More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

[ConstanzeMozart]

fuckwittery
the EHRC ‘insisting’ on single-sex toilets excluding trans people.
Well, only if they try to use the one for the wrong sex.
There are also some bingo points including trans people being excluded from public life, and women who don’t look feminine being harassed in the Ladies.

They do not work fine.
Not looking at the legal situation Australia and Canada. Perhaps ask some Canadian and Australian women.

Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Not what was said at all.

Does a transwoman commit more or less sexual crime than the average woman, for example?

Unknown & irrelevant.

The over arching point being made that you are clearly missing was the actual impact isn't the existential threat being made out not that there wasn't any impact.

Well there's no broad spread movement for change nor is it an election defining issue in either country.

Unknown & irrelevant.

Known (see my answer). You don't seem to know much about this issue if you were unaware of that basic fact.

"Existential" threat? Firstly, some women are killed, but no, that is not what most women are arguing about. Again you seem very new to this terrain.

You were railing against people taking positions based on ignorance earlier. Start with yourself.

"Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Not what was said at all."

You said that removing rights from 51% of the population does not count. You wanted examples of "trampling".

What did you mean by that then?

This bogus analysis has been debunked a zillion times on MR. Incarceration is not offending & in any case the trans population is too small to make any meaningful statistical conclusions about.

Sexual offences can include prostitution btw that trans women are more likely to be involved in.

You don't seem to know much about statistics either.

Prostitution is not illegal (though some related activities are).

Your point was that it's illegitimate for women to be concerned about this (a 'moral panic').

Why should women not be concerned about incarceration rates? Why must they use your preferred numbers, draw your preferred (lack of) conclusions?

We know from the figures that 46 of the transwomen are in prison for rape or attempted rape.

So, re-run the numbers only with those figures and without adjusting downwards the female figures and you get a ratio of 64x.

I've used your figures for the denominator here. I've erred in your favour on every calc. It still comes out really bad.

I actually think that, most of the time, they're all the same person! 😏

AIBU to mourn the simple times when everyone knew perfectly well who was a man and who was a woman and didn’t ever give it a second thought?

Now 20,000 angels must dance on the head of a pin in every single bloody thread thanks to men like Bailey. It’s exhausting.

They so often combine a surface logic with stubborn wrongness, which suckers me in every time! Like those Twitter posts that include a distracting error for engagement-farming purposes. I have not learned my lesson.

Need to do some work today so must put on all my internet blockers.

Prostitution is not illegal (though some related activities are).

"People are imprisoned or prosecuted for prostitution in the UK for the following main reasons:
Brothel-Keeping: Under UK law, any premises used by more than one person for sex work is considered a brothel. Because working alone can be highly dangerous, sex workers often share apartments or spaces for safety. However, doing so is illegal and can lead to prosecution. 1, 2, 3, 4]
Soliciting and Kerb-Crawling: It is illegal to loiter or solicit sex in a public street or in a vehicle (kerb-crawling). 1, 2]
Pimping and Trafficking: The highest penalties—up to seven years in prison—are reserved for third-party exploiters, pimps, and those engaged in human trafficking or forcing people into prostitution. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Failure to Pay Fines: Many individuals, particularly street-based workers, accumulate repeated fines for soliciting. When these fines go unpaid, or they breach community orders or Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), they can face prison sentences. 1, 2]"

Your point was that it's illegitimate for women to be concerned about this (a 'moral panic').
Why should women not be concerned about incarceration rates?

Again the point being made is the impact is far lower than being asserted.

Why must they use your preferred numbers, draw your preferred (lack of) conclusions?

Why should they pay attention to the actual risks & not the ginned up one's? They can do what they want but its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue. Most other western countries in Scandinavia, Europe, North America & Australia & Asian countries don't consider the risk worth changing the structure of society over.

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems on minorities like the UK does by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty caused by bad governance.

And everyone in the PRC is fine with the political situation in their country, and their "rights" therein, evidenced by the fact that there is "no broad spread movement for change nor is it an election defining issue in either country."

See also North Korea.

Surely even you know how dishonest you are trying to be with statistics there.

That doesn’t mean it is working fine for women.

But it’s not about reality for you, is it?

Just about how things look, and whether you can hand wave away women’s concerns whilst spouting self righteous word wankery.

Unknown? Only if you don’t accept prison stats, or don’t want to know.

Irrelevant???

@Baileyonice I again appreciate your assistance in providing supporting references for my claims, albeit on the fairly minor point about prostitution laws.

"The impact is far lower than being asserted".

Mate. I'm trying to run with your logic and methods as far as they take us. You wanted a share-of-population as the measure of what's important. You wanted to look at serious issues. The relevant population for many trans debates is the female one (as often the crux is about access or inclusion of transwomen into female areas or categories). We look at the numbers. Suddenly you aren't so keen on numbers any more, the trans population is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from numbers.

its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue.

