Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

By requiring full biological equivalence rather than measuring the altered, reduced risk profile of the suppressed individual, that is enforcing a categorical rule, not calculating an actuarial equation.

Yes, and? What would be the point of calculating an actuarial equation? What would it be used for? That looks like a completely futile exercise to me.

I agree

Interesting concept that shopping in Boots immediately means you are low-risk to other people. I’m certain that lots of very dangerous people shop in Boots, given that it’s a national chain. Boots is a middle class signifier these days though. It’s a very class-saturated post. Taking class signals to be a substitute for safeguarding has been shown to be extremely risky multiple times over many decades.

Well, there we are. That's all that needs to be said.

He's a man. No men in women's spaces.

He can’t heeeeaaarrrr you

It’s also incredibly odd and dysfunctional, Stevie (since you’re here), to build an ‘Annihilation machine’ in order to create a world in which you are always right, because you set all the rules and alter them if anything doesn’t work the way you like it. Are you a gamer by any chance? (Also… multiple pages? Your post is longer than this thread).

To coin a phrase, I just want to pee (and run, and live…) As you no doubt know, at least half of all women over 35 suffer from some form of incontinence, due to our physical biology. That doesn’t mean that men don’t too, and of course medical transition can make that much more likely, though it seems to be a more significant issue for women who transition (what you would call trans men). Public toilets are therefore more important for women than for men. It turns out that legally, it is both right and required to provide toilets (and bathrooms, but then public bathrooms don’t really exist any more) on the basis of sex. This is due both to physical needs and also for the privacy, dignity and safety of women, from men who just take limited resources because they can, or I’m afraid because they are one of the significant minority who get off on doing things that women don’t consent to, who literally find it exciting to force a woman to be in their presence while urinating or in any way vulnerable. Thee is NO response from women that that particular group don’t find sexually exciting. And it is important that convention and laws keep them out of the small spaces that are designated for women.

I can’t stop you using a women’s toilet, because you make your own rules and there are no checks or police on them. And I can’t stop you therefore making it more likely that other men will coat tail into doing it too. But that doesn’t make it legal. Thank goodness.

By the way, I have no issue with you shopping in Boots. No 7 is a great range.

Again, I explicitly stated in my last comment: "I could offer solutions if you want." I simply asked first because it's not something I advocate for, thus I'm not the right person for it.
Alright then:

1. Medical Credentials.

If the fear is intact male bad actors verbally claiming to be women to gain access, then you close the loophole. Access for a trans woman would require a verified, state-issued credential that proves long-term chemical transition and endocrinologist sign-off.

Second option:
Changing the infrastructure:
Instead of multi-stall rooms with gapped doors, we can use fully enclosed, floor-to-ceiling single-occupancy cubicles with a shared washing area that's highly visible.
If the space is designed to guarantee absolute privacy for every single user, the need to biologically categorize the people using it drops to zero.

Just a reminder of his own disingenuous “switcheroo”

Credentials; the inherent sexism of the ‘credentials’ has been a major problem from the start and is the reason for the thankfully discarded prisons policy.

I have no problem with single unisex toilets (and there can be some inadequate GC arguments against). Doesn’t alter what should happen in spaces that don’t fit that setup now. Also an issue if scarce resources for women are reduced further for this.

Option 1 can't de done legally which is why a GRC doesn't require any medicalisation

Option 2 less safe for everyone, means longer queues for facilities

I'd go for Option 3 provide single user unisex facilities for anyone who doesn't want to use the single sex facilities for their sex

paging @KeepToiletsSafe- there are many reasons those designs are unsuitable for women and girls.

and your first “solution” fails to account for the fact that most women don’t want your male friends in our women only space.

how predictable

Hello @MedicalConsensus why would you possibly think your toilet designs are a good idea?

Medical Credentials.If the fear is intact male bad actors verbally claiming to be women to gain access, then you close the loophole. Access for a trans woman would require a verified, state-issued credential that proves long-term chemical transition and endocrinologist sign-off.

I told you: this is both illegal and unethical. It's literally cannot be done.

Second option:Changing the infrastructure:Instead of multi-stall rooms with gapped doors, we can use fully enclosed, floor-to-ceiling single-occupancy cubicles

@keeptoiletssafe will be around to explain exactly why this isn't an acceptable option. The short of it is: it's more dangerous for everyone using them.

1. Medical Credentials.

If the fear is intact male bad actors verbally claiming to be women to gain access, then you close the loophole. Access for a trans woman would require a verified, state-issued credential that proves long-term chemical transition and endocrinologist sign-off.

Have you heard of Sarah Jane Baker?

Guilty of kidnap, torture, and attempted murder.

He castrated himself in prison and purports to have eaten his own testicles.

Your criteria would have him in women's prison.

www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20230717/281672554418126

"But – again based on unofficial figures – it appears that trans people are more likely to experience other violent crimes, for example domestic abuse... If the Stonewall figures are reliable, it would seem trans people are at above-average risk of other types of violent crime."

"All of this is a best guess, not a firm conclusion... Until we have those official statistics, we should handle the data we do have with care. Anyone that tells you this is clear-cut – on either side of this often vexed debate – is wrong."

