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?

The idea that its better for women to be defined by the feeling in a man head rather than their biology is bonkers.

I cant believe that people say this on a feminist board on a parenting site and expect to be taken seriously. Its misogyny.

Whenever I hear the term "patriarchy" in the context of trans rights I always thinks of Jocks and Nerds. I tend to find that it's the nerdy boy who never fitted into his self-believed version of manhood (defined by a Jock, common term now being Chad), and it's sent him down a route of Transmaxxing.

Why would transgender individuals cease to come out just because some rich transphobes paid for their one sided court cases? You’re born with it and no anti rights group can take it from them.

In my opinion any man knowingly entering a space designated for women is a predator.

Thy can do what the f**k they like behind closed doors.
Just keep away from me.

The legal fightback will continue.

In the UK a major upcoming point will come with the legal crisis facing the Greens where they want to be able to ban anyone who believes on biology from the party. That is going to fall apart. There are many other battles ahead.

In the US a key point will come in the next few years where Democrats will have to decide if they want to fight the 2028 Presidential election on a platform of saying biology is not a thing. Difficult to say for sure how it will go.

There are definite signs this particular gender fashion which sees gender as a set of labels which can easily be swapped around, but are also absolute heresy if you question them - is running into crisis - labels like genderfluid etc. It doesn't even suit those men with a deep sense of gender crisis lets us define them as those who might have sought transition back in the 1990s.

I don't think it will die off completely though because it is too attractive to a core set of psychological interests in men and women. It will become a way more niche.

Gender ideology is going to continue as one set of expressions of how gender works, but with way less elite backing. The fashion/medical industry around it will die back significantly. A whole bunch of it is already seen as cringe.

I'm white. If I believed I was Asian, would you accept that? Would you call me by my Asian name and not by my white deadname? Would you agree that I was not being culturally appropriative if I dressed entirely in outfits from the Indian subcontinent? Would you come to celebrate Diwali at my house?

It never ceases to amaze me how many women fight for MEN to access women only spaces!!! Mind boggling

Masha and hardy biscuit might want to read 'break it down for me' or ' the thing that never happens etc'
Illuminating

And they are arguing amongst themselves now, as well, about the nature and validity of some of these "identities." We have two of them on this thread: Mash saying YES of course transgender people will continue to "come out" because it's inherent, and RedPurpleyBlue saying NO of course they won't because there will be less acceptance now and they'll all be too afraid!

So, is it innate, inherent, or can you choose not to be transgender because you're too afraid?

There will be more of this squabbling to come. And they're going to have to invent new rules for the game. Because it was never real, and some people aren't playing fair...

As I'm sure others will have pointed out, trans-identified people aren't denied access to public facilities or sports. They are merely expected to use the facilities and play on the sports teams that align with their biological sex. This seems fairly straightforward. To say that they aren't permitted access to facilities or sports is very misleading. They are denied access to their preferred facilities and sports, but not to the ones appropriate for their sex.

If that makes them uncomfortable - well, why is their discomfort any more or less important than my discomfort? If discomfort is going to be accepted as a valid argument for or against giving individuals access to spaces, we could almost certainly find more women uncomfortable with admitting trans-identified men into their spaces that we could find trans-indentified men uncomfortable with using men's spaces.

Even if no trans-identified man ever committed a crime against a woman in a women's space, that would still not be a reason to grant them access. Women's spaces are women's spaces because they are for women, and a trans-identified man is not a woman. That's the beginning and the end of it. Transwomen are not women. All this debate about criminality is a massive stinking red herring.

I see we have that Williams institute press release again. Maybe this will help clarify the issue with it.

, the press release for the study says:
”Transgender people are over FOUR TIMES more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

It was from this press release.

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

I have a few issues with this press release. I think it has been used widely and extensively since it was released. I believe this document discusses those crime statistics

escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg.pdf?t=qqfomk&v=lg

It refers to 369 trans people who identified their sex vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified in a study.

There were 420 in total.
The numbers of members of each cohort
not transgender - 435,061
transgender man (TIF) - 181
transgender woman (TIM) - 188
prefer not to say - 51

The sample size was not mentioned at all in the press release!!

