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

The burden of proof is with the claimant of which you won't be able to provide given countries vary in their approaches.

To move the conversation somewhere, you do need to make it clear why your statement is a counter to their question, else you'll be assumed to be the same as the 3 caricatures the author potrayed.

So what you're saying is that I must center my argumentation around him and his assumption? I don't think so. He's the one asking for a change, so he's the one who needs to center his argumentation around us women. He's the one who needs to explain why we should even take him seriously in the first place.

If the data is correct, then yes, absolutely!

The data is correct and readily available.

If a specific sub-cohort undergoes medical transition, specifically long-term testosterone suppression, their physical risk profile fundamentally alters.
I do not think you should lump a group with female-typical hormone levels into the exact same physical threat category as a group with male-typical hormone levels, as that would corrupt the data set.

Unfortunately, we have no choice: we have to lump them all together, because doing otherwise would be both illegal and immoral/unethical. The reason is that you absolutely cannot condition a right on a body modification or medical interventions. The maintenance of body integrity is a human right, and nobody has the right to demand that this body integrity be compromised in order that another right be obtained or maintained.

Thus it would be illegal to consider granting a special right to a sub-group of transwomen on the basis of having undergone medical interventions. It's either all transwomen or no transwoman, but not just some of them.

As I explained in my previous post, it is both illegal and unethical to make a legal difference between transwomen on the basis of having undergone medical interventions or not.

So the risk assessment must be conducted on transwomen in general. It's not our decision: it's the law and ethics both.

Yes, and that this is why the PC of gender reassignment in the EA applies to those who have not medically transitioned as well as those who have. A similar argument was made for people wanting a GRC. British law doesn't distinguish between trans people who have medically transitioned and those who haven't.

'trans' science not working - switch to complete bullshit mode. 😱

Single sex spaces says it all really, if you let males into female spaces they cease to be single sex.
So no males in female areas.

Occam Razored it.😁

There is a problem of self exclusion to also be considered In looking at statistics for single sex spaces.

Difficult to collect these but in the Sandy Peggie case I thought it was very significant that Dr Upton had noted down (noticed) that Peggie exited the changing rooms one time on seeing that Upton was in there. And on another occasion was waiting to enter until Upton had left. There may have been other occasions when Peggie self excluded which Upton did not more down. The occasion when Peggie did stay in the changing rooms and confronted Upton was one where she was coping with bleeding so could not easily leave.

Peggie was a confident nurse on her home turf. In public toilets and changing rooms I assume that self-exclusion is a big issue.

From the blog post:

The hard question is this: what is the actual risk of allowing trans women into women’s spaces, weighed against the actual cost of excluding them, in light of the actual evidence? That needs base rates, proportion, some moral seriousness. What harm has actually occurred, how often, compared against the harm exclusion causes.

The risk: transwomen are over-represented in the sexual assault category in prison compared to other men. Thus, allowing transwomen into women's spaces would up the risk of women being sexually assaulted (and indeed, there have already been cases of transwomen sexually assaulting women and girls in women's toilets, for example).

The cost: which cost are we talking about? The cost to whom? The logical cost here would be to women, since it's the one that needs to be balanced with the risk to women mentioned above. And in that case, the answer is: zero.

If we're talking the cost to transwomen, or even to society in general: well, bizarrely enough, I don't see this cost being mentioned or explored at all in the blog post. How come?

Aha. A trans rights lawyer.

Thank you for all that you do.

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.

From:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

Over half the transwomen were sex offenders whereas fewer than 17% of men were.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
"We don't have to use any metrics at all. Female only spaces are not for men... however harmless you and they think they are."

Mhm, by explicitly saying that metrics don't matter and that exclusion applies "however harmless" someone might be, that illustrates the essay's main thesis.
Her point was that opponents often use the language of "physical safety and risk" when what they actually mean is "categorical boundaries and consent." That when this debate is framed around "danger," it acts as a proxy war;
if the answer to the risk question ultimately won't change your stance, there is no reason to pretend that the data would.

"Can I ask why it was so important for you to bustle over here to put us in our place?"

This discussion is about the blog, thus, I'm discussing the blog, mainly, to ensure people don't misunderstand the core observation.
I believe that if a position is truly strong, it doesn't need to rely on misreading the opposing side.

