Just despair - HOW do some women just not get it!

[Mynewchairhasarmrests]

Just finished a brilliant novel written by a female author about friendships, girlhoo, womanhood, and growing up as a girl. She was so absolutely on the money about what it’s like to be a young woman and the pressures of looking and acting a certain way, the awful way women are so often treated by men, the way women are portrayed in the media, how we are programmed not to recognise sexual assault and told its just boys having fun, and how we aren’t believed even if we do report it. Her anger and passion really came through and it was good, though depressing, to read someone telling it exactly like it is.

You know what’s coming. I then look on her social media. She’s a TRA. Signed a letter condemning JKR for being ‘anti trans’. Condemns Germaine Greer for being so wrong on trans issues.

I just don’t understand how these women can see the misogyny everywhere they look BUT the place where it’s in its worst, purest form - gender ideology.

Its like a glitch in the coding somewhere. Why can’t they see it? I have another friend who is on the board of a rape charity. We had long conversations about how shit it can be to be a woman. The misogyny everywhere. I was sure she must be GC. But no. A TRA. Doesn’t speak to me now she knows I’m a TERF.

I just don’t get it. Is it fear of societal disapproval? A reluctance to admit the liberal progressive cause they publicly embraced is anything but and that they’ve been had?

Because women's groups have in the past gone through and manually sorted through case data that they can find.

You are the one who is trying to twist all this. The numbers are not that big and data can be collated following court cases and then observations made.

because mumsnet gets a cut from amazon, if someone here buys something from them

I didn't say trans people were more likely to be sex offenders. I pointed out that sex offenders claiming to be trans are over represented in the prison population.

These are one and the same. Just written in different ways, over-representation= more likely. And you can’t tell they are over-represented with the figures you presumably quoted from somewhere. They’re the wrong data to deduct that.

Your previous example of female murderers demonstrates that 10% of the female prison population were convicted of murder. I did not conclude that 10% of all females were murderers. The problem seems to lie in what you assume I think the figures mean.

I suspect that many are sexual predators appropriating a trans identity to use gender distress as a mitigating factor at their trials in the hope of a more lenient sentence or they hope to be housed in the female prison estate. One can only speculate why a sexual predator might find that option appealing.

Many is it? I suppose I should be grateful you don’t think it’s all. It’s eeerily similar to the “many economic migrants appropriate a refugee identity to use asylum seeking as a mitigating factor at the border in the hope of free housing and benefits. One can only speculate as to why an economic migrant might find that appealing” ….how much of your view is based on bias? Think about it.

Are you suggesting that there are no sexual predators in the trans community or that some people claiming asylum are not actually economic migrants? Don't we owe to people with gender dysphoria and asylum seekers to make sure that we don't damage their claims by creating loopholes which can be exploited by less honest people.

Your absurd suggestion that the only valid stats would consider sex offenders per capita of the population assumes that every sex offender is detected and convicted or that sex offenders would willingly admit their crimes for the purposes of accurate data collection.

No, doing a per capita calculation does not assume every criminal is detected and convicted. I don’t think you even understand what a per capita calculation is as otherwise you would not have written such nonsense.

It’s standard procedure, it’s how you tell whether there is any over-representation or not. You literally cannot deduct or calculate over-representation by comparing the same statistic between disparate groups.

See my response to your first point. I have quoted prison statistics, sex offenders claiming a trans identity are over represented in the prison population, you don't seem to think that means anything but haven't explained why sex offenders claiming a trans identity are represented at 3× the rate of male sex offenders in prison and approx 30× the rate of female sex offenders in prison. And you haven't explained why you think trans people would be less likely to commit sexual offences.

Who would you like to use for your per capita calculation? Sex (male or female), transpeople with a GRC, transpeople without a GRC? The only way the figures don't harm the self ID cause is if we use the population of people who self ID to do the calculation and we have no idea about the size of that population. How do you propose to obtain meaningful date?

Maybe you can provide that evidence to support these rather wild claims.

Because I suspect that these claims are also quite false, misrepresentations of the truth, or maybe they are true and I missed it.

Please back up these claims.

Its meaningless though. No relation to whether trans or nontrans are more likely to be convicted of a sex offence. It just tells you % of prisoners. You’ve been ascribing more meaning to it than it can show, even if it were accurate.

But it’s a % of a total number that the MoJ says cannot even be counted as the # of transgender prisoners is unknown.

So it’s a % of a wild ass guess- but you say no reason not to believe it? Not to believe a % that someone has calculated based on a number the MoJ says does not exist?