OK, this is the measure now is it? Let's take a brief tour:

In the US, multiple states have restricted trans women from female prisons, sports and bathrooms, Title IX changes have been reversed. Sport Australia and other sports bodies have restricted trans women from female competition. Canada is reviewing its prison policies after high-profile cases of transwomen sex offenders in female prisons. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have all retreated from self-ID. Germany significantly watered down its proposed Self-Determination Act following public debate. Plenty more examples.

Now, no doubt, the goalposts are about to move again.

Why should they pay attention to the actual risks

Pays attention to actual risks.
>> No, no. Not those ones!

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems ... by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty

Is sexual crime primarily driven by poverty? The one overwhelming factor predicting the risk of sexual offending is being male. Do you dispute this?

I'm not exaggerating. My personal experience is the complete upending of my immediate family. I have little doubt that my son feels something very similar. I know DW does. DD is also severely affected, and she's a trans ally. And yet DS will not discuss even the peripheral aspects of his rather sudden deep dive into gender identity as the defining characteristic of his life. We are to be obedient to the demands of the ideology we don't hold. This is coercive control even if he doesn't see it, except that we have our boundaries so are not easy to control, even DD who is very sympathetic.

As for identity, perhaps the biggest problem with gender identity is that it comes to dominate so many people's self-perception. Our identities are formed around many aspects of ourselves. Is it not unhealthy for gender to become to the one defining aspect of one's personality?

"The impact is far lower than being asserted".

Mate. I'm trying to run with your logic and methods as far as they take us. You wanted a share-of-population as the measure of what's important. You wanted to look at serious issues. The relevant population for many trans debates is the female one (as often the crux is about access or inclusion of transwomen into female areas or categories). We look at the numbers. Suddenly you aren't so keen on numbers any more, the trans population is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from numbers.

It's not that I'm not "keen on numbers" but rather there are no numbers to write home about. The trans population being comparatively minuscule is a fact. Built into that fact is statistical insignificance. The very same statistical insignificance that the Cass report used to dismiss research & the very same statistical insignificance the UK high court used to dismiss the numbers of trans women incarcerated.

"Holroyde said the statistics were too low and had insufficient detail to provide a safe basis for conclusions, adding: “I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced. But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

its notable that its only the UK where this has become an issue.
OK, this is the measure now is it? Let's take a brief tour:
In the US, multiple states have restricted trans women from female prisons, sports and bathrooms, Title IX changes have been reversed. Sport Australia and other sports bodies have restricted trans women from female competition. Canada is reviewing its prison policies after high-profile cases of transwomen sex offenders in female prisons. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have all retreated from self-ID. Germany significantly watered down its proposed Self-Determination Act following public debate. Plenty more examples.

No bathroom bans (the context of this thread & Wiseman's critique) in most US states, Canada, Australia, most European countries, Scandanavia & many countries in Asia.

Perhaps they take a different approach to scapegoating crime problems ... by understanding them as they are being a symptom of poverty

Is sexual crime primarily driven by poverty? The one overwhelming factor predicting the risk of sexual offending is being male. Do you dispute this?

"there is a clear but complex correlation between poverty and the perpetration of sex crimes. While sex offenses occur across all socioeconomic backgrounds, studies show higher rates of perpetration and victimization in communities experiencing concentrated poverty, economic instability, and lack of neighborhood resources. 1, 2, 3, 4]
How Poverty Correlates with Perpetration
Environmental Stressors: Concentrated poverty is linked to severe psychological and health issues, including higher levels of stress, depression, and substance abuse. These factors can reduce impulse control and impair judgment, elevating the risk of violent behavior. 1]
Social Disorganization: Disadvantaged neighborhoods often suffer from lower collective efficacy and fewer community support systems, which can embolden offenders and reduce the likelihood that crimes are deterred or reported. 1, 2]
Cycle of Abuse: Economic hardship often exacerbates domestic friction and child maltreatment. Individuals who experience childhood sexual abuse—which is statistically more prevalent in highly disadvantaged environments—are at a significantly higher risk of becoming perpetrators themselves. 1, 2, 3, 4]"

The trans population being comparatively minuscule is a fact.

Miniscule, but also entitled, self-centred, self-absorbed and selfish. The entire population is expected to make way and acomodate, to the disadvantage of everyone else.

In other words, me, me, me, me, me.

We are to be obedient to the demands of the ideology we don't hold.

As are others to your ideology which by your logic is coercive control.

Whatever happened to accepting each others differences? No one is suggesting you agree with another's choices rather you respect them by accepting they have the right to them. Your demands conformity reek of authoritarianism.

As for identity, perhaps the biggest problem with gender identity is that it comes to dominate so many people's self-perception. Our identities are formed around many aspects of ourselves. Is it not unhealthy for gender to become to the one defining aspect of one's personality?

You could say this about any identity category depending upon the individual. But people do tend to focus on their identity when their rights are being compromised because of it as you are doing now.

@Baileyonice you really don’t know what you are talking about, at least on statistical significance.

Statistical significance

Statistical significance addresses whether an observed difference between groups is likely to reflect a real difference rather than random chance. It is a function of both the size of the effect and the sample size.