Just being generous and using the full transgender population of this survey, that equals tel:420/435061 420/435061 =0.000965 x 100 = 0.09% is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison on such a small sample size.

Think about this from the point of view that women around the world admit they don’t bother to report their sexual assaults and rapes. Because they have no confidence that they will get justice AND not be vilified in the process.

What % of females actively reporting their attacks vs current trend of not bothering to report would decimate that 420 figure?

And that number cannot be accurately depicted in this point either;

”About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.”

Sure this 'maybe'. However, I believe the huge number of women telling us they don’t report.

This article is misrepresenting the reality.

Then there is this claim:

”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

Including! Notice it says ‘violent victimisation including’!

Not ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.”

What was NOT included was a handy breakdown of what constituted the crimes against trans people were. What was the bar for a hate crime being committed for instance? Misogyny?

Does that fit the definition that holds for transphobic hate crimes?

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”

If females were taught how to accurately assess the motivation against them as to whether it constituted a hate crime, or indeed using the very same frames of reference as trans people do but based on sexism, and then they came back and reanswered that same survey, it suspect strongly that it will make that point meaningless? Is misogyny a ‘hate crime’ for instance?

Either way:

Whether or not a male person has been subjected to horrific violence is not a reason for that male person to access female single sex provisions. Many male people are violently attacked by others, but they don't get to access female single sex provisions.

I think there will always be some people who want to present unconventionally for their sex, for a variety of reasons.

But what isn't true is that the present approach to this is inevitable. One important thing to note is that other societies who officially accommodate gender nonconformity (usually of men) don't tend to do so by saying that women and feminine-identifying men are one and the same and expecting everyone else to pretend that they are.
Instead, they have a recognised third category with its own name and subculture. Which is fine.

In other words the "trans women are women, get over it" thing - and the consequent assault on women's single sex spaces, insistence on pronouns, screams of " no debate" etc. - is a modern Western oddity born of postmodern philosophy, the possibilities modern surgery and drugs have offered for radical body modification, and the backlash against advances in women's rights over the past century.

I also think that there is a large penumbra of youth fashion and media fads around the core phenomenon at present. When this falls away, we'll see what we're really left with.

Well I guess time will tell. Shall we check in 10 years from today?

Regarding the ONS Crime Survey.

"It shows that 28% of trans people experienced a crime in that year compared to 14% of cisgender people.'

This is also using the Crime Survey which is not police reporting, it is self reported. The report it self states that they had 63 respondents in 2020. For example, in 2025, 75,000 families took part in the Crime Survey
for England & Wales.

The report itself states that 63 respondents is very limited in usability.

Also, it is very important to note what is considered a 'crime'. Because, just like the Williams Institute figures, female people cannot report a sex based hate crime so the overall crime rate where female people are the victims will be very low in comparison.

However, here is also an interesting list from the CPS. I think that it is very clear that 'Violence against the person' is not limited to physical violence at all.

