JKR asking similar questions to what I have been asking for years on here.

[DialSquare]

Copied from Nitter

J.K. Rowling@jk_rowling29m
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

This sums up the views of the majority of posters on this board, however, we often have other posters tell us they don’t agree with us, but never what views they don’t actually agree with.

So, those of you that don’t agree with the majority view on here, what is it about the above that you don’t agree with?

There is no need for maths at all when someone states that the sexual assault or rape of a child should be ignored.

So working down the list and if @Howseitgoin fits into a ticks the box

J.K. Rowling@jkrowling_29m
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference.
I will guess "never once worked with" is ticked

Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?
Would be a problem to produce valid data

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?
❌️

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?
❌️

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?
🤨
I think this was a 🚩 so tbc

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?
❌️

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?
❌️

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?
❌️

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?
❌️
🚩🚩🚩🚩
Its easy to see this with this poster

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?
❌️
A whole fuuuuckn thread on this.

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?
❌️

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?
🤨
I think may have been a 🚩 the main focus in posting is to have mixed sex toilets so tbc.

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?
🚩🚩🚩
There was Yea Oldie Dangerous Lesbian is a man trope

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?
❌️

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
I think Yae Oldie if you dont agree you are far right popped up but tbc

What a condescending post. I think it's fair to say that the people who disagree get your point, they just don't agree with you.

No, & I'm talking about trans women 'not men in dresses'.

Um, I can't help pointing out that in the link up thread about the hate crimes, under transgender identity, the police specified, unequivocally, that it included cross-dressers.

I mean, here you go @Howseitgoin, start with this list.

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
This is a fundamentally malicious and bogus argument:

it is fearmongering and smearing the innocent majority of a group based on the crimes of a handful of its members; a propaganda technique applied to marginalised groups throughout history;

(Official and neutral statistics that show a trend is a legitimate discussion point, considering we are and have been discussing safeguarding principles. This is not propaganda, this is showing an understanding of how risk has been based on historic and current facts.)

From Allsop
it has no credible moral, ethical or legal basis; human rights aren’t dependent on the crime stats for a minority group, just as they aren’t dependent on whether you live in a ‘high-crime postcode’; the vast majority are law-abiding even from the worst possible angle on the data;

(This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

From Allsop
some of the rights they want to remove (legal gender recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004) are unrelated to crime, safety or gendered spaces;

(This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

From Allsop
it is a classic “won’t somebody think of the women and children?!” moral panic, often using arguments like “even one case is too many, can’t be too careful!” which are deployed highly selectively to deny rights only to the minority group, not to everyone else;

(It is about safeguarding. Remembering that access to single sex spaces is not just about protection from sex crimes, but also a range of other specific needs unique to female people.

It is also very important here to remember this whenever some one tries to leverage in 'deny rights' - Article 8 has restrictions available to it.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:

Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life
There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.)

From Allsop
in many cases the statistics they use are irrelevant, selective, biased, decontextualised, misinterpreted and presented deceptively;

(These prison stats are not irrelevant, selective, biased, there is no decontextualisation, they are not misinterpreted and stating the raw stats is not presenting them deceptively. They are accurately collected and have been reinforced by being accepted as accurate in parliament and in court (ie. no judge has said, 'these statistics are inaccurate'. They have accepted them as being accurate. So, Allsop just saying this, doesn't mean any of this point is true or an accurate characterisation of the MoJ prison stats)

From Allsop
these often aren’t even actually crime stats — they are imprisonment stats, which is not the same thing at all when you are trying to claim that a group is “inherently” more criminal; the connection between crime and punishment is tenuous and complex…

(This doesn't even make logical sense. The only point any one using these statistics should be making is that they don't show in any way that this group of male people show a female pattern of crime - either in rates or in the nature of the crime itself).

From Allsop
…and marginalised groups often have much higher rates of incarceration due to systemic bias in every stage of the justice system, and wider society; one cannot take such numbers at face value without adopting (e.g.) blatantly racist beliefs. Prison stats can (and do) vary dramatically (e.g. due to changes in policing), demolishing the idea that they measure “inherent” qualities of a group.

(And this is where we keep pointing out that this is a flawed 'theory'. What does seem to be a logical deduction looking at past cases that in the UK, and Australia, this group get leniency. Quite the opposite of this point. There is no evidence in the UK to suggest that the UK justice system has a systemic bias towards this group of male people. At all. )

To the last statement, given that Howie has been reposting Translucent's claim that trans identifying people are incarcerated less often than non-trans-idenifying, it would appear that even Howie disagrees with Allsop when it suits Howie's agenda.

