Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

674 replies

HouseOfGuineaPigs · 30/09/2025 23:07

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 !

OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 07:19

Just to clarify that it is now not that the data presented is not accurately presented, it is that the data is biased. Have I understood the latest accusation ?

Igneococcus · 03/10/2025 07:21

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 07:19

Just to clarify that it is now not that the data presented is not accurately presented, it is that the data is biased. Have I understood the latest accusation ?

It's very hard to tell between all the sub-dowager countess of Grantham put downs, Helle.

Namelessnelly · 03/10/2025 07:29

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 06:39

"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.

Show quote history

Are you ok hun? Have a chamomile tea and a nice sit down. You’re coming across as a bit hangry? Have you eaten?

GodwatchoverCharlieK · 03/10/2025 07:40

Yes I think@ThisPeppyGreenCriticis coming over as rather hysterical.

Namelessnelly · 03/10/2025 07:43

GodwatchoverCharlieK · 03/10/2025 07:40

Yes I think@ThisPeppyGreenCriticis coming over as rather hysterical.

Almost…er. Bursting is the impression I get.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 07:43

Igneococcus · 03/10/2025 07:21

It's very hard to tell between all the sub-dowager countess of Grantham put downs, Helle.

Show quote history

I thought they worked very hard to not say anything substantial at all. Like another poster who has spent considerable time on this this thread and others to tell us the MOJ prisoner statistics that detail sexual offences doesn’t exist and if they did, they are inaccurate or that it is wrong to consider them due to a range of issues as to why they are not really reflective of reality. One thing is certain though, a group of people really want these statistics to be discredited without open discussion.

I just read back on a thread, and it is like there are different phases of one particular poster. But what is even clearer with reading back is that the MoJ prisoner break down by sex offences has been presented in various forms to the poster now demanding them. They have even posted links that discuss the statistics. Then now they claim to have never been told about them.

Of course, they have also been frequently caught not bothering to even read and understand what they link up. (Apparently AI is to be completely trusted always.) But who the fuck posts links to things they haven’t read and understood so they can defend their points?

There are a few reasons that might come straight to someone’s mind when they see this complete disconnect when stating that they have never seen information that they spent days discrediting. I won’t mention the ones that come to my mind as that would lead to deletion.

OldCrone · 03/10/2025 08:01

Underthinker · 02/10/2025 19:56

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.

Edited
Show quote history

Do you have a link to this blog?

I think Clare Dimyon may also have done some analysis of these figures, but I can't find that either. If anyone has a link can you post it? Thanks.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:03

I have now read two threads where the statistics being denied by Howseitgoin have been posted and where Howsa has repeatedly interacted with the posts with dismissal. Obviously without once reading the information and analysing it for themselves.

Remarkable behaviour from someone who tells others they are bad faith posters, and calls them abusive terms.

Igneococcus · 03/10/2025 08:07

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 07:43

I thought they worked very hard to not say anything substantial at all. Like another poster who has spent considerable time on this this thread and others to tell us the MOJ prisoner statistics that detail sexual offences doesn’t exist and if they did, they are inaccurate or that it is wrong to consider them due to a range of issues as to why they are not really reflective of reality. One thing is certain though, a group of people really want these statistics to be discredited without open discussion.

I just read back on a thread, and it is like there are different phases of one particular poster. But what is even clearer with reading back is that the MoJ prisoner break down by sex offences has been presented in various forms to the poster now demanding them. They have even posted links that discuss the statistics. Then now they claim to have never been told about them.

Of course, they have also been frequently caught not bothering to even read and understand what they link up. (Apparently AI is to be completely trusted always.) But who the fuck posts links to things they haven’t read and understood so they can defend their points?

There are a few reasons that might come straight to someone’s mind when they see this complete disconnect when stating that they have never seen information that they spent days discrediting. I won’t mention the ones that come to my mind as that would lead to deletion.

Show quote history

I think it would be more hard work for them to say something substantial.
It's a real worry that many people don't seem to be able to read original sources anymore and rely on AI summaries. It's even more of a worry if that person claims to be an expert in that field. It might be more a "doesn't want to" rather than a "can't" though.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:07

OldCrone · 03/10/2025 08:01

Do you have a link to this blog?