-start-
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON
Violence against the person is grouped into five high-level categories – Homicide, Death or serious injury by
unlawful driving, Violence with injury, Violence without injury and Stalking and Harassment.
Homicide
1 Murder
4.1 Manslaughter
4.10 Corporate manslaughter
Where an organisation is deemed responsible for a person’s death. This offence differs from the basic
HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and is only recorded once an inquest
concludes with a verdict of unlawful killing or the PPS authorise a charge (or direct that it is not in the
public interest to do so).
4.2 Infanticide
Applied to infants under 12 months killed by the mother while of disturbed mind.
Death or serious injury caused by unlawful driving
These offences differ from the basic HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and are
only recorded once the investigation confirms the offence is made out, ie a person is charged or PPS
recommend prosecution.
4.4 Causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving
4.6 Causing death or serious injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
4.8 Causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving
4.9 Causing death or serious injury by driving: unlicensed drivers etc
37.1 Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking
Violence with injury
2 Attempted murder
4.3 Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
4.7 Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person
5D Assault with intent to cause serious harm
Includes offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and wounding with intent. These offences
are recorded where there is clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to inflict serious bodily harm regardless
of level of injury sustained.
5E Endangering life
This classification is additionally split within PSNI to provide a data series for explosives offences and
firearms/ammunition offences.
8N Assault with injury
This classification is further split:
Grievous bodily harm or Wounding - where injury may result in permanent disability; more than minor
permanent disfigurement; broken bones; fractured skull; compound fractures; substantial loss of
blood; internal injury; lengthy treatment or serious psychiatric injury (based on expert evidence); and
shock (when accompanied by expert psychological evidence)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) – injuries ranging from grazes, scratches and
reddening of the skin to simple broken nose or broken finger. Also includes non-visible injury causing
more than a passing moment of pain or discomfort which has an adverse impact on the victim.
Poisoning to aggrieve
Non-fatal strangulation - The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland)
2022 created the offence of ‘Non-fatal strangulation’, recording commenced 26th June 2023.
8P Racially or religiously-aggravated assault with injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 8N Assault with
injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8S Assault with injury on a constable
Where a police officer was the victim of GBH/wounding with intent, GBH, Wounding or AOABH in the
course of their duty.
8T Assault with injury on an emergency worker (other than a constable)
Within Northern Ireland these offences are classified to 8N Assault with injury (where the injury is minor)
and 105A Assault without injury (where no injury has been sustained).24Violence without injury
3A Conspiracy to murder
3B Threats to kill
Where an individual fears that the offender’s threat is real and may be carried out.
11A Cruelty to children/young persons
13 Child abduction
14 Procuring illegal abortion
36 Kidnapping
104 Assault without injury on a constable
Where, in the course of their duty, a police officer was the victim of an assault where no injury was
caused.
105A Assault without injury
Offences where, at the most, a feeling of touch or passing moment of pain is experienced by the victim.
Summary offences, closely associated with actual bodily harm (see classification 8N). Includes, amongst
other offences, common assault and aggravated assault. From 1 April 2003 only includes assaults
involving no injury, please note that this change was introduced a year earlier in England and Wales on
1 April 2002.
105B Racially or religiously-aggravated assault without injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
106 Modern slavery
Includes offences such as holding a person in slavery or servitude, requiring a person to perform forced
or compulsory labour and arranging/facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation.
Stalking and harassment
8L Harassment
Harassment offences are those incidents where no other substantive notifiable offence exists, but when
looked at as a course of conduct are likely to cause fear, alarm or distress. Within Northern Ireland this
classification is further split into harassment and intimidation offences.
8M Racially or religiously-aggravated harassment
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8Q Stalking
Stalking legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland on 27th April 2022, through the Protection from
Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Offences of “stalking” and of “threatening and abusive behaviour”
are recorded from this date.
8R Malicious communications
The recording of malicious communications offences started for the first time in Northern Ireland from 1st April 2017. This classification also includes offences relating to 'revenge porn'; new legislation on
disclosing private sexual photographs and film with intent to cause distress was introduced in June 2016.
8U Controlling or coercive behaviour
The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (NI) 2021 introduced the “domestic abuse offence” within
Northern Ireland on 21st February 2022, enabling the recording of abusive behaviour occurring on two or
more occasions against an intimate partner, former partner or close family member, ie within the definition
of domestic abuse used in Northern Ireland and where abusive behaviour includes controlling or coercive
behaviour, psychological abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse and economic abuse.

-end-

(sorry about the formatting)

The following is a link to the ONS that lists the above for all of UK but without the extra detail:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales#appendix-1-recorded-crime-list

So, as suspected, a male person can report his spouse or ex- spouse for domestic abuse (ie. not accepting that transition, and using the correct sex pronouns) and this would also be coded as a 'hate crime - violence against the person.'

Tweets that someone doesn't like about themselves fall under malicious communication and can be recorded as a 'hate crime- violence against the person'.

It always pays to look in the data that is being posted to check exactly what it says and doesn't say.

If someone says directly or implies or infers anything about 'violent' hate crimes, always check the source, and drill down to any data given.

Brilliant work Helle

The point about crimes reported in female single sex provisions is actually irrelevant to the discussion about the needs of female people.

The needs of female people is not ONLY about the protection from physical and reportable attacks. It is about many other sources of harm as well.

Here is a list of just some of the harms that are considered in strong safeguarding policy:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa.

