Will fewer men discover they have female gendered souls?

[ItsCoolForCats]

The landscape has changed a lot in the last year or two in the UK. 10 years ago, if a man declared himself a women, many work policies allowed him to use women's changing rooms and toilets on the first day "presenting in his new gender". And he would be lauded as stunning and brave. Thankfully, these policies are getting binned now.

And the landscape is changing elsewhere as well. The IOC coming down on the side of protecting the female category has been really pivotal. If the Democrats in the US continue to push for men to be able to compete in women's sports, they will lose votes.

If tw have to use third spaces, won't be able to compete in women's sports or take women's honours and titles, will discovering their inner lady gendered soul become less appealing? Will.we see fewer sob stories in the metro about someone who was "femme-presenting" that day suffering the indignity of being denied entry to a female changing room?

Believe me, I haven't run out of things to say! But sometimes we just get sick of repeating the same old rebuttals to people on here who haven't even bothered to read around FWR. It's hot. You have no solid arguments. Men aren't women. Men need to stay out of women and girls' stuff, however special they feel they are. Hope that explains it.

No problem at all. If you want to look at the raw data and direct sources yourself, here are the exact studies and the links to find them:
> * The UCLA Study (No impact on bathroom crime rates):
> The peer-reviewed study, “Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations,” was published in the journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy. It analyzed years of crime data and found no increase in safety violations in women's spaces.
> * Link: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z](link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z)
> * The ONS Crime Survey (Trans people twice as likely to experience crime):
> This is from the official UK government data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). They found that 28% of trans people in England and Wales experienced a crime in a single year, compared to 14% of cisgender people.
> * How to find it: Go to ons.gov.uk and search for "Trans people twice as likely to be victims of crime in England and Wales", or search for their "Crime in England and Wales" dataset.
> * The Williams Institute Study (Risk of violent crime):
> The study showing trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime (including sexual assault) was published in the American Journal of Public Health.
> * Link: [https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306015](ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306015)
> None of this is "interpretation"—it is published, peer-reviewed, and official government data. If you have any actual data from a credible, peer-reviewed source that contradicts this, please feel free to share a
link to it.

Editted to add: URL went weird for some reason

😂 it reminds me of MashaPav’s “James Kirkup Review Writers’ Foundation” earlier - an absolute AI gem. It was of course JKR’s Women’s Fund 🤣

Quite. It’s all so dull and unoriginal.

I... What?? Have you even read the pages you link to?

ONS Crime Survey for England & Wales (Victimisation rates): > To see the official UK government data showing trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime, look at the ONS table "Crime in England and Wales" (specifically sheets D1 and D3). > Link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesexperimentaltables >

This links to: Dataset Crime in England and Wales: Additional tables on fraud and cybercrime. There are no sheets D1 and D3.

Williams Institute Study (Violent crime risk): > To see the data showing trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, read the study published in the American Journal of Public Health.
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306015

This links to a paper about "Could the COVID-19 Crisis Help Eradicate Chronic Homelessness?"

Like, what the hell are you playing at??

Pointing to actual, peer-reviewed PDFs with direct web links isn't an "AI hallucination"—it’s called doing research.
The July 2017 Police Foundation research brief is absolutely real. The Police Foundation—which is now known as the National Policing Institute—is a highly respected, non-partisan research organization established in 1970.
> * The Study: “Archival Review of Sexual Assault Complaints in Places of Public Accommodation” (July 2017).

• The Data: They worked directly with police departments in Atlanta, Dallas, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, and Tucson to review actual sexual assault complaints in public facilities before and after they passed gender identity protections.
• The PDF: You can download the full, official PDF report directly from the National Policing Institute's website: [https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PF_Research-Brief_JULY-2017-FINAL-1.pdf](www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PF_Research-Brief_JULY-2017-FINAL-1.pdf). As for the claim that "if you are transgender you are more likely to be a murderer than to be murdered"—this is a wild, baseless internet myth. It relies on a widely debunked blog post that tried to compare prison populations with general homicide data. In reality, actual criminologists and official bodies like the Crime Survey for England and Wales (ONS) and the UCLA Williams Institute have published extensive data showing that trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime, and over four times more likely to be victims of violent crime (including sexual assault). The data is right there in black and white. It's not a hallucination, you just didn't expect someone to actually have the receipts.

