Sex is only factually binary at the most basic and lowest level of analysis (Gamete vs Ova producers). From there, every other trait generally tied in alignment to sex can cross that line in the sand: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, phenotypic.

Even then there are plenty of symptoms that render some people congenitally unable to produce any gametes and thus...

Those who feel threatened by the last bit are those who throw their arms up in declaration "there can only be two!" like some twisted version of Highlander. While there are those whose radars don't even pick up because they don't use science in a way to deny the lives of others.

Who cares about the binary of sex anyway in the discussion about gender?

Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? — Leontiskos

Duh, women can rape women.

Duh, women can rape women. — DifferentiatingEgg

Let's just pretend that this is a reasonable claim for the sake of argument. What then is the position? That women can rape women, men can rape men, men can rape women, and women can rape men, and therefore as far as rape is concerned, all prisons should be co-ed? That separating the sexes has no effect on the issue of rape?

This is a good example of why the position is so insane.

damn dude, imagine having to explain to someone in 2025 that rape is the nonconsensual penetration of the anus or vagina/penis with any body part or object however small. You don't require a penis to rape. Woman vs woman rape is rarer obviously than man vs woman Which is reasonable when you consider that men and women tend to find the opposite attractive, but roughly 1/4th of rapes in all-women's facilities occur by women raping other women.
But in your favor, that statistic alone goes miles... it shows you that males in a position of power will abuse that power to rape women more frequently. At a much higher ratio than women on women. And a trans male to female may feel that way, but also so too could female to male who haven't even had a phalloplasty. What if they're much stronger and the what not via transitioning on gear and working out?

Are you concerned that trans men are going to rape women? — Leontiskos

No. I'd be more concerned about the trans man in the woman's prison, honestly. Women's prisons are brutal for assault.

Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? — Leontiskos

Legal status in Scotland no, they can't. It's "just" sexual assault {even if it's penetration} so long as a dick isn't involved. No dick, not legal rape here. Women have absolutely no trouble sexually assaulting each other in prison. The idea that penetrative sexual assault ought be considered a lesser crime than rape is also a bit specious, but I don't know if you were actually saying that.

(And if we are concerned with neither rape nor abuse, but merely "perceptions," then we have created a world with infinite potential complaints where realism and pragmatism do not even exist.) — Leontiskos

The issue has never been about the reality of rape nor abuse, as the lobbyists never gave a damn. They are instead entirely concerned with perceived personal safety of a small group of non-trans women. A tiny group of lobbyists who for some reason feel uniquely threatened by, in their view, effeminate men mainlining oestrogen who often wear dresses. And in contravention to robust estimates of real risks. The lobbyists don't give a damn about the safety of trans women or men in equal access or gendered spaces.

Instead they're weaponising the trope of women's unique vulnerability in order to express disgust for a tiny minority group.

The GRC was already an excellent screen for "foul play" for all practical purposes.

- It sounds like your objection is, "The lobbyists' motives are bad." Is that the only objection?

On the view of those of us who are far removed, it looks to be good law. Even supposing the motives are bad, that doesn't make it a bad law. Is there a substantial objection to the law, one that goes beyond imputing bad motives?

I think your substantial conclusion is something like, "This will harm trans men or trans women or both." From the perspective of law and politics, "This will cause harm," is not a sufficient justification. The question is whether it will cause more harm than the alternative. My sense is that it won't, at all.

a tiny minority group — fdrake

If you put a criminal, biological man in a women's prison you put all of the women in danger. You presumably want to favor a tiny minority of criminals because you think minorities are good, and need to be protected. But to favor a tiny minority of criminals at the expense of the vast majority of criminals (particularly in women's prisons) is bad law. It is much more harmful to put a tiny minority of biological men in women's prisons than to put that tiny minority of biological men in men's prisons. The commonsensical argument here is pretty straightforward.

