"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.

Well no it's you that can't have it both ways.

Either transwomen DO offend at a higher rate than the general population

OR

Criminal men are pretending to be 'transwomen' to get access to women's prisons.

Though we were assured this would never happen, no man would ever do this, remember?

Both of these situations are extremely problematic for women and putting them in unnecessary danger. If you can't see that it's because you have no respect or consideration for women.

I just asked ChatGPT the following question:

The population of the UK is about 68.35 million.

The number of men in the UK is about about 33.1 million.

The number of trans women in the UK is estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000.

There are 78781 men in prison in the UK, of which 13234 have committed a sex offence.

There are 129 trans women in prison in the UK, of which 76 have committed a sex offence.

It is estimated that fewer than 3% of reported sexual offences in the UK result in a perpetrator being charged, and fewer than 2% result in a conviction.

The maximum sentence for sexual assault in the UK is 10 years and the maximum sentence for rape in the UK is life imprisonment, with the average sentence being 8-10 years.

Taking into account the above statistics, can you give a low and high estimate of the number of trans women in the UK who have committed a sexual assault or rape and are not currently serving a custodial sentence.

It gave the following answer:

To estimate the number of **trans women in the UK who have committed sexual assault or rape and are not currently in prison, we need to:

1. Estimate the total number of trans women in the UK who have committed such offences.
2. Subtract the number currently serving time for sex offences.

We’ll use the lower and upper population estimates for trans women (200,000 to 500,000), and the known data about convictions and incarceration to calculate a low and high estimate.

---

Step 1: Estimate the proportion of trans women in prison for sex offences

We are told:

129 trans women are in prison

76 of them are in for sex offences

So, roughly:

> 76 / 129 = ~59% of incarcerated trans women are serving time for sex offences
This is a much higher proportion than among cisgender men (16.8% of male prisoners are sex offenders)

---

Step 2: Estimate the total number of trans women who have committed sex offences (not just those in prison)

a) Use general conviction rate estimates

We're told:

<2% of reported sexual offences lead to a conviction.

Even fewer offences are reported in the first place (many are unreported).

This implies a large gap between offences committed and actual convictions/incarcerations.

b) Use prison data to extrapolate backwards

If 76 trans women are in prison for sex offences, and the average sentence is 8–10 years, that implies roughly 7–10 years' worth of convicted offenders are in prison at a given time.

> So we can estimate the average number of new convictions per year as:
convictions/year

If this represents <2% of reported cases, and only a fraction of total offences are reported, the true number of offences is likely much higher.

Let’s conservatively assume that for every trans woman convicted, 50–100 others commit offences who are never convicted (taking into account underreporting and low conviction rates).

So:

> Estimated trans women who have committed a sex offence = 76 convicted × 50 to 100 = 3,800 to 7,600

This would be over all time, but since sexual offences may have occurred decades ago, let’s assume that only a portion are still alive or in the community — say, 80–90%.

> So: Low estimate = 3,800 × 0.8 = 3,040
High estimate = 7,600 × 0.9 = 6,840

---

Step 3: Subtract those currently in prison (76)

> Low-end estimate: 3,040 – 76 = ~2,964
High-end estimate: 6,840 – 76 = ~6,764

---

Final Estimate:

Estimated number of trans women in the UK who have committed sexual assault or rape and are not currently in prison:

Low estimate: ~2,960

High estimate: ~6,760

---

Let me know if you'd like this estimate adjusted based on different assumptions, such as:

Using a different multiplier for unreported/offences-per-conviction.

Incorporating comparisons with cisgender male offending rates.

Adjusting for population proportions or changes over time.

You'll note that ChatGPT's low estimate was very close to mine and its high estimate was more than twice mine.

Yes, it will also say something along these lines as well:

"It extrapolates from a tiny prison population (129) — statistically unstable.

This is a rough model, and drawing strong conclusions from it could be deeply misleading or used in bad faith."

