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

We can argue both points, because both are true.

Men who claim to be women retain a male.pattern of offending, as shown in a long-term study.

Also, women are entitled to single sex spaces for privacy and dignity, as well as safety.

Data wrt point 1.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/crime/evidence-and-data-on-transwomens-offending-rates/

The statistical risk is not irrelevant. It is, at least sometimes, the reason for excluding all men. Which will naturally include quite a few harmless ones. We don't need to investigate further, looking for exceptions (and if we did, which we dont,I'd put disabled or very young or very old men ahead of this particular man in the queue).

@MedicalConsensus

And if safety is the metric, simply stating 'they are men' doesn't answer the question of risk.

Sure it does. "These people are male, therefore we can assume that they present the same risk as the general population of males" is perfectly logical and sufficient.

They have to provide the actual incident data for that specific demographic to prove the threat.

No. It's the people who think that that specific demographic doesn't present the same level of threat who must demonstrate it.

Exactly what Seethlaw says. The onus is on the people making the extraordinary claim to back it up, there is zero logical reason, absent a belief in gender identity ideology, to think that this group of men pose less risk to women than any other men.

It's a fair question to ask why we would even bother assessing that specific sub-group.
From a purely sociological standpoint, if a policy is built on the premise of safety and risk reduction, looking at the data is just how we ensure the policy is actually addressing the reality of the threat.

However, your second point is exactly what the author must be hoping for.
You mentioned that the incident rate for this specific demographic is actually 'a lot worse as far as sexual assault goes'.
If that is true, then that completely answers the essay's question.
That is exactly the 'base rate' data she was asking for.
If the statistics prove that transitioned trans women actually pose a higher risk of sexual assault than the baseline male population, then the exclusion is perfectly justified.
By providing that data, you would be the exception to what the essay is talking about.

“The essay” is a load of misogynistic special pleading nonsense. I can’t imagine why you feel the need to take it so seriously @MedicalConsensus

Man alive, all this guff to try to argue that men should have the right to roam in the ladies lavs

some (extremely creepy) people can’t deal with women saying ‘No’, innit?

Waaaah we don’t ban driving even though there are crashes! I am very clever!

Or what Eresh said

’but what about if I wear a dress?’

’but what about if I’m such a delicate flower I don’t present any risk?’

’but what about if I’m the real victim here?’

creepy as fuck

@MedicalConsensus

May I ask what you mean by "transitioned trans women"? Transwomen are transwomen, whatever measures they may or may not take with regards to transitioning.

If the statistics prove that transitioned trans women actually pose a higher risk of sexual assault than the baseline male population, then the exclusion is perfectly justified.
By providing that data, you would be the exception to what the essay is talking about.

So... Debate closed?

I really appreciate this comment.
You are absolutely right that if someone is asking to change a boundary that was built for female safety, the onus is entirely on them to prove the math works.
I also completely respect your second point.
The psychological detriment is a real cost that often gets ignored by people advocating for inclusion.

But the most important part of your reply is your point regarding the prison statistics. That is exactly the empirical data the essay author was asking for.
If the data shows a conviction rate of 3x the baseline, that completely dismantles the author's argument on the spot. It proves the risk assessment definitively.
By providing that data, you would be an exception to what the essay is about.

But it's not only the complexity of the human experience that's the barrier to understanding but personal bias & this doesn't apply just to trans people but many issues where the defensive all purpose reaction 'word salad' brings much relief.

Gender being a particularly prickly issue for people with a bee in their bonnet about feminine & masculine expressions/inclinations….& maybe their lack there of. They like to convince themselves its purely a culturally enforced patriarchal phenomena when the reality is its another nature/nurture one.

The clue in an over reaction is how much of an hyperbolic existential threat an issue such as gender is made out to be. That such a trivial fact can induce such outrage & fear tells one there's much more going on 'beneath' than the social consequences of the issue itself.

The most conclusive evidence will never be enough for those in the grip of a complex but their 'early warning' reactions do serve a public service to 'handle with care'.

I think I preferred being called a sewer.

The data is well known and easily findable.

In fact Channel 4 or the BBc fact checked A Women's Place's assertion, and were quite non plussed to find it was true 😁

Men commit 99% of all sex crime. And 80% of all violent crime.

One in two women will experience abuse in her lifetime. At the hands of a male.

Forgive us the bee in our bonnet.

'people with a bee in their bonnet about feminine & masculine expressions/inclinations….& maybe their lack there of.'

Aye, we are all just ugly old hags and that's why we bang on about male violence all the time.

Why limit access to the ladies lavs to men who claim lady brain if it's just about whether or not the individual poses a risk? Why not, in that circumstance, let in all harmless men...and exclude the rare dangerous individuals of the female sex while you're at it.

In fact, do away with male and female bogs. Have Harmful and Harmless instead. I'm sure all the wrong'uns will go obediently into the loos for their personality type. If they don't it's really, really easy to tell the villains just by looking at them. Yes siree. Totally easy. I don't understand why the police struggle 😒

You need a hug. At least 20 seconds long.

Men commit more crime ergo a trans women can't be a woman!

I rest my case.

Fab. I note again that you don’t make any kind of point, just tired old insults. Surprise me by explaining why I’m wrong, why don’t you.

Jane Fae thinks that's how we should organise prisons. And sport. And sufficiently lacks self-awareness to say so on the Jeremy Vine show. There is no limit.

Hahaha 🤣 nice one