Let’s hope so, OP

Aaah, the old Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, haven't seen that mentioned for a while. What would the TRAs do without it? Hmmm, what was it about an institute run by a gay Jew that made it such a target for the Nazis? Oh I know, it must have been the trans research 🙄

With all due respect @OneHardyBiscuit I find males appropriating womanhood dehumanising. Women are fully formed humans, to reduce them to an idea in a man's head is to deny our existence. Men thoughout history have always decided what it is to be a woman to fit in with their own desires and purpose. They have imposed this with a mixture of laws, violence and threats. Women weren't even legally adults, or own property until very recently. It was legal to rape your wife in our lifetime. To insist that a man can be a women on his own say so is to belittle and ignore the history and experience of half the population.

By describing them as men in dresses all I am doing is pointing to a truth that you seem unable to face. They are men. Nothing will ever make them women. I'm sorry that they have let their desires, fetishes and fantasies rule their lives but since when have men ever actually cared about women as a group?

This man is legally female. The article refers to him as she throughout. What is to stop him using female spaces when he gets out of prison?

Will he be housed with the general male prison population, or will he be classed as vulnerable, due to his self-proclaimed gender identity?

Just a quick point here, if describing transwomen as men in dresses is dehumanising, then that only works if you don’t consider men in dresses to be human.

Men are definitely human, whatever they’re wearing.

Interesting point. It also suggests dresses are belittling. Are they? Is clothing conventionally associated with women belittling and "lesser"? Why is that? All good questions.

You are completely right, and I apologize. I completely messed up my copy-pasting. I was writing this on my phone and pulling sources from a messy document where I had my notes compiled, and I accidentally grabbed a completely different DOI link that I had saved for my university course (which is where that COVID homelessness paper came from). That is incredibly embarrassing and entirely on me for not checking the links before hitting post.
> However, the actual statistics and studies are completely real. The reason you couldn't find Sheets D1 and D3 is because my link went to the main bulletin page rather than the specific raw data spreadsheet. Here are the correct, direct links so you can actually verify them:
> * The ONS Data (Trans people twice as likely to experience crime):
> This is from the official ONS “Crime in England and Wales: Annual Trend and Demographic Tables” (year ending March 2020). Sheets D1 and D3 of this specific dataset show the breakdown by gender identity in Column F. It shows that 28% of trans people experienced a crime in that year compared to 14% of cisgender people.
> * The Direct Spreadsheet Link: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualtrendanddemographictables/current/previous/v8/annualtrendanddemographictables201920.xlsx](www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualtrendanddemographictables/current/previous/v8/annualtrendanddemographictables201920.xlsx)
> * The Williams Institute Study (4x more likely to be victims of violent crime):
> The study is “Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization” (Flores et al., 2021), published in the American Journal of Public Health.
> * The Real Link: [https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306099](ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306099)
> Again, I sincerely apologize for posting those garbled links earlier. The actual data is real, and the correct sources are right there
to be read.

There are numerous threads on this site with numerous comments that have debunked everything you've claimed over and over again. You can re-write history all you like it won't change the facts. GIDs was around for over 30 years and the fact is they dealt with approximately 30 referrals a year, 99% of whom were for young boys. In 2016/17 or thereabouts, the referrals shot through the roof, and they received 1500 referrals in one year, and the following years, 95% were for young girls. That shouts social contagion, a phenomena that has been studied and is well documented.
Gay is about same sex attraction, 'trans' is part of Gender Identity, and has nothing to do with same sex attraction, it could be and is being argued that in fact it is the opposite of being gay.
The 'trans' of today has nothing to do with anything 'historical', it is all part of the post-modernism philosophy that cannot last because it is completely without any foundations in reality.

> There is a profound irony in your argument.
> You rightly point out that, historically, patriarchal men have always tried to define what a woman is to suit their own purposes. But for centuries, the primary way they did that was by reducing women entirely to their biology, their reproductive organs, and their ability to bear children.
> By insisting that a woman is defined strictly by her chromosomes and anatomical parts, you are doing the exact same thing. You are adopting the traditional patriarchal framework that reduces a woman’s entire humanity, history, and existence down to her reproductive capacity.
> Feminism fought for decades to prove that being a woman is vastly more than just a biological function. To go back to defining women purely by their biological parts doesn't protect women—it hands the patriarchy its oldest, most restrictive definition of womanhood right back

This is nothing to do with the Police Foundation which is the UK’s policing think tank. This is paper is from the US & has no bearing on the UK.

