*New* trans-inclusive policy at Maths Society that contravenes SC ruling!

[Notanorthener]

Academic threatens to sue maths society over trans-inclusive policy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/254a2be5-f599-4953-983a-308fd1bbf359?shareToken=58fcee9d566e3e7305939838bc4763f0

So here’s an example of a society introducing a new policy, just last month, which allows trans people to use facilities of their choice. They don’t even have the excuse of it being an old policy and waiting for the new EHRC guidance because it’s all “so complicated” that others are using.

Unbelievable.

I don't think telling a man to leave the women's changing rooms is 'misgendering' however he identifies - he shouldn't be there and his reasons for being so are deeply suspect. It has never been the law that he is allowed in, either.

In the context of the tribunal misgendering was ruled lawful but not in the workplace on a repeated basis:

"The judge, Mr Kemp acknowledged that “misgendering” of Dr Upton is likely to prove “painful and distressing” but said he was not convinced by claims that, in the context of an employment tribunal, it would in itself amount to unlawful harassment.

However, he said the bar for harassment could be met if male pronouns are used “gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/26/scotland-transgender-nhs-fife-employment-tribunal-nurse/

Err, as my previous comment alludes to, you perhaps aren't 'capable' of being won over.

How creepy is it that there are so many men who want to be able to stop women and girls identifying the sex class that commit almost all the sex crimes.

Logic fail.
This is particularly silly. A crime is a crime regardless of what the perpetrator identifies as & its not as if it's illegal to call a trans woman a trans woman. It's misgendering them in employment & services that might be.

Hang on. What about the police recording males’ crimes ( where they are 98% the perpetrators) as having been committed by women? Are you saying that does not matter because all that is relevant is the crime itself?

Of course it matters to strip the ‘identity’ and know the reality of whomsoever did the crime. Of course it matters to know that, regardless of ‘identity’, males are potentially

dangerous.

Hang on. What about the police recording males’ crimes ( where they are 98% the perpetrators) as having been committed by women? Are you saying that does not matter because all that is relevant is the crime itself?

Sure, an argument can be made it's relevant for data purposes to record transgender crimes as it would be for gay crimes or other minorities. But it's important to note that crime reporting & incarceration is not reflective of offending given most sex crimes aren't reported.

We are not very interested in recording "transgender crimes". What we are most interested in is clearly and separately recording the crimes committed by biologically male people and the crimes committed by biologically female people so that they can be compared. Whether these people are transgender or not doesn't make much difference to their offending rates.

crime reporting & incarceration is not reflective of offending given most sex crimes aren't reported.

Ah, you have a common misunderstanding. The truth is that crime reporting and incarceration are highly reflective of differences between the biological sexes, even despite the fact that most of these crimes are not reported.

There is no evidence of sex crimes committed by biologically female people being disproprotionately unreported - these crimes may be under-reported, but only at about the same rate as for men. So the under-reporting doesn't change anything. There aren't squillions of women secretly committing sex crimes getting away with it and distorting the figures. So sex crime is still overwhelmingly a crime committed by biological males.

Nor is there evidence that biologically male people with a trans identity commit sex crimes at a lower rate than other men do. If you hope to find such evidence then yes you could record sex crimes committed by biologically male people with a trans identity separately from men without, and then compare the two.

What you must not do is to count even a small number of high-risk individuals (biological males) in a very low-risk population (biological females) because this massively distorts the resulting figures. So if you lump together sex crimes commited by biologically male people with a trans identity in the same category as sex crimes commited by biologically female people it creates an inconsisent mess which makes women appear disproportionately more dangerous and distorts the focus of resourcing and policing away from protecting women.

If your case is as empty as your arguments I'm surprised it's not floated off.

Gratuitously and offensively, indeed. So not if you say "he" in a normal conversation because it makes more sense for you. Thanks for proving our point.

Your case appears to consist of throwing a bucket of poo into clear waters. And beclowning yourself, by claiming that statistics is a social science.

A crime is a crime, and almost all sex crimes are committed by men.

More than happy to make a distinction if they're trans identified men, of course. given it is they who are campaigning for women and girls to be unable to identify the predator sex class.

Yes. Knight to E4 from the pigeon. I'll take a sideways slide to Elephant and Castle using the Bayswater Move in memory of the six man underwater contest in 1876, (as I can do since it's Sunday).

Mornington Crescent!

Love this, thanks for sharing. 🙌 to the Maths society!

To be fair, statistics are widely used in social sciences. But statistics and their proper use are not always well understood by social scientists.

Idk…. ‘Imaginary’ / complex numbers are very useful in various scientific and engineering calculations. They’re not an arbitrarily made up construct which can vary with culture and time.
there’s probably a joke to be made about Euler’s identity though.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · Today 18:52

To be fair, statistics are widely used in social sciences. But statistics and their proper use are not always well understood by social scientists.

Yes, he's thought that statistics are employed by social scientists and concluded that statistics ARE a social science. With such an embarrassing schoolboy error, I fear for his accuracy when he expounds on more arcane matter.

The problem with your 'analysis' is that it doesn't account for the fact different groups of people offend at different rates. IE younger, heterosexual & poorer men violently offend at higher rates than older, homosexual & wealthier men. And studies show that homosexual males violently offend at lower rates than homosexual females.

In terms of trans women, there are no official numbers recorded by police or in prison data & even if there were the numbers have been deemed statistically insignificant because of the low occurring numbers of trans women in the population.

So assuming the offense rate of men applies to all men is not only over simplistic but inaccurate.

Female-perpetrated crimes are underreported, particularly in areas like domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

And a very dubious one it is too. Tell us all about the third sex and the third gamete and we may start listening. Until then....

Sadly, the joke won't be made by me - I just looked up Euler's identity and had never heard of it and won't attempt to understand it until I've grasped calculus.

Although... LGBTQI+ shares an I and a + with Euler... 🤔

So assuming the offense rate of men applies to all men is not only over simplistic but inaccurate.

A Swedish study of transsexuals found that transwomen had the same offending rate as other men.

That's been long debunked.

"Criminality
In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.
I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.
Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require."^^

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/

only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups.

Thank you for adding evidence. I agree on that basis that more studies need to be undertaken.

”may have resulted in increased criminalisation” [because they were more stigmatised]
This is not necessarily convincing imo though.

Transmen in the Swedish study were found more likely to follow male pattern criminal behaviour than female. Was this also because they were stigmatised, or because they were more aggressive due to testosterone?

None of this changes the fact that we have the right to know the sex of a criminal.

It's my understanding that the Swedish study used cohorts of men and women in the second set of analysis. Which is why the results were different.

Of course there's no difference in criminality between men who wear dresses and men who don't.

And prison statistics say the exact opposite.

As do all the threats of rape, decapitation, and violence.

Mind you, if one of your arguments says that facial bones start to disappear, so men should be women spaces, you''d make up any old shit.