The response of someone in your position is something like, "These are real trans women. They aren't just pretending to be trans women." The fact of the matter is that if a male criminal with a history of sexual abuse can get into a women's prison by merely claiming that he identifies as a woman, he will. We are talking about criminals, not ordinary people, after all. I don't see any good reason to endanger all of the natural women in women's prisons. If we have to choose between endangering the 99% or the 1%, we choose the 1%. That's eminently rational.

(And sure, women's prisons can be vicious. Nevertheless, strength differential is still enormously important.)

I'm talking about two things at once, there's the ruling, and there's why the lobbyists wanted it. The lobbyists wanted it for the reasons I've stated. I've almost no interest in talking about the letter of the ruling, other than the ways in which it still catastrophically fails the lobbyist's intentions.

If you put a criminal, biological man in a women's prison you put all of the women in danger. — Leontiskos

Why? Surely you need to demonstrate more danger than would be expected from a typical inmate in order to make this case?

You presumably want to favor a tiny minority of criminals because you think minorities are good, and need to be protected. — Leontiskos

No. I think the moral panic surrounding trans people in gendered spaces is totally nuts and that they don't amplify the risks meaningfully if they're allowed in their preferred gender spaces especially if they've received a GRC. That's mostly what this ruling was about, honestly. What a GRC does.

Scotland passed a bill that let trans people count as their preferred gender if they went through a lengthy and robust assessment process, which was then vetoed. This ruling made that irrelevant.

I don't see any good reason to endanger all of the natural women in women's prisons — Leontiskos

They're sexually assaulting each other just fine in there without trans womens' help. And more than men do to each other in men's prisons. If anything we should be afraid that the poor trans woman is being put in with such vicious, criminal, creatures. But we won't, because we see women as weak and in need of protection.

I've almost no interest in talking about the letter of the ruling, other than the ways in which it still catastrophically fails the lobbyist's intentions. — fdrake

Hmm, okay.

Why? Surely you need to demonstrate more danger than would be expected from a typical inmate in order to make this case? — fdrake

Well, why do you think we have separate men's and women's prisons in the first place. Is it for the safety of the men? The idea that I need to demonstrate that it is a bad idea to house criminal, biological men with women is a bit strange. Surely you recognize the longstanding rationale for separating men's prisons from women's prisons?

No. I think the moral panic surrounding trans people in gendered spaces is totally nuts and that they don't amplify the risks meaningfully if they're allowed in their preferred gender spaces especially if they've received a GRC. That's mostly what this ruling was about, honestly. What a GRC does.

Scotland passed a bill that let trans people count as their preferred gender if they went through a lengthy and robust assessment process, which was then vetoed. This ruling made that irrelevant. — fdrake

Okay. I'm not up to date on the legal ins and outs of the GRC in Scotland, so I am not competent to comment on such a thing.

They're sexually assaulting each other just fine in there without trans mens' help. And more than men do to each other in men's prisons. If anything we should be afraid that the poor trans man is being put in with such vicious, criminal, creatures. But we won't, because we see women as weak and in need of protection. — fdrake

Women are physically weaker than men, and in need of protection. That's why Western society has been taking progressive steps to protect women for at least the last 500 years. Do you disagree that women are physically weaker than men? I can understand political positions, but when your political position causes you to contradict some of the most well-known biological facts the political position becomes untenable.

Do you disagree that women are physically weaker than men? I can understand political positions, but when your political position causes you to contradict some of the most well-known biological facts the political position becomes untenable. — Leontiskos

Difference in average physical strength is much different from factors that influence prevalence of sexual assault in prisons innit. If we want to think about major risk factors for rape of women "out in the wild", we should think of marriage {and fatherhood} paradigmatically. As my gran says, "it's your bloody husband you've got to watch out for!"

- It seems like you're intent to avoid the central issues, here. I'm not sure what your claim that husbands rape their wives has to do with the central question of whether women are physically weaker than men, and whether physical strength is a central factor when it comes to rape and abuse.

You've, "Swallowed the camel and strained the gnat," to quote a phrase.