For the numbers that you contested the effect size here is enormous. Transwomen137 times the female rate for imprisonment for sexual offences. You need very few observations to be statistically significant.

Don’t believe me? Run the chi-squared or Fischer tests and tell me what you come back with.

Cass did not look at offending. She complained about the paucity and poor quality of clinical research.

Did you read the judge’s quote you pasted? It supports the idea that transwomen are a greater risk than females.

Different countries

Goalposts moved again.

Poverty

You are funny. I ask whether poverty is the primary driver of sexual crime (because that’s the single factor you picked out in the thing I’m replying to). Not whether it has any correlation at all.

You not only don’t answer, you then provide a bunch of quotes supporting the idea that we should expect transwomen to be higher sexual offender risks. Is it your contention that transwomen are poorer than females in the UK? Because that seemed to be the premise when you first raised it.

It would be amusing to conclude that you are a plant for team GC at this point.

Statistical significance addresses whether an observed difference between groups is likely to reflect a real difference rather than random chance. It is a function of both the size of the effect and the sample size.
For the numbers that you contested the effect size here is enormous. Transwomen137 times the female rate for imprisonment for sexual offences. You need very few observations to be statistically significant.
Don’t believe me? Run the chi-squared or Fischer tests and tell me what you come back with.

Nope. Small sample sizes matter.

"A statistically insignificant result means the observed differences, patterns, or trends in your data are likely due to random chance. This is typically indicated by a p-value greater than 0.05 (meaning there is more than a 5% probability the outcome happened accidentally). 1, 2, 3,

Key Characteristics & Thresholds
The P-value: If a p-value is greater than 0.05, scientists usually fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means the test cannot confidently prove the variable being studied caused the observed effect. 1, 2, 3, 4]
Small Sample Sizes: One of the most common causes for insignificance. If you only survey 10 people, it is much harder to prove a trend compared to surveying 1,000 people. 1, 2]
Practical vs. Statistical: Something can be "statistically significant" but lack real-world value. Conversely, an insignificant finding doesn't mean your study is a failure; it simply means the evidence isn't strong enough to make a definitive claim. 1, 2, 3]

Common Reasons for Insignificant Results
Low Statistical Power: There are not enough participants or observations to detect an actual effect.
Weak Effect Size: The actual difference between your test groups (e.g., control vs. experimental) is incredibly small.
High Variance: The data is too noisy, spread out, or inconsistent to isolate a clear trend. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

"Cass did not look at offending. She complained about the paucity and poor quality of clinical research."

I never said Cass was about offending. The point was a lot of research wasn't included based on small sample sizes.

"Did you read the judge’s quote you pasted? It supports the idea that transwomen are a greater risk than females."

Did you? Or don't you understand the the implication of the words "unconditional" or "risk assessment"

“I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk "

As the judge goes on to say:

"But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

In other words its the unconditional introduction that raises the risk like it would for any prisoner not being trans that did. Prison policy requires risk assessment for housing for this reason. For example their policies requires not housing prisoners who have committed violent crimes with the non violent.

And if its still not obvious to you why do you think the Judge ruled it was lawful to imprison trans women in women's prisons if the risk was increased?

@Baileyonice You keep stepping on rakes again and again.

You say p=0.05 is the significance threshold. Fine, that’s conventional.

chi-squared stats:

Chi-square statistic: 7,794
P-value: 1.84 × 10⁻¹⁵⁵ (effectively zero)
Relative risk: 134x
95% confidence interval on relative risk: (104x, 173x)

The p-value is essentially nil. Nil chance that this is not a statistically significant result.

95% confidence that the true multiple is greater than 104x.

Judges remarks

You really are very bad at this. The stats we are discussing are not about tw in women’s prisons. Just read and think about the things you paste first and work out if they relate to the point you are trying to make or not.

Your claim, as revised, is that TW pose a greater threat than females where there is unconditional access?

We agree on that.

How much greater threat? No less than 104x you say?

Comrade Bailey, you have done great work making the GC case today and it’s not even breakfast.

keep digging.

"The Real Problem with Small Samples
Instead of automatic insignificance, small samples suffer from specific statistical limitations: 1]
Lower Statistical Power: Small samples have a high risk of producing Type II errors (false negatives). They are great at detecting massive, obvious differences, but usually lack the power to detect smaller, nuanced effects. 1, 2, 3]
Exaggerated Effect Sizes: If a small sample does reach statistical significance, the measured effect size is often heavily exaggerated or distorted by outliers. 1, 2]
Wide Confidence Intervals: The margin of error is inherently larger, meaning your estimates are less precise. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

You really are very bad at this. The stats we are discussing are not about tw in women’s prisons.

The example I gave of the high court ruling was to illustrate that the trans population is too low to make any statistical conclusions about.

Your claim, as revised, is that TW pose a greater threat than females where there is unconditional access?

As do cis females to other females & cis men to other cis men. See where this is going???

In other words, RISKS INCREASING HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS.

@Baileyonice

You are terribly out of your depth intellectually here.