Generating accurate figures for a country with a population of 68 million from an incredibly small initial data set is simply not feasible. (My comment)

OK, so what is your estimate for the number of trans women who have committed sexual offences and are currently at liberty in the UK?

I asked ChatGPT to give high and low estimates for the number of "cisgender" men who have committed sexual offences in the UK and are currently at liberty (using the same assumptions) and it gave me the following answer:

Final Estimate:

Estimated number of cisgender men in the UK who have committed sexual offences and are not currently in prison:

Low estimate: ~516,000

High estimate: ~1.18 million

So, according to ChatGPT, there are most likely between 2969 and 6769 trans women who have committed sexual offences currently at liberty in the UK, and between 516,000 and 1.18 million men who have committed sexual offences currently at liberty in the UK.

And people like @suggestionsplease1 and @Tandora would like all of them to be allowed to use women's single sex spaces.

Well of course this is just another in a long line of false attributions.

Why don't you provide the data from the countries that have implemented gender self-ID that crimes against women have increased since the introduction of it?

If you want male people to be able to use women's spaces on a self ID basis, that means all male people.

That means that in order to allow the X number of trans identifying men to use women's spaces, you accept the risk that any of the other 33.1 million men in the UK might do likewise. 500,000 to ~1 million of whom are sex offenders.

That is what self ID means. That's (one of the reasons) why we won't be implementing it.

And yet there is no evidence of increased risk to women in any of the countries that have introduced it.

And no evidence in the Massachusetts matched localities study that regions with gender self -ID permissions in place for bathroom facilities had any increase in crimes compared against towns that did not have such permissions.

I don’t care. No males in female spaces unless you can show how this benefits women. As there are no benefits, they can use the male facilities. .

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5381023-as-jk-rowling-turns-60-john-boyne-on-why-he-stands-behind-the-fearless-author

Reposting this thread, with an archive link to a brilliant piece by John Boyne about JK. Rowling.

About her detractors, he writes the following:

For these perfectly rational beliefs, she has been pilloried by three distinct types of person: the middle-aged men who’ve been rejected by women all their lives and have now abandoned the real world in favour of taking out their frustrations on social media; there’s the young people, so indoctrinated by social media, that they fail to recognise actual misogyny and homophobia when they see it. And there are the grown women who are astonishingly complicit in their own erasure.

These, perhaps, are the worst group, but it must be remembered that for every Commander Waterford, there’s a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.

We can all draw our own conclusions about which category certain posters here fall into.

Why do you want between half a million and a million male sex offenders in the UK to be given free access to women's single sex spaces?

I don't care what happens in other countries.

Thing is, what if these countries aren't looking for evidence?

In Ireland, we have one brave journalist telling the stories of the women being traumatised by being locked up with men in Limerick Prison.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4kiybGqqnUZjRMWDmYLjOF?si=JRpSkO9BSEiSu86zJZh8yA

But the authorities are turning a blind eye, let alone actually amassing evidence on the topic. In the meantime, Barbie Khardashian physically attacks his female social worker, threatens to rape and murder his female prison officer and another female inmate. But where is this showing up in your evidence? Clue. It isn't.

Your point is irrelevant anyway. Women don't have to give into men's demands unless they can prove it will harm them. No is a complete sentence.

To quote Sall Grover:

"Wah wah waaaah! Why do you need female only spaces anyway?"

"Because we want them."

Exactly.

What is the justification for granting this one group of men exemptions to the rules that apply to all men??

Why do public toilets have door gaps?

‘ChatGPT said:
Public toilet doors often have gaps for a few reasons, even though it might seem odd or uncomfortable. Here are the main reasons:

1. Safety & Security: The gap allows people to quickly see if a stall is occupied, which can help prevent unnecessary knocking or waiting. It also makes it easier for someone to notice if someone inside the stall is in distress, unconscious, or in need of assistance.
2. Cost and Practicality: Doors with gaps are cheaper and easier to manufacture. It’s less material and effort to install, which is often a consideration for public spaces that have many stalls.
3. Ventilation: The gap provides better air circulation in the stall, which helps to prevent unpleasant smells from building up. Ventilation is particularly important in public restrooms, where air quality can be a concern.
4. Maintenance & Cleaning: Gaps make it easier for janitorial staff to check if a stall is being used, and they can also help with easier cleaning since they allow access to the corners of the stall.
5. Reducing Privacy Concerns: In many cases, the gap actually helps prevent some people from getting too "comfortable" or trying to take advantage of the space, though this is a controversial theory.

