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

I think it's a dig at the type of pubs that were built as part of the amenities for the Council estates built after the war, along with schools, surgeries, local shops, etc.

Is an "in-dig" equivalent to an in-joke?

The author didn't ignore the 'obvious answer' - she explicitly conceded it in the text: biologically, she is not female.
But the 'obvious answer' only solves a biological classification, while the actual question on the table is one of statistical risk.
If someone wants to argue that a demographic shouldn't use a space because they pose a threat, they can't just point to a dictionary definition; they have to point to the incident base rates.

If they have the historical data and statistical analysis proving that the real-world rate of harm justifies the societal cost of exclusion, then they have to present it.
But often, their only counter is looping back to 'because they are male,' which doesn't answer the question.
It swaps a hard empirical question (calculating actual risk probability) for an easy categorical one (defining a word).

You missed the entire point of the essay.
The author explicitly agreed with the 'gender critical' biological definition (what she calls Rung 1).
Her essay wasn't an attempt to fight the biology; it was a critique of the logic flow.
She is pointing out that often, people are trying to use a biological dictionary definition to bypass the hard work of proving sociological and statistical risk.

It's a simple syllogism.

Men pose a greater risk to women than other women do.

The author is a man.

Therefore he poses a greater risk to women than other women do.

The author pretends that it is necessary to prove the conclusion from scratch – when it already follows logically from the major and minor premises.

(Yes, there are non-dangerous men and dangerous women, but there's enough data – particularly on relative strength and aggression – to make sex segregation a successful and worthwhile safety choice.)

Her essay wasn't an attempt to fight the biology;

The essay was an attempt to fight biology.

Instead of asking why TW aren't women, he is asking why isn't he allowed in women's single sex spaces.

It's the same question.

He wants to define woman and he want to define why women have single sex spaces and opportunities.

You are absolutely right that, at a macro population level, biological males pose a significantly greater statistical risk to females.
I think where the essay author was trying to go isn't about denying that macro-level data, but asking how we apply risk assessment to a very specific sub-group.

Your syllogism works perfectly for the general male population. But I read the author's piece as asking a slightly different, harder question: in statistical analysis, does the specific sub-cohort of transitioned trans women carry that exact same baseline risk as the macro male population, or is their specific incident rate different?

If the data shows that this specific sub-group does carry the same risk level, then your conclusion holds up flawlessly.
I think the author is just arguing that we can't automatically assume the micro-group matches the macro-group without looking at the specific data for that micro-group first.
Does that make sense as a reading of what they were trying to say about swapping the hard question for the easy one?

But risk of violence isn’t actually the only consideration. It’s important, yes. Women are safer in spaces without males in. It’s a no brainer. But it’s also about women’s privacy and dignity. Why do you think this one man should be allowed into a women only space which is such for good reason, when other men are not?

asking how we apply risk assessment to a very specific sub-group.

Why would we do that, though? Women have zero need to specifically assess that sub-group, so why would we do it?

in statistical analysis, does the specific sub-cohort of transitioned trans women carry that exact same baseline risk as the macro male population, or is their specific incident rate different?

Actually? it's a lot worse as far as sexual assault goes. So really, he shouldn't be asking that question at all, in his own interest.

Exactly. We know he’s fucking talking about women telling him no. But he’s pretending he isn’t.

Mate, no one feels intellectually threatened by you or any of your little chums 😂 the thought

I also note that you’ve said nothing at all to “engage” with. Don’t think no one has noticed. Just cliched insults and amateur goading.

while the actual question on the table is one of statistical risk.

No, it’s about harm. Women’s dignity and safety are at risk. They have every reason to be afraid and wary on encountering a man in a vulnerable situation. Every single one of them.

And if you try to weigh up the effect on half the population of that risk versus the detriment to the tiny population of TWs you can see where that will end up.

If someone wants to argue that a demographic shouldn't use a space because they pose a threat, they can't just point to a dictionary definition; they have to point to the incident base rates.

Assuming that the particular demographic you have in mind is men who claim to be trans, the onus is on those arguing for access to show that the men who claim to be trans do not cause harm to women that outweighs the harm to those men. They will fail. Firstly because of the numbers, as above. Secondly because the sheer presence of men, however they identify, in those situations is deeply disturbing to most women. Thirdly because the prison stats show that TIMs are convicted of sex offences at about three times the rate of regular males.

The conclusion comes back to what was said succinctly by @theilltemperedamateur : men pose a greater risk to women than other women do.

Single-sex spaces for safety purposes only operate as intended if we base them on macro-level data. Otherwise we would have to assess each person individually for risk level, which would be impossible.

(But NB 90% of men are stronger than the strongest woman, and 90% of women are weaker than the weakest man.)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the author's actual risk level makes a difference? It's not up to women to prove he's a risk. It's up to him to prove he's not. How? "I don't pose a risk because I wear women's clothing"? Ridiculous.

Plus there are other reasons for women to want privacy from men. In which case, what matters isn't what he wants. It's what the women want.

I think 'because they are male' is a perfectly satisfactory reason for excluding transwomen from spaces designated for women.
The UK Supreme Court has clarified that in this context the word 'woman' means 'biological woman'.
That in itself should be all that biological males, however they identify, need to know, in order for them to respect the law and stay out of spaces designated for women.

I don't see any 'societal cost' to this excluding men however they identify from women's toilets - society has operated on the basis of separate toilet facilities for men and women for a very long time, and it has been respected by men for a very long time, so continuing that configuration is more embedded in society than the very recent, highly contested claim that a subset of men have the right to use women's single-sex facilities.

Statistical data about the risk of transwomen causing harm to women in women-only spaces is an interesting and very serious topic, but it's not the only reason why men, however they identify, are excluded from women's spaces.

More immediate reasons are 'It's the law' and, in the workplace 'It's company policy and if you continue to breach company policy it is a disciplinary matter'.

'Respecting women' would be a nice reason for men to stay out of women's spaces, but that seems to be too much to ask.

Again, note the lack of any specific point.

Not especially no 🤷‍♀️

To make sure two totally different arguments are not getting tangled up here:
If your position is that trans women should not be in women's spaces strictly because of the biological definition, meaning that even if a trans woman was an angel and posed zero risk, she still shouldn't be allowed in, then the essay's point doesn't apply to your stance.
You can simply respond by stating the statistical risk is irrelevant.

However, for those who are arguing that trans women shouldn't be in these spaces because they pose the same physical danger as the general male population, then risk is the central metric.
And if safety is the metric, simply stating 'they are men' doesn't answer the question of risk.
They have to provide the actual incident data for that specific demographic to prove the threat.

Exactly. They’re men. They do not belong in women only spaces, the law doesn’t support them being there, and most women don’t want them there. Any man, regardless of “gender” identity, ignoring these three salient facts is an automatic red flag as he is a boundary violator.

Note the 'spew'. Another derogatory verb for women's speech.

Also 'sewer'. I'd say we are a whisker away from a spot of dehumanisation.

That's an awful lot of OTTness for one little post - 'rampant confirmation bias' ; Mumsnet [all of it, apparently], is a 'sewer'; 'pathological inability' 'spewing' 'mindless'...

Sometimes less is more. If you have a strong point that can stand up without being propped up by insults.

@MedicalConsensus its a question of category, not definition alone. The presence of a man in a women only space makes it not women only.