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
History of Hate section - This is sparple. I cannot see any relevance - the MoJ statistics are not relevant to this equivalence at all. It is there for emotional manipulation.

Lying with Statistics - More false comparisons. And Allslop again misuses the the plight of black Americans and indigenous people from around the world falsely to further his political cause. I consider this racist because the situations are not comparable when you consider the leniency being shown.

Then he says:

"The argument above applies even if the statistics are technically “correct”, because it relies on decontextualising these numbers to ignore the centuries of systemic racism underpinning them.

“Lying with statistics” is a well-known phrase precisely because one can be dishonest without actually fabricating the numbers; decontextualising is just one of many deceptive techniques. We will explore more in the examples below (a mixture of prison, conviction and prosecution stats)."

No... I think it is clear though that Allsop is 'lying with this comparison'. But let's see in the next section, eh.

The “Swedish Study” section - not relevant.

"MoJ 2017: the proportion of sex offences" section

It brings up points made by a heavily invested male with a transgender identity who has no expertise in criminology and wrote yet another 'medium' article. These are the points made.

-that there might be more prisoner in UK prisons than known. So therefore the rates would be lower for the sex crimes.

-The claim that longer sentences 'skew' the data which is a flawed premise for invalidating the data because the same thing can be said for the male and female population too. Therefore there is like for like there. But they also then try to bring in this discrimination, when in fact, we can see there is leniency in giving custodial sentences. Even to those committing sexual offences.

-And that the proportions are 'meaningless' to draw conclusions about a population.

Well... um.... Gellman themselves did a set of calculations that does not show at all that male people with transgender identities have the same or lower rate of committing sex crimes than female people in the UK.

"According to Google, the UK’s adult population is 54 million, give or take some change. The best estimates of the trans population is just under 1%, with a more or less 50/50 split between genetic males and genetic females (I use these terms here to disambiguate the necessity to divide the adult population in half for the purpose of estimating trans vs cis population).

That makes around 270,000 trans women in the UK. I’m not going to consider trans kids here because…. that’s just creepy to even think about.

So we have 129 trans women out of 270,000 in prison. That’s 0.047% of the entire trans woman population in prison… at all.

76 are there for sex offences, so that’s 0.028% of the entire trans woman population in prison for sex offences.

Now let’s check that against the cis figures:

3812 cis women equals 0.014% of all cis women. 125 is 0.0005% of all cis women in prison for sex offences.
78781 cis men equals 0.2% of all cis men. 13234 is 0.049% of all cis men in prison for sex offences."

So... still not seeing why it is being said that male people with a transgender identity have the same risk profile or lower than female people in the UK.

Let's compare 0.028% vs 0.0005%.

Yep... still not even close.

It would be safeguarding failure to change policies based on this.

Of course, the Census data shows 48,000 male people who declared they were female not 270,000. So, are those dismissing the MoJ data then saying that male people LIED on the Census? A crime?

Allslop again leverages in groups suffering systemic discrimation falsely at the end of this section as well.

Not seeing this article being relevant at all to showing that male people with transgender identities have the same or lower risk of committing sex crime than female people. Which is what needs to be shown to include that group into female single sex provisions.

Schroedinger's Stonewall Law.

It applies when it suits activists and definitely doesn't apply when it doesn't suit activists.

Meanwhile it's still not the law and never has been yet we are supposed to follow the 'not law' and even the police got ahead of the actual law.

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
436 women charged with rape section - (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

The 2015 spike in women’s prosecutions section - (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

Exploiting census data - section

Wow! Allslop really is an MRA.

So, this starts off with female people getting more leniency and that there are up to 64K female paedophiles in the UK but that they don't get convicted or imprisoned. The old 'women do it too' fallacy.

And oh noes!!!! The graphic (shared by BlackCat and others) 'misgenders' these male people. Just another reason to invalidate the data apparently.

The data does not match exactly apparently. Allsop posts the figures:

"Despite being dated 2023, it uses the figure for sexual crimes of males (11,660) for June 2021 from the government data. But the figure used for women (103) does not match the government data for females, which says 119."

Oh noes.... look at that the figure for women was .... 16 women off. Imagine!

Then he talks about the graphic representation. (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

The Allsop says:

"To exaggerate the apparent crime rate, it also uses the smallest possible population estimate for trans women, only including those with a specified binary (man/woman) trans identity. Many binary trans people opted not to provide this information (and almost 3 million people did not answer the gender identity question at all). From the census numbers it appears very likely that there are at least twice as many trans women than the number used in the infographic — which would halve the incarceration rate."