It's not ideal for privacy, but these are some of the practical reasons behind it.’ ————-

Interesting it says ‘Janitor’ so that shows American bias. American toilet door gaps are huge and they have them along the sides too - so there’s a difference too to the U.K. I think the rest of it is applicable to this country.

As single sex toilets are the only ones regulated to have door gaps in the U.K., from the above I conclude:

These single sex toilets are safer, more secure, are easier to assist if someone is distressed or unconscious or distressed, cheaper to build, easier to maintain, prevent smells and increase air quality, easier to check if someone is in there, more hygienic, and increase the turnover on users (handy for lessening queues). They are less private.

The data I have collated over the last few years agrees with this.

So let’s look at increasing privacy without decreasing health and safety. Firstly we don’t have gaps at the sides and the gaps aren’t 30cm plus like some in America. 15cm is generally considered enough in this country. We can make the waiting area in front with sinks single sex. That helps with women because it’s overwhelmingly men who spy. Men spy on men but it seems to be from the top (they stand on the toilet in the other cubicle). So ways to stop that maybe to make people more aware of who is around so the door resting in open positions.

But also there’s so many small cameras hidden in toilets nowdays that there needs to be ways of stopping this more riskfree voyerism. Making toilets totally private to give men all the time to set these devices up is not a good idea. If they have to go into a single sex area first, that’s going to make them even less likely to try. There has also got to be an awareness that the locks on public toilets aren’t ‘secure’ - they are not designed to keep people out completely - due to safety reasons. It’s a good idea to know if anyone is outside your cubicle door.

It terms on comfort, I feel more at ease in a single sex toilet for all the reasons above.

The design we’ve left with is the standard single sex design that’s been used for decades around the world. Because, taking everything into account it’s the best design.

BUT it relies on single sex being single sex.

It's not even that.

In theory, we could exempt trans identifying men from the rules that apply to all men about staying out of women only spaces.

In reality, we can only exempt all men.

If a trans identifying man can enter a space, so can any man.

@Tandora
I've enjoyed our conversation so far. Seems you missed my last question.

In the absence of a person telling you their sex is there any way to correctly determine their sex?

Which brings us back to this

We have been unable to find evidence that any mechanism was put in place for evaluating the impact of the change on the experience of women and girls, for example in relation to single sex services and spaces. This may reflect the wider context: in 2014 the European Agency for Fundamental Rights ranked Denmark as the EU country with the highest occurrence of male physical violence and sexual assault against women.
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/18/lessons-from-denmark/

I mean it seems to have passed some posters by that women have been, and continue to be, ignored when it comes to the impact of public policy. Why they think anyone suddenly thought “we should definitely consider the impact on women and girls” when it comes to this particular area is anyone’s guess.

Bumping this.

The only plausible answer to this is 'so that men can get what they want' - surely?

This is just another false attribution.

I could ask you why do you want female sex offenders to have access to women's toilets?

Basically you are saying that men and women should always be mixed because it’s nicer for men even if it disadvantages women

you do know that female sex offenders are rather rare whereas male sex offenders are incredibly common

if you analyse the ONS data ( self reported on assault rates as opposed to assaults that have gone through the criminal system ) you could easily get to 1 in 10 men had probably committed a sexual offence - that’s assuming men commit multiple offences

anyway I have heard your proposal and I reject it
as does my husband and I expect most decent men

It's not a false attribution at all.

Given we have take the decision to keep men out of women's spaces for safeguarding reasons, what justification is there for exempting one group of men from that?