spaces.

This is absolutely wrong.

And I suspect you know that too.

The was raised criminality.
All marginalised groups show raised criminality.

There is no overlap on crime types.

The author stated quite clearly it was not a 'male pattern' of criminality.... and certainly did not overlap in sexual crimes.

Your interpretation, is one that is often repeated by anti trans groups, that flies in the face of the lead author, who is then projected to be a 'silly woman'.

There is no data that shows cisgender men and transgender women overlap by any metric.

The fact transphobic voices have to disagree with the lead author..... and dont have a single study that says what they claim where they can agree with the lead author..... is quite clear where the lack of critical thinking lies.

"There is no data that shows cisgender men and transgender women overlap by any metric."

They overlap by the metric of having a penis and testicles