You believe that these lobbyists see Buck Angel as a womanfemale? — fdrake

Yes. Though, i don't pretend that there aren't any who find that difficult. I suppose also Buck's rather intense support for those women has helped. Perhaps I'm not adequately taking that into account.

The lobbyists absolutely short circuit when you ask them about trans men — fdrake

That is certainly not my experience. They aren't a threat, so there's not much to say. That's the line I get, repeatedly, over many years. If it has been yours, fair enough. There are stupid people in every group..

Yeah, Remy is male. I'm not sure which side you're suggesting is a problem (their safety, her safety) but I still don't see the issue. Male. The risks in prison exist for merely short men, so I don't see this as special.

For example, the trans man will be stronger than women but weaker than men — Leontiskos

*some. Which is the case intragroup too. It's the obvious things like bone mass that make this a non-issue. Hormone treatment doens't adequately change these things.

nd whether physical strength is a central factor when it comes to rape and abuse. — Leontiskos

Oh. It just acts as more of a risk than physical strength differences with strangers, for sexual assault. The person in your life most likely to sexually assault you is always your partner. Just don't get married.

I'm being facetious. You would need to establish that trans people pose unique risks in prisons. When people look at the data, it doesn't look like that at all. All that's left is the perception that Man Strong Rapist Woman Weak Raped, and it works like a thought terminating cliche.

You've, "Swallowed the camel and strained the gnat," to quote a phrase. — Leontiskos

Which, to mirror the rudeness, you've demonstrated admirably.

I'm being facetious. — fdrake

Then let's separate husbands and wives too. So what? You're not being rational. What you are engaged in is a red herring.

You would need to establish that trans people pose unique risks in prisons. When people look at the data, it doesn't look like that at all. All that's left is the perception that Man Strong Rapist Woman Weak Raped, and it works like a thought terminating cliche. — fdrake

Again, you seem convinced that women are not physically weaker than men, and I can't think of a more unintelligent position for someone to hold. The rhetoric doesn't help your position.

I am reminded of Nellie Bowles' quip:

[Saying we need to demonstrate that men are stronger than women is] like saying we have absolutely no research indicating that a giraffe is bigger than a goldfish—no double-blind peer-reviewed studies have been done to date, so really, how can we say which is bigger? — Nellie Bowles in response to John Oliver

This is why no one takes your position seriously, and why public opinion is now headed in an immensely more rational direction.

Again, you seem convinced that women are not physically weaker than men, and I can't think of a more unintelligent position for someone to hold. The rhetoric doesn't help your position. — Leontiskos

It would be nice if you would demonstrate how the difference in physical strength between men and women makes trans women more likely to commit acts of sexual assault if they were imprisoned with cis women. You need to show the implication.

The broader context also doesn't have precedence for you to appeal to - difference in physical strength between someone who may be a perp of sexual assault and their victim is neither necessary nor sufficient for the attempt.

Again, you seem convinced that women are not physically weaker than men, and I can't think of a more unintelligent position for someone to hold. The rhetoric doesn't help your position. — Leontiskos

Women on average are physically weaker than men, I just don't see how you've demonstrated how that fact engenders that trans women should be excluded from women's prisons. What about women who are elite powerlifters? Should they be excluded from women's prisons on the basis that they're way stronger than most men.

It would be nice if you would demonstrate how the difference in physical strength between men and women makes trans women more likely to commit acts of sexual assault if they were imprisoned with cis women. You need to show the implication. — fdrake

The burden of proof you are attempting to push is wild, in my opinion. You may as well go to a women's shelter and say, "You need to demonstrate how the difference in physical strength between men and women makes men more likely to create problems in your shelter. You need to show the implication. We just don't have enough data on men in women's shelters to know if there is any danger. If you can't demonstrate the implication, then we're going to start bringing men into this women's shelter. Because my a priori beliefs that men will not cause problems in a women's shelter are stronger than your a priori beliefs that men will cause problems in a women's shelter."