So.... apparently trans people DID commit the crime of lying on the census. Well, I never!

A point to note is that in the data that I post, NB male people are not included in the numbers they are disaggregated.

The Allsop posts:

"Even setting that aside, what do these numbers mean in a practical & political context? Firstly, you are more likely to encounter a cis woman sex offender than a trans woman one — even using the heavily biased figures above. Secondly, 99.9% of trans women are innocent; none of this statistical scaremongering remotely justifies any restrictions on rights."

Does this sound like what this poster who keeps posting this article says? I think so.

This fails the applicability test in several ways.

There are just as much chance that a male (aggregated to include those with transgender identities) person is not charged or convicted of a sex crime as any female sex offender. So in trying to make this argument that there is as much chance in sharing space with a female sex offender who has never been convicted, applies similarly to all male people.

Secondly, the issue is NOT just the risk of 'sharing the space'. The risk includes the issue where male bodies have physical advantages to 'overpower' female people. Safeguarding has never been about making sure 100% that someone is safe. It is about minimising the harm to as low a number as possible. Which is why we don't segregate between female people with a criminal past and female people without a criminal past in female single sex spaces. And vice versa for male spaces.

So, the risk includes the issue where male bodies have physical advantages to 'overpower' female people. And we have the studies that show that the reduction in male physical advantages does not remove much of that male physical advantage.

Also, there is more ways to abuse and harm a female person than sexually. And this also is considered in the safeguarding analysis.

And this also fails because it makes a ridiculous unfounded statement of 'Secondly, 99.9% of trans women are innocent; none of this statistical scaremongering remotely justifies any restrictions on rights."

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
Crime and punishment section - apparently male people with transgender identities are more likely to be reported for rape than other male people.

And that is pretty much the crux of Allsop's argument.

That female people don't get convicted for all their sexual offences, but that this group of victimised male people do. Therefore, these prisoner statistics are invalid.

Because apparently there is no way that male people with transgender identities commit sexual offences that never get recorded, or convicted.

Based on no evidence at all.

And sounds rather like an MRA defence.

So... what the fuck is this supposed to be supporting again?

That Allslop is an MRA, has politically leveraged any group of people he can to make a false comparison of justice system victimisation, despite the leniency that has been shown to be given to the group he is defending? Yes, this article does show this.

That "male people with transgender identities have the same or lower risk of committing sex crime than female people"? No. It doesn't support this.

Remember:

For safeguarding policy to be created, risk needs to be considered for segregation. Male people have always posed a risk of harm to female people which is why they are all excluded once they reach the age of about 8 years old.

Harms include:
Rape and sexual assault.
Violence.
Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.
A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Safeguarding of female people is not limited to potential sex crimes or violent crimes, it includes a wide range of abusive behaviour and actions. It also covers the fact that female people need privacy and dignity.

Arguing about crime rates does not change the full range of considerations at all.

If a sub-group of male people require their own special safeguarding policies, they need to address this themselves. It was never acceptable for that group of male people to access female provisions because of the harm it causes to female people.

By the way, continue to post that article all you like, I will simply continue to post the posts explaining why it is not supporting what you seem to want it to support. It is great for new readers to see just why arguments that you and Allslop use are not relevant to safeguarding policy for female people.

Loving how bad behaviour has to be "contextualised" with underlying social factors and history of oppression when it's trans people, but that women's sex based need for social protections and support arise exactly because of social factors and the history of oppression of our sex by male people is shrugged off.

But of course. The sacred caste must be pandered to at all times, whereas mere women are just there as support/validation humans.

NRTFT

Homosexuals are cultists now?!

Holy spechlessness Batman!

Yes.

However, it would never occur to the misogynist that is Allsop nor Gellman.

The only thing that matters is gaining access for male people into spaces never intended for them.

No. I am providing hygiene advice abd life coaching to our poor lonely friend. I’m trying to prove care in the community is not dead.

2 days down and over 400 posts in and no one who disagrees with us can tell us what it is they disagree with yet. I’m shocked!

I bought two copies of The Hallmarked Man. If one of the resident TRAs can answer any of her questions coherently I will donate the same value to a trans charity of their choice.

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "tone policing". It's what you are doing here, and it's a common silencing tactic.

Remind me again who funds Beira's Place, the only female-only rape counselling service in all Scotland?