They are all important.

In the UK, we know that there have been female people attacked by male people who have transgender identities in female single sex provisions. They have been reported in media. We have had numerous regular posters on this board recount their or their loved ones being sexually assaulted by male people with transgender identities in a female single sex toilet or changing room that they never reported. We know very few female people report sex and violent crimes they experience as a victim. Why again are we looking at crime figures as some kind of reason to allow a sub group of male people into female single sex provisions?

If you wish to use the UCLA study, please post the data that fed into that paper. Last time I looked at it, there was something that didn't look like the conclusion was strong at all and I couldn't get the data for it.

Again, the minimisation of harm to female people is NOT limited to physical attacks on female people as per the list above.

So, really the question for someone who wishes to use a UCLA study from 2018 is:

How many additional women and girls being attacked or harmed in anyway in female single sex spaces in the UK are acceptable to you before we can expect to exclude ALL male people above the age of about 8 years old?

Maybe this will be useful for readers.

This was a question answered in Parliament in 23 December 2024:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298.
Question from Rebecca Paul (MP Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023-2024, published on 28 November 2024, how many of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female were convicted of a sexual offence.

Answer from Sir Richard Dakin (MP Scunthorpe): 23 December 2024
Of the 245 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male (i.e. those who now identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid) on 31 March 2024, 151 were convicted of a sexual offence. This includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data was not available for 1 individual.

Of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female on 31 March 2024, the number convicted of a sexual offence is five or fewer. We do not provide exact data for such small sample sizes as it risks identification of individuals. This approach is in line with our standards on data disclosure.

Just a note on this:

Regarding the % of male prisoners in UK with transgender identities. The mentioned above for the year ending 31 March 2024 had the figure that 151 of the 243 male prisoners in the UK prisons had at least one sex offence on their record.

The ratio changed from 43.3% (88/203) having at least one sex offence to their name at 31 March 2023 to 151/243 to 62.1% as at 31 March 2024.

The increase of the overall number of male prisoners with transgender identities in the UK prisons between 2023 and 2024 was only 42 yet the increase in the sex offenders was 63.

In 2019, there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders. I haven’t looked up the stats since. But I wouldn’t expect this will be different. Last time I looked at the raw stats for female sex offences, they had remained stable numbers for a decade or more despite population growth.

For male people with transgender identities to have the same rate of committing sex offences, there would be 8 (3.3% of 243) prisoners with trans identities in the UK prison population with sex offences.

8
Not 151.

And if someone tries to suggest that the majority of these male prisoners have declared that they are women to gain access to the female prisons, I doubt this is true. Considering the sex crime numbers for that prison population jumped from 88 to 151 male prisoners with a sex offence that declared they were women in a year (31 March 2024 to 31 March 2024) AFTER the publishing of the guidance in early February 2023, I seriously doubt these new prisoners are making declarations for the benefit of getting into the female prison.

It is not just about minimising the risk of sex crimes that female people need to have have strong safeguarding around access to female single sex provisions although it is one very important aspect. And looking at the sex crime UK prisoner statistics with a view to understanding whether a group of male people have the same risk or less than the general female population of the UK does show that they still are being convicted at least at the same rate as the general male population

It was always very poor safeguarding for female people allow a group of male people (above about 8 years old) to access female single sex provisions.

Does all this mean I can stop calling my friends daughter ‘he’ or ‘they’ when I know they’re not a he because she was a normal 16 year old girl two years ago and actually still looks very much like a pretty young woman in every way. It really grates me to have to go along with the charade.

Exactly. A little while ago on twitter men who identified as fem boys and men who thought they were trans women had an argument.
The non binaries and all the other random labels are another thing that causes rows.

It is like competing religions it has been said again and again but it is.

More to the point in the UK anyway you won't be able to legally enforce it on people.
Some of these people don't even care that much about gender subversion they just are primarily bullies or predators. Some of those ones will move on - they will look for another social trend they will get power from.

So there will be a reduction for sure. It won't go entirely away. It is not going to disappear, but it is going to be become more niche.

What I see is happening is ongoing gender wars. Look at the massive crisis about how to be a man or women you see online. The trans craze is part of it. Another reaction is the fashion for trad identities. Another is manosphere stuff. It is because the modern world has destroyed certainties that lasted forever, but there are no easy answers.

