Always been GC, but now afraid I'm becoming transphobic

[HouseOfGuineaPigs]

I've always been gender critical and 100% in support of safe spaces for natal women only. I'm completely comfortable with being gender critical. But I'm concerned I've crossed a line into becoming a full on bigot, which is something I don't want to be. Due to my own background of mental health and trauma issues I follow pages on this issue on Facebook. I just saw one with a graphic post saying Using Preferred Pronouns Is Suicide Prevention and it made me want to scream and throw things.

I've been suicidal, I've attempted. I've battled see harm and self destructive behaviours since childhood. I should be sympathetic about the struggles people are having . But I feel manipulated seeing posts like that one. I use preferred names when I'm addressing trans persons. I am kind to them, I don't mention their issues. I treat them the same as anyone else. I will call a bloke Sue even if his real name is Bob, it feels odd, but I will do it to be respectful . But calling a he a she is a step too far. I would either use their name or use they.

Why do I feel so strongly that I'm being manipulated ? None of the trans people I know have abused me in any way. They haven't infringed on my boundaries . I have 2 trans friends, another who is non binary and 2 acquaintances. They have all been decent .

I just feel resentful that I'm being made to feel responsible for someone not taking their life because I don't affirm their identity ?

I'm horrible aren't I ? Please sort my head out !

yes.

And those men do like to wheedle women to get what they want. If only they accepted the word 'no' when they are told 'no'.

Thanks. I really was a bit worried maybe I was just being selfish and unkind. I just am finding life these days to be very tiring.

Yes. It sometimes feels overwhelming.

Sexists gonna sexist, I guess.

A man who likes things which are more often associated with women (because of stereotypes) thinks that that makes him some sort of woman.
You're right that this doesn't make him a biological woman, but it doesn't make him any other sort of woman either. It makes him a man who likes to do things which are more associated with women than men. So what? People's sex doesn't depend on stereotyping, it's purely biological.

I totally agree with this, but also, TW don't even seem to actually go in for all the stereotypes associated with women at all – in fact, only a small minority of them, that seem to mainly to do with clothing, hair and make-up, pornified ideas of female roles (like being sexually subjugated or constantly sexually available), and Dylan Mulvaney-style prancing about and enthusing about girlie ditziness and emotional lability.

I don't see much evidence of TW embracing "woman" stereotypes like being caring and considerate, being great at housework, childcare and organising family connections, carrying the and mental load etc, and being naturally suited to them, staying quiet and prioritising others, not being very into STEM and computing, and so on. So even this claim that it's all about being "socially" a woman or a woman according to society's expectations, is bunk.

The best thing about this thread has been learning that there are on-line arguers whose case is so comprehensively dipstick that they have coined the neologism 'nut-picking' to denounce ordinary people who quote or cite them.

Interesting that obvs they feel they need permission from women to do it.

And know they won't get it here.

So what is it about arguing with women that makes hours here worthwhile I wonder?

That airport in Malaga works hard.

Don't be embarrassed about not understanding the graphic. You won't be the only one. Despite the other poster saying it was easy to understand, there are probably others thinking like you "How is that easy to understand?"

If you explain exactly what you are finding difficult I might be able to help you.

I'm comfortable my degree, professional experience, and current occupation qualify me to make the comment I did. It's evident, devoid of any substantive response, you have fumbled for a rather well-worn, if somewhat infantile, reaction to try and shut down the nasty expert who you suspect in the dimmer recesses of your equal dim brain doesn't agree with your narrative.

Or, put rather more simply into the immortal words of Inigo Montoya; "I do not think it means what you think it means"

Is there a class somewhere that teaches this patronising tone of derision and thinks it has some kind of effect?

So what do you think the graphic shows?

I'd never heard of this term. I first assumed it was a typo and he meant nitpicking, but then I googled, and he seems to be accusing us of using non-representative examples of trans people to make a point.

I wonder if he could actually give an example of a well-known late-transitioning male who doesn't show trans people in a negative light in some way? Or preferably lots of examples to balance the large number of those who are misogynist and/or homophobic and/or violent.

"I wonder if he could actually give an example of a well-known late-transitioning male who doesn't show trans people in a negative light in some way? Or preferably lots of examples to balance the large number of those who are misogynist and/or homophobic and/or violent."

Well that would really be something to see who it would be!

I think there’s defo a spreadsheet somewhere

I’ve heard this thought terminating cliche before from genderists.

I am waiting with you OldCrone. I think this might be quite interesting to hear - either what the graphic says to that poster, or what statistical analysis error has been made.

Just saw this. Made me smile and think of this thread.

So condescending! Have you considered that many posters here might actually have a good grasp of statistics?

There was an interesting blog from a statistician on this very graphic. He set out to debunk it, partially disagreed with the methodology in places, debated validity of all sources (e.g. the reliability of trans population estimates from the census) , came back to it over several posts over a period of time with refinements to his workings, and finally concluded that the rate of sex offence incarcerations in the male trans population was fractionally higher than stated in the graphic.

It would be higher because the stats don’t include those with a GRC. We know there is at least one male people in the UK prison with a GRC.

Yes it's been a while but that sounds familiar. Only males whose identified sex was different to their legal sex were counted as trans by the prison service IIRC.

That is it. Those with grc are not disaggregated or recorded as their sex.

So not only not contributing to the trans male prisoner stats in the chart but actually increasing the female ones then?

Yep. I looked at the stats for female sex offenders have increased too. Small base but significant increase percentage wise compared to consistent figures for a long time.

"So condescending! Have you considered that many posters here might actually have a good grasp of statistics?"

Leaving aside your rather apt handle for the moment, I have of course considered what you suggest; I'd be a poor analyst if I hadn't!
However, I would suggest - having read many posts on this... ahem... forum - that the vast majority of posters here not only lack a good grasp of statistics but also lack the ability to tie their own shoelaces unassisted.

I accept, however, that as in any dataset there are aberrations. There are doubtless a few posters who have evolved beyond "Oooh big numbers" and have a mediocre understanding.
But that acknowledgement is not the issue. The issue stems from their confirmation bias; that without truly understanding what they're looking at they wave statistics in feverish triumph when they labour under the delusion that they somehow bear out their blinkered, bigoted view.

"There was an interesting blog from a statistician on this very graphic..."

Do you have a link that, please? I'm not suggesting it's not the case; rather, as someone in the same field I would be very interested to read it. Thank you.

If you'd spend more time with making actual arguments and showing data and how you reached your conclusions rather than bigging up your credentials and coming up with oh so funny (in your own head) put downs we might get somewhere.