@MedicalConsensus could you answer my question please?

https://abcnews.com/Health/story?id=3985832&page=1

Does Castration Stop Rapists?

'Testosterone levels and consequently men's libidos can be lowered through surgically removing a man's testicles or treating him with drugs. For that reason, castration has been used by psychiatrists and mandated by various states to treat some sex offenders.
Castration physical or chemical however, does not guarantee that a man will forever be sexually dysfunctional or that he won't again commit rape.
"You can be castrated and still have an intact penis," said Dr. Andrew Kramer, a urologist at the University of Maryland. "If he was castrated, his testosterone levels would drop significantly but not all the way to zero. Most testosterone is produced by the testes, but some is made in the adrenal glands above the kidneys."

Moreover, men who take testosterone, through pills or injections, could easily restore natural levels of the hormone allowing them to have sex despite their lack of testicles.
Some 65 percent of castrated sex offenders reported a drop in sex drive, according to a German study conducted in the 1960s, but 18 percent reported being able to function regularly 20 years after the procedure.
A 2005 study printed in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychology and the Law, found that between zero and 10 percent of sexual offenders who are surgically castrated repeat their crime.'

Castration can make men less rapey. It doesn't render them harmless.

Even a harmless man may alarm, distress, or trigger a PTSD response in a woman who is in a confined space where she is in a state of undress etc

Checks out. I think the study is correct in it's findings

Firstly, most TRA statistics are highly unreliable and based on convenience samples and self reported surveys. Secondly, why would men experiencing domestic abuse from partners of either sex use women’s facilities? Gay men’s relationships can be abusive too, should they use women’s facilities?

Good of you to think you know what I mean but no.

I mean men aren't women and people who aren't women don't belong in spaces for women.

We don't have to pick a single reason. The reasons men don't belong in women's spaces will vary.

For sport it is safety, fairness and dignity all three of these may apply to a particular sport but for others it may be that only one applies but just because safety doesn't apply in say darts it doesn't be that it doesn't apply in rugby.

Even within these categories there are variations so the safety issue in a contact sport is different to the safety issue in something like cricket where the faster/harder bowling puts women at risk when playing men without ever touching the man.

Fairness isn't just whether men have a direct physical advantage they also can have advantage derived from better opportunities, increased access etc.

Then we come to dignity if we let some men into non contact, low risk, non competitive physical activities that are supposed to be for females there is the changing room issue. 'I'm a lady doing ladies yoga so I need to use the ladies changing rooms' and the self exclusion issue, and so it goes on. It's not as simple as oh it's dangerous for men to box women but that doesn't apply to snooker so the women's world snooker champion should be allowed to be a man with a female id.

To summarize what I already said in other comments: I completely agree with you.
If the only thing changing is a verbal claim, that they simply say they are women, then assuming the physical risk drops is indeed an extraordinary, illogical claim. But I was pointing out that the actuarial question from the essay is about whether significant medical intervention (like chemical testosterone suppression) changes the physical risk profile.

Another user actually answered that challenge by bringing up a study from Oxford researchers (Biggs & North) which does exactly what you are asking for: it uses actual data to test whether that specific cohort has a different risk profile.
The researchers controlled for the "Self-ID" loophole (by excluding those who claimed a trans identity after imprisonment) and looked at the victim-perpetrator ratio.
The study found that the ratio for that specific cohort (natal males identifying as transwomen) closely resembles the ratio for males overall, and differs significantly from the female ratio.
So, someone in this thread did put in the work to look at the specific, granular data
If that Oxford data holds up, it proves the point mathematically. It proves that the risk profile remains identical to the baseline male population, which means the actuarial risk and the categorical boundary align perfectly.
This is what I believe the author of the essay meant.
By bringing actual data to test the specific cohort, rather than just arguing about what people "claim," the debate can actually be resolved.

@MedicalConsensus you haven’t answered my question. Is it that:

1. you are now engaging critical thought to those designs and realising ‘absolute privacy’ is not good for health and safety?
2. you know and you don’t care- the standard (unregulated) toilet design you described, called ‘inclusive’ by some, should override health and safety?

By the way, 2. ‘inclusive’ design is least bad for healthy men.

If that Oxford data holds up, it proves the point mathematically. It proves that the risk profile remains identical to the baseline male population, which means the actuarial risk and the categorical boundary align perfectly.
This is what I believe the author of the essay meant.

This is sweetly naive.

Here we go, though. The Dhejne study that you seem to have missed. I posted link to it yesterday.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

'...regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.'

But in actuarial math, risk is more like a gradient.

But this is all irrelevant.

Stevie wants it to be relevant so he can claim that a post-op trans identifying man isn't a danger and he should be allowed into places he has no right to enter.

All his posts are "but I really want it so I should get it," with a cheap veneer of irrelevant rationalisations.

It doesn't matter. Stevie is still - and will always be - male. Never mind the false breasts, facial surgery, castration. Stevie will always be male no matter how much plastic surgery he has to make him a simulacrum of a woman.

Stevie likes to call this a bait and switch but it's answering his question in good faith. "Why can't I use the women's spaces?" "Because you're male"