People LOVE arguing about gender. No one side will win. There is no solution. It is part of being human. There are certainties though. One sex is more violent than the other. The other sex needs safeguards because of this.

I feel that trans women create a great sense of worry and unease among us true women.
They cause a great sense of unease and a lack of confidence and even a sense of fear that our female only spaces are under threat and our security and confidence are under danger of being undermined

Sorry. 63 respondents who were transgender I should clarify.

63 out of 75000

63 out of 75000

Why is the number of respondents so important? Because to draw a conclusion that the group is twice as prone to being victims compared to another group is pushing the boundary with regards to credibility. Yet they are publicised widely and misused for justifying allowing harm to continue to female people ( female people who certainly DON’T have the same range of crimes to protect them in the first place!)

Consider the increased range of crimes that are available to claim being victim of to start with. Especially when being misgendered was under the CPS list of violence against the person. And reporting people for tweets. We also had women being charged for putting up stickers supporting women’s rights being arrested because people with transgender identities believed those women committed a hate crime against them. That was in 2020 if I remember so could have been included in that 63 responses.

If a group of people have more unique protection under the law than others, such as those who identify as transgender, eg reporting people for misgendering, it does make claims about significantly higher rates of victimisation much less credible. But we see it being done all the time. It is a misuse of data.

Consider the sample size those soundbites about higher victimisation are being drawn from.

63/75000 = 0.084% for ONS and 420/435061 = 0.09% Williams institute. And both were also self reported data sets.

There is a bias also in these reports where some groups of people have a greater propensity to complete these surveys than other groups. It will also probably reflect the greater propensity to report crimes they are victim of and it is now well known that female people don’t bother reporting crimes they are victims of because of lack of confidence in the justice system.

Of course, these respondent’s data should be reported and discussed, but only ever with disclaimers about the sample size and the wider range of crime reporting available to that group compared to the group they are being compared to. The data warrants investigation into whether it is a valid trend and what measures need to be taken to improve safety for that group.

What the data shouldn’t be used for is direct and unqualified by disclaimers comparison as has been done by reducing the findings to soundbites of

”Transgender people are over FOUR TIMES more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault

or as has been claimed on this thread :

“trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime overall.”

Soundbites created from unreliable data collection and comparisons make great sound bites. They also don’t provide evidence to support allowing male people to access female single sex provisions which both of these data sets have been misused to argue!

@OneHardyBiscuit if you plonk down conclusions from data sets such as these, you should spend more time discussing the results rather than trying to use them as a blunt instrument to support your claims. If you have this list of links that you seem to, maybe you should understand the data sets better so you can defend them.

They have been used on this board many times now, as others have said. We have seen and discussed them in detail.

Not using AI - that’s hilarious. You can spot it a mile off you goon!! So you take us as stupid too? Great.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

That detransition range has been also misused by people who have tried to defend the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for children for years. Even in 2017, there was a European study that indicated the figure up to then was nearly 9% and that was before the massive increase in patient numbers that was being discussed with alarm from about 2017.

The fact that there are no tracking of detransitioner numbers is hugely significant. Particularly in light of the fact that some health systems have no treatment plans for detransition as we keep hearing from detransitioners. This is the damage that has been allowed to occur with the spread of that already false claim of 1% that support groups used over the past 6-7 years.

The current discussion about 7% is just not credible.

Particularly in light of claims from clinicians such as Dr Az Hazeem.

Here is Dr Az Hazeem saying he had about 26% of his patients regretted transitioning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12623643/Being-trans-non-binary-new-sub-culture-risk-raising-nation-chemically-castrated-children-Doctor-spent-12-years-working-vulnerable-teens-Tavistock-warns-gender-ideology.html

He said 26 per cent of his patients at the Tavistock and Portman regretted transitioning.

Of course, regret cannot be considered detransition, but it is an indicator of potential future detransition. How convenient though that studies that would have come up with detransition numbers in the UK have been blocked by trans support groups. After all, if you cannot measure the detransition rate, that information cannot be used to stop the medicalisation of children for their gender identity issues.