Is it possible for pomposity to become a debilitating medical condition?

I think I’ll stick with ‘if you were born with a cock you’re a man and you do not belong in single sex spaces set aside for women’. Seems simpler and likely to save everyone a lot of time in the long run

@Baileyonice

The 51% figure relates to the % of global population that is female.

The 20% figure is taken from the latest BSAS and Sex Matters survey.

If, as you say, other countries don't care about 'dunny etiquette', it would appear that the UK is unusually TERFy.

It makes me proud to be British: thank you.

*obsessive banging on about womens rights.

FTFY

The idea that women who have spent years, often decades, advocating for women's rights in all sorts of situations, facing down employers, the legal system, unions, the medical profession, and assorted entitled men, are 'intellectually threatened' by a bunch of pub bores shows a lack of understanding of - well, anything, really.

Medical organizations don't define someone as trans based on clothing. It is verified through factors like phenotypic expression and biological markers.

Where are you getting this mince from?

A transwoman is a man who says he's a woman. No phenotype expression involved.

Any man who says he's trans, or a woman, has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

@WaterThyme
"'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... Over half the transwomen were sex offenders whereas fewer than 17% of men were."

Thanks for bringing this data to the table. Didn't intend to extend further than what the essay is stating, but I assume I'm asked to go over this:

If we look at the full text of the parliamentary submission this data is pulled from, it goes on to illustrate the problem I mentioned earlier regarding "social self-identification" versus "medical transition."

First, the document notes that the figure of 129 explicitly excludes prisoners who have legally transitioned and hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

More importantly, the submission includes testimony from Dr. James Barrett, the President of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, who explains exactly why this specific prison data pool is so heavily skewed. He states that there is an "ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences" who are pretending to have a transsexual status.
He notes that prison intelligence suggests male offenders do this for ulterior motives, such as gaining transfers to the female estate, securing special protected status, or making subsequent sexual offending easier.
This is a textbook denominator error.

This data does not show that 58.9% of transitioned trans women in the general public are sex offenders. It shows that within the already-incarcerated population, a significant number of male sex offenders are utilizing the prison system's self-identification policies to change their status.

This perfectly proves the point I made earlier: if you base a system on "self-declaration" instead of objective medical markers, the data pool gets completely corrupted by bad actors.
To accurately assess the risk of the medically transitioned cohort in the general public, we cannot use a dataset that the experts themselves admit is artificially inflated by incarcerated male offenders abusing a self-ID policy.

IKR.

Pull back the curtain and you get a wee man in a stretchy belt and golf trousers saying 'well, actually'. After a few shandies, he starts get hot under the collar and attempts to insult women by saying they are ugly and should all shut up.

Tale as old and tedious as time.

I assume I'm asked to go over this:

😂

You know what they say about assume, mate.

This is the issue, it’s all about the argument it’s the only way they can engage with women.

Because they have been rejected/dominated in the past by women it’s how they can get their feeling of manhood back.

So they push and push on the boundaries until they get a reaction and then say the most bizarre stuff and say they won. It’s theiri raison d’etre. The equivalent of pulling a girls pigtails.

prison intelligence suggests male offenders do this for ulterior motives

By Jove, I think he's got it!

@Seethlaw
"So what you're saying is that I must center my argumentation around him and his assumption? I don't think so."

No, not at all. You don't have to adopt her assumptions or center her argument.
As I stated earlier, you just have to make it clear what your actual boundary is.
If your boundary is strictly about categorical privacy (meaning biology is the only metric that matters, regardless of statistical safety), you can simply state that.
Once you clearly establish that your boundary is categorical, the debate naturally shifts to address that specific boundary, rendering her questions about statistical risk completely irrelevant to your stance.

You don't need to center your argument around her. But clearly defining your own premises is how you force the conversation to actually address what you care about, rather than talking in circles.

Her point was that opponents often use the language of "physical safety and risk" when what they actually mean is "categorical boundaries and consent."

Except that in this case, the categories are based directly on the physical risk that men pose to women. So separating the two is nonsensical.

First off, I know it's AI slop because of the obvious AI images, and the contrasting tone in every sentence.

Second, I don't know what you mean by you would expect better than me, and I would know why.

Are you saying that my arguments against the trans mafia are generally high quality and you think this one's crap?