BTW The Crime Survey in the UK shows transgender murder rate is half that of the general population so far less likely to be murdered & far more likely to be a murderer.

https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/

Nobody is trying to "rewrite history," but we do need to be accurate about the actual data. While referrals to GIDS (now closed) rose over the last decade and the demographic shifted toward adolescents registered female at birth, the numbers you are quoting are highly inaccurate; historically, GIDS was never "99% young boys" (the split was closer to 50:50 in its early years, such as 2011/12), and birth-assigned females made up roughly 70% to 76% of referrals at its peak, not 95%. Furthermore, while gender-critical spaces heavily promote "social contagion" theories, major clinical and pediatric bodies do not accept this as a proven scientific phenomenon, pointing instead to a reduction in intense social stigma, better awareness, and a severe lack of local youth mental health support that funneled complex cases into a single national clinic. No one is claiming that being same-sex attracted is the same thing as being transgender, but the LGB and T communities share a massive historical and political foundation because both have spent decades fighting the exact same rigid patriarchal expectations of how biological males and females "must" behave and love. Dismissing modern trans identities as a "post-modernist philosophy" ignores a century of medical development in gender-affirming care and thousands of years of culturally documented gender diversity—stating that a group of people is a "fad" doesn't make it so when official, peer-reviewed clinical data consistently shows these experiences are very real.

By insisting that a woman is defined strictly by her chromosomes and anatomical parts, you are doing the exact same thing

Where is this insistence?

@slug said: "Women are fully formed humans". I think that's the opposite of what you have said.

> You are completely right, and I apologize for my mistake. It has been an incredibly long day and my brain is clearly fried—I was wrong to conflate the UK's Police Foundation with the US National Policing Institute (formerly the Police Foundation) which published that study, and I really appreciate you correcting me on that.
> However, your claim regarding UK transgender murder rates also contains a major factual error. The ONS has explicitly stated in Freedom of Information responses (such as FOI/2022/4642 and FOI/2022/4673) that the UK Homicide Index does not record or classify victims by transgender status—it only records binary sex.
> Because the official Crime Survey and Homicide Index do not track trans-status homicides, there is no official government data showing that trans people are "more likely to be a murderer" or that their murder rate is "half that of the general population." Any figures claiming to show this are unofficial, third-party estimations.
> What the ONS does officially track is the victimization rates of living people, which is where the data stands: the Crime Survey for England and Wales continues to show that trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime overall.

So that's two fuck-ups already in a three-page thread...

Apologies, I am still quite new to Mumsnet and struggling to quote and tag everyone individually as the replies are coming in fast!
To answer your question: the insistence comes from the previous comment's claim that describing trans women as "men in dresses" is simply "pointing to a truth."
If the "truth" being pointed to is that a trans woman is biologically male, and therefore can never be a woman, it inherently bases the entire definition of "woman" on biological sex (chromosomes and anatomy).
I agree entirely with the statement that women are fully formed humans. The point I am making is that reducing a person's entire identity, social reality, and humanity strictly to their biological parts is exactly what the patriarchy has historically done to keep women in a box. Rejecting that biological reductionism is a core principle of feminism

Men: adult human biological males, both scientifically, and legally correct in the uk.

Dress: a skirted one piece garment, associated with women (adult human biological females) but through history has been worn by men too.

My belief and that of most people, and certainly most people on this feminist board on a female centric parenting website, which is legally protected in the UK - “trans women” is a subgroup of men.

What is the issue?

No, you claimed that @slug was insisting that a woman is defined strictly by her chromosomes and anatomical parts

Now you are unable to point to that "insistence" - why? Because it does not exist. A different statement was made by that poster. And you even concede that yourself by using the word "if..."

She didn't "reduce" anyone to body parts. It's an argument you've heard elsewhere and you thought it sounded clever so you thought you'd use it here.

Your arguments and evidence need to be much, much better. You need to read around FWR before you launch in with your condescending tone and start lecturing us on points we've addressed 1000 times before.
And university staff can tell immediately if you are using AI, so think about reining that in as well.

Setting the formatting and statistical debates aside, I genuinely want to ask a broader question about priorities.
With local services underfunded, violence against women and girls at crisis levels, and reproductive rights under threat, why is so much energy here dedicated specifically to opposing trans people?
The vast majority of mainstream global feminist organisations, human rights groups, and modern activists actively reject this hyper-focus on trans-exclusion (often referred to as 'TERF' ideology). To most modern feminists, this singular obsession is seen as counterproductive, exclusionary, and deeply out of touch with actual feminist goals.
Have you actually had personal, negative experiences in your daily lives with trans people that make this feel like the most urgent threat to women's rights? Because to an outsider, dedicating this much time to policing a tiny fraction of the population feels like a massive distraction from the real, systemic issues that harm women every day. My definition of femimsim is achieving equality for everybody because the patriarchy fails everybody.

OK.
Tell me what I, or other posters on here, do in the real world to support women and girls?