I think Clare Dimyon may also have done some analysis of these figures, but I can't find that either. If anyone has a link can you post it? Thanks.

Show quote history

Clare used to have that information clearly analysed. But she updated her site and I couldn’t find it anymore.

She did come onto MN a couple of times to explain too.

Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong without once discussing why, but freely insulting everyone.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:19

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:03

I have now read two threads where the statistics being denied by Howseitgoin have been posted and where Howsa has repeatedly interacted with the posts with dismissal. Obviously without once reading the information and analysing it for themselves.

Remarkable behaviour from someone who tells others they are bad faith posters, and calls them abusive terms.

Accusations are often admissions.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:23

There is even back in the threads a post showing a similar trend. That around 50% of male prisoners that have a transgender identity in Wisconsin have at least one sex offence.

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:07

Clare used to have that information clearly analysed. But she updated her site and I couldn’t find it anymore.

She did come onto MN a couple of times to explain too.

Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong without once discussing why, but freely insulting everyone.

Show quote history

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:26

Helleofabore · 02/10/2025 20:04

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.

Show quote history

I’m pretty sure the prison service have said before that the number of GRCs was in the early teens in number.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:27

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Show quote history

#Sadtimes

Igneococcus · 03/10/2025 08:29

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Show quote history

And again you're not actually laying out how you come to a different interpretation. That is bread and butter stuff in science (or used to be) and I assume in mathematics as well.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:32

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Show quote history

“Even” to me?

When?

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:33

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:26

I’m pretty sure the prison service have said before that the number of GRCs was in the early teens in number.

Show quote history

yes As far as I remember too.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:42

Igneococcus · 03/10/2025 08:29

And again you're not actually laying out how you come to a different interpretation. That is bread and butter stuff in science (or used to be) and I assume in mathematics as well.

Show quote history

If this poster lays out their interpretation in good faith without saying “I’ve told you this already, go back and read” or linking to a TRA blog, a dodgy google doc or even better a three hour YouTube rant about how awful women are for saying no to men, I’ll be astounded. But hope springs eternal I guess.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:44

So the graphic is correct and the numbers are correct. None of us can interpret the numbers?

I mean, you may pride yourself on clarity, but I think there is a significant gap between your perception and reality since posters have been asking you to explain repeatedly since you posted.

Are you going to tell us how you interpret the numbers ? Or just continue with the ad hominem route?

OldCrone · 03/10/2025 08:46

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Show quote history

What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.

So what is your interpretation? It's a bit pointless saying "I think you're wrong", but failing to expand on what you believe to be the correct interpretation.

And don't worry about the ability of those reading to understand your explanation. There are many of us here who will be able to understand, and who will be willing to explain in more detail for those who are struggling.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 08:47

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:42

If this poster lays out their interpretation in good faith without saying “I’ve told you this already, go back and read” or linking to a TRA blog, a dodgy google doc or even better a three hour YouTube rant about how awful women are for saying no to men, I’ll be astounded. But hope springs eternal I guess.

Show quote history

I am expecting big things now. I mean I expect to have my world rocked with this new knowledge.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 08:48

Oh defo, I’m sure it’s going to be an astonishing revelation.

Helleofabore · 03/10/2025 09:03

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 08:23

"Maybe she, as a mathematically trained professional still wouldn’t be as exulted as the poster we have here at the moment saying the graph is wrong"

Clare and I are both mathematically trained professionals, but it doesn't follow we necessarily come to the same conclusions.

But that is by the by. The greater folly in your flawed post is the assumption I have "saying [sic] the graph is wrong". I have not. What I have, I hope clearly even to you, implied is that people's interpretation of what the graph represents is wrong.
That most posters here on MN are highly susceptible to misinterpretations of factual data is borne out by the enormous bulk of evidence across the many, many threads here.

Show quote history

I will admit to being confused though, apparently you have made it clear to us where we have gone wrong. I am still scratching my head where you have spent time clearly pointing out where we have gone wrong.

Maybe you thought you did but the post didn’t come through? Would you like to post it again?

Swipe left for the next trending thread