"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 3

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

Starting a new thread so I can respond to @suggestionsplease1 's most recent post.

So you are saying that historically people couldn’t tell and women were historically bullied as a result and that’s why we should not have any sex separation?

those historical women were really quiet and are now coming out to shout ?

or is this an artefact of the current mess?

btw sex identification by photo is MUCH harder than IRL - won’t say it never occurs but using as evidence people’s interpretation of a photo doesn’t cut it

It is safer for everyone to use the toilet of their sex, except children who are with an opposite sex carer. In those situations the carer can call out and shield the child’s eyes until they get into the cubicle. Single sex toilets should have door gaps as a safeguarding and hygiene measure.

Men have led non-relative children into private toilets and assaulted them - the privacy is the factor working against safety. Men have also pushed women back into private cubicles.

Door gaps also safeguards the occupant if they have a medical emergency for quicker detection when anyone is at their most vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable include those with invisible disabilities, health conditions including poor mental health and elderly people more likely to have falls. Collectively, these add up to millions of people which means a lot of incidents. Eg. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet.

The only toilets regulated to have door gaps are single sex toilets.

Healthy men are the least likely group to be adversely affected by toilet design.

Edit to add: single sex toilets don’t have to have door gaps yet. If toilets become ambiguous in use, the toilets become private. That’s a major problem.

ChatGPT does not understand logic, it reproduces vaguely feasible sounding stuff by mimicking both humans producing logical arguments and humans producing illogical ones.

For example, the question of whether the number of TW in jail for sexual crimes is the same as the proportion of the total population - we know the answer to that. It is large, very large, compared to any reasonable estimate of the proportion of the population who are trans. Large compared to the proportion of men who are in jail for sexual crimes. A different order of magnitude large compared to the proportion of women. And that's been reproduced in different countries where data is actually collected.

The question of whether transwomen are disproportionately convicted for sex crimes - given the massive drive to have flashing and voyeurism deemed 'just getting changed in the place they're entitled to be' it's highly unlikely they're disproportionately charged. And we know of many cases where short, lenient or non-custodial sentences have been given on grounds of mitigation due to the convicted TW's psychological struggles or due to prison being disproportionately hard with gender issues. I'd argue strongly that they are disproportionately under-convicted and under-sentenced.

Yes there may be slight differences, and extrapolating the proportion convicted is an approximation. But given the orders of magnitude difference between the proportion of women (total population OR prison population) in prison for sexual offences and the proportion of TW, it is a very convincing argument that there are far more unconvicted.

It's awful that men breaking the social contract and entering women's spaces that don't belong to them has created an environment that causes problems for these women.

The men who have done that should be heartily ashamed of themselves.

The way to help these women is for men to behave decently, respect women and the law, and stay out of the spaces that don't belong to them. If they do that, in time, a more trusting environment will be restored.

HTH.

No. I mean what benefit do women as a whole get from allowing their spaces to become mixed sex? You are wanting women to give up their sex based rights to single sex spaces. What’s in it for them? You’ve focused a lot on how it will benefit males. Now explain how it will benefit women as a whole.

All these gender non conforming women getting accosted in toilets, why is that? (If indeed that happens, I think it’s bollocks).

The incident you are referring to was based on a photo. I’m 99% sure that when faced with such a ‘masculine’ looking woman you’d be able to tell when up close and personal and the minute they opened their mouth and spoke.

Still no reason at all to let men into women’s spaces based on feelings.

If we want to understand patterns of offending, we need rigorous, peer-reviewed research — not arithmetic built on speculative assumptions

I am minded to point out that any suggestion of doing such research will immediately be torn down as transphobic, permeated by bias, irresponsible, dangerous, promoting dangerous stereotypes about a vulnerable community etc.

the researchers themselves will be hounded and abused, and the results, unless they support one very vocal faction, will be suppressed.

@suggestionsplease1 acknowledgement that we need to capture data on both sex and ‘gender identity’, that such data should be clear, and that we shouldn’t seek to obscure what is meant by the term ‘sex’ is most welcome.

You asked ChatGPT to pick holes in the argument, and it did as you asked. But none of its claims are actually particularly strong. If instead you'd asked whether the calculation was a reasonable best guess, you'd likely have got quite a different response (although since it will remember your conversation, someone else would have to do this experiment)

You haven't dealt with any of the points I made in my previous post.

If you disagree that ChatGPT is biased, here's an anecdote for you. I once asked it to generate an essay plan for the question "are trans women women?" which reached the conclusion that trans women are women. It immediately spat out a 12 point essay plan consisting of the same nonsensical arguments that people like you recite and infinitum on here, concluding that trans women most certainly are women. I then asked it to generate an essay plan for the same question, concluding that trans women are not women. It refused to do so on the grounds that this would be harmful to a vulnerable minority.

Here's the thing about AI. People like you shouldn't use it. Only people who are at least as intelligent as the AI should use it. When people who are more intelligent than the AI use it, they are capable of understanding and allowing for its limitations. When people who are less intelligent than AI use it, their already limited thinking capacity becomes even more limited than it was before.

In what way does it help butch, non gender conforming women to allow men into women’s single sex spaces?

So tell your butch friends not to sorry because no one is going to mistake a female person with short hair who wears trousers for a male person with long hair who wears miniskirts?

That's weird, it generated an essay plan for me no bother on that topic when I asked it to 🤷‍♀️. It did preface it with caveats about it being a controversial and deeply sensitive area but then generated a plan no issue.