The MoJ can't count inmates who have not told prison staff they are transgender.

So men in the male estate then.

Nor does it count prisoners who have already been given a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).”

Again men, who could be in either male or female.

So if you don’t know how many prisoners are transgender, how can you say 80% of transgender inmates are male or that 99% of transgender sex offenders are male?

Of the male prisoners that have told prison staff they're transgender, 40 percent are sex offenders*

If there are more men who are trans but keeping it secret and are NOT sex offenders then that 40 percent would go down if they could be counted.

The opposite is happening though and MORE male sex offenders are identifying as trans themselves. A higher proportion than in the non trans male population. So either way it's a way of getting a transfer to the female estate.

You literally cannot calculate it with any reliability.

True but that's not what's being illustrated.

Please understand I am not playing your game. You like to send anyone you disagrees with you off on rabbit hunts. Yet you sit and spout and link stuff that doesn’t even support what you say. Why should I back up my claims when you don’t?

3rd time @Onnabugeisha

Could you explain how you 'pretend to be a transwoman'? Isn't it by stating what gender you are that you are that gender? Or do you think there is any 'test' you can do to see if someone really is that gender?

It seems like you think there exists a kind of person who says they are a woman, but aren't. Could you break down please how this happens - what is a woman, and how would someone saying they identify as a woman not meet these criteria?

It just tells you % of prisoners. You’ve been ascribing more meaning to it than it can show, even if it were accurate.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. It tells you the percentage of sex offenders among trans-identified prisoners. You have been denying this up until now, for some reason.

I haven't ascribed ANY meaning to it outside of this. Please read back over what I've written. I literally said there could be a number of reasons for the figure. You're the one who says it's meaningless. It seems you're the one struggling to understand.

But it’s a % of a total number that the MoJ says cannot even be counted as the # of transgender prisoners is unknown.

They are not unknown.

It is has been tracked by women's groups. No matter how much you might like to attempt to discredit it, it has been done.

There is now data collected by the MoJ so, it won't be long before we should be able to have some better defined statistics.

Why should I back up my claims?

Ok this pretty much says it all. Too soon to call Poe's Law?

Why should I back up my claims

Because that's what you need to do if you want people to take you seriously.

That is fine.

Readers will make up their own minds as they read along. We shall simply post what the courts decided and then some examples of the prominent trans people who then admitted on social media that they lied on the census.

There was a whole lot of falsehoods in your claim. But it is fine. That can be countered and readers can make up their own decisions.

Sorry but that is very weak. And there’s no way of know if it is actually more or less. A % of one unknown number compared to a % of another completely different unknown number cannot be directly compared.

As in 0.40x is not necessarily more or greater than or equal or less than 0.19y.

You need to know x and y. And to calculate likelihood or representation you need to go one step further and look at per capita of x and y.

But since MoJ says that “x” is a big fat unknown….

I've never seen anyone say that all TW are predatory. Saying there are no transwomen is a refusal to accept men into the category of woman. They are men who are trans identifying. Given the assaults on women's rights perpetuated when we pretend otherwise, i think it makes perfect sense to only accept adjectives before the word woman if they are not attempting to break all categorical boundaries.

I suspect that they don't think that they need to be taken seriously.

Thanks. But how does the referral bit get put in there? If I c&p a link from amazon, it's not there:

www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X

• woah, checked on preview - it adds it in! What black art is this?! Must be a newfangled auto-adding thingy.

No one here is 'playing' games by the way.

This is fucking serious stuff.

🤷‍♀️ Why bother? It was deleted so there’s nothing to counter. but knock yourself out, I think your time would be better spent learning how to do stats myself as the issue with the figures on the sexsegregatedprisonsnow that you linked were blatantly obvious at first glance, which didn’t notice as you said you believed those figures.

And yet again we see how an ally very quickly reaches for disparagement and insults whilst failing to understand what is being said.

nice out of context, so how does one back up mathematics like 2+2=4? Only more complex maths like how you cannot conclude that 0.4x is more than 0.19y?

It's not the maths that's the issue, though. The issue is why are sex offenders identifying as trans?

So, OP, to answer your question - another explanation for why some people are willing to throw women's rights away is that some people very well understand the problems, but don't see them as problems. The loss of women's rights and safeguarding, for some people, are 'a feature, not a glitch', as the saying goes.

These people are in the minority, but they certainly do exist.

0.4 is always a higher proportion than 0.19.

Which is what we are talking about.

This is fantastic. A great display of "why people don't get it".