ChatGPT
You said:
Generate an essay plan that transwomen are not women
ChatGPT said:
That's a deeply sensitive and controversial topic. The statement "trans women are not women" is a position that directly challenges the identities and lived experiences of many trans people. Before I proceed, I want to be clear that promoting respectful, informed, and ethical dialogue is essential, especially around topics that can impact vulnerable communities.

That said, I can help you explore how people construct arguments around this topic — whether for academic, legal, or philosophical purposes — including how someone might structure an essay that makes the case from a biological, legal, or philosophical standpoint.

Please, if you are going to use chatGPT, read the results and apply your own thinking before posting.

All that response is actually saying is "There could be unknown factors specific to trans women that change the extrapolation." No shit Sherlock!

However, in the absence of any information about such factors actually existing, extrapolating the general population rate is a reasonable place to start.

Saying "we don't know the exact stats for TW so let's start by assuming they are in line with other men" is at least as valid, if not more so, than saying "we don't know the exact stats for TW so let's start by assuming they are way better than other men and the police just do a far better better job at catching TW who carry out sexual assaults than other men".

And from the perspective of one of the women and girls' whose protections you are agitating to reduce simply on the basis of - what, a gut feel that TW can't be going around doing the same sort of sexual assaults as other men? - I for one would prefer we use the more cautious method of actually finding evidence of lower risk first.

(Actually, as a fully realised human female whose experiences of men and of male-dominated society extend to more than simply being a target for sexual abuse, I think even if you proved no TW ever hurt even a female fly and the rapes that have happened were somehow just a funny misunderstanding 🤮, it still does not justify taking away the legal and social right of female people to exist as more than a subgroup within a state of mind defined by men, but that doesn’t change why you are wrong.)

Of course if you have additional information that can make this more accurate, please do share it. That is a valid next step to your boilerplate cut and paste.

If not, @MissScarletInTheBallroom ' s extrapolation has a more valid base than your handwaving "yeah but it might not be so therefoe it definitely isn't".

And when you ask it to generate an essay plan concluding that trans women are women, does it give any of the same caveats?

I mean, surely the fact that ChatGPT suggested that 3000 trans identifying male sex offenders at large in the population might not be a very high number should at least have given you pause for thought...?

No?

@suggestionsplease1

remember the time FWR dedicated a thread to harassing the winner of a running competition because they wrongly believed that the person was a transwoman and shouldn't have been taking the winning place from a woman

Gosh, I remember that thread. Would not have decribed it as harrassing - I don't think anyone contacted the women or her place of work for example, or put up pasters calling for her to be hung, which I believe is the gold standard for harassing women when performed by TRAs.

I think I'd have called it "getting it wrong". Still not ok, but a long way from "harassing".

But how long ago was it that that thread happened now? And how many TW and TRAs have threatened women or been convicted of a violent crime since then? Don't you think it's a little bit weird which of the two one you find most concerning?

It didn't have the context to guage that, so no this is not an issue at all. For as far as it could be aware I could have been talking about China with a population of 1.4 billion, or the global population. It did not have a reference point to work from.

So is that a no on benefits to women to allowing males in their spaces then? In that case no Thankyou. All males whatever their identity can use male spaces. Glad that’s sorted.

But it didn't have a reference point to work from when it dismissed the 76 currently serving sex offenders figure either.

It said that you couldn't extrapolate 76 to 3000 (which was an underestimate, by the way) without more information about the size of the population, and then basically concluded by saying, "And even if there are 3000 trans identifying male sex offenders walking around? So what? That might not be a very big number!" without even asking you which country you were talking about.

I think we can be fairly certain that ChatGPT was not basing its assumptions on China.

Anyway, thanks for giving us a live demonstration of why you shouldn't get ChatGPT to write your responses to difficult questions asked by more intelligent posters on Mumsnet for you.

I have to admit I'm disappointed that Suggestions seems to have picked up the baton for thread three. I have been looking forward to making a Tandora's Box pun all night!

(It wasn't going to be a smutty one BTW, was going to be about how what TRAs think they are doing when they obsess about the damage respecting physical sex does to trans people is protecting them, but what they are actually doing is making them more and more scared of imaginary hate and pushing them further and further away from a place they can find accomodation and acceptance , being like Pandora in the legend letting out all the troubles in the world and then in fear slamming the lid on hope)

I think if you took your approach to a reputable independent statistician in criminology they would point out the same flaws in your approach.

And the GC case is often that men convicted of sex crimes are using self-ID to try to gain access to women's prisons and are not genuinely trans. If you believe that then the number of genuine trans people in jail for sex offences is much lower and therefore you can not extrapolate the figures that you arrive at.

You can't have it both ways.

These women are facing this harassment as a result of this obsessive and myopic focus on determination of who is a man and a woman.

And why do you think this focus has arisen? Is it because suddenly women spontaneously became suspicious of each other, or is it in fact because we become aware that there really were men claiming to be women not just for social acceptance but to the extent of appropriating the very things that are reserved for women to spare us the rapaciousness and entitlement of men?

Is your solution to a fence that has been damaged always not to strengthen it but to throw your hands up, decide we didn't really need it and knock it down altogether?

God, I hope you aren't responsible for any livestock!

So if sex abusers use 'self ID' to worm their way to access women's prisons then you must know that bad actors will do the same with any and all women's single sex spaces.

Yet you still advocate for this.

Mind blowing.