If you think that placing biological men who are criminals into an all-woman environment will not endanger the women, then you are the one who has to demonstrate that the men pose no special risk. Our whole prison system which separates men and women is premised on the obvious fact that there is a special risk. You are the one with the burden of proof, and it isn't even close.

What about women who are elite powerlifters? — fdrake

Great argument, fdrake. "What about women who are elite powerlifters?" This is painful, dude. I already pointed to the problems where you take an exception and try to use it to establish a rule.

(Note that a woman who is an elite powerlifter will receive special attention from a prison, for the exact same reason that men and women are separate.)

All that's left is the perception that Man Strong Rapist Woman Weak Raped, and it works like a thought terminating cliche. — fdrake

Spot on.

Hence the very denial of the existence of transgender folk that impedes the understanding of the so many here. It's "beyond the pale"; it is incomprehensible and so is categorically denied.

And yet there are trans folk.

(Note that a woman who is an elite powerlifter will receive special attention from a prison, for the exact same reason that men and women are separate.) — Leontiskos

They won't be excluded on the basis of their strength alone. What remains?

If you think that placing biological men who are criminals into an all-woman environment will not endanger the women, then you are the one who has to demonstrate that the men pose no special risk. — Leontiskos

Wrong demographic innit.

The relevant comparison is trans women in women's prisons, not men generically in women's prisons. Even if you wanted to say that trans women were men, as you seem to, that's the relevant risk comparison! When people actually look at that risk comparison, trans women don't behave like men are stipulated to at all.

Women who sexually assault women still go to women's prisons for god's sake. Even women who are sexual predators go to women's prisons.

Legislation that wants to send people to prisons based entirely on their natal sex for the protection of women then sends women {trans men} to serve sentences in buildings full of rapists. It's utter hypocrisy. You send a woman who passes as a man {how you see it} to a building with loads of women with dubious understandings of consent who might be attracted to her, who's way more likely to be the victim of sexual assault because she's a trans man. And she's a woman {according to how you see it}.

That is certainly not my experience. They aren't a threat, so there's not much to say. That's the line I get, repeatedly, over many years. If it has been yours, fair enough. There are stupid people in every group.. — AmadeusD

Yeah I could see someone really double-downing on the idea that people of male natal sex are inherently threatening in response to this. Seems an ally of various gender related essentialisms, not my cup of tea.

I can certainly imagine someone who looks at a trans man and sees someone who isn't a risk because they're seeing a woman, but I imagine they're still taking the precautions they take with men if they interact with Buck Angel.

Which is the thing I'm referring to, for all practical purposes in social life people who think trans X aren't X treat nevertheless treat trans X as X whenever the trans X person passes as X. That includes perceived sense of safety.

Though there's a particular kind of disgust and revulsion that trans peeps are subject to, trans women aren't just men {allegedly}, and thus latent predators... they're latent predators wearing camouflage! They're sneaking up on you like they're a woman!

I do trust that the people you've spoken with have an intellectual commitment to treating trans men as women and trans women as men, but I'd put money on those people having revealed preferences to treat trans women as women and trans men as men in most circumstances.

Except when the women's safety and sanctity tropes are in play.

My impression is that the majority of the people who really support the lobby are thinking with their gut, as everything about trans existence violates taboos, much like homosexuality used to.

The specific taboo with trans women is... they're men... and men are latent predators... so we've got men camouflaged as women... lying on forms to get access to women... who they'll certainly rape with their superior muscles. Which, broadly, is something bad feminists and conservatives can agree on, man bad dangerous woman weak protect.

"Woman" should still be a protected characteristic, it's just that this moral panic is specifically about weaponising women's victimhood, and especially what remains of the chastity and despoilment norms from centuries ago. It's old shit the culture's vomiting up. It's a lot like lactose intolerant people eating a shitload of icecream, honestly. Culture loves chicks with dicks and hates trans people at the same time.

The idea that penetrative sexual assault ought be considered a lesser crime than rape is also a bit specious, but I don't know if you were actually saying that. — fdrake

There is one justification I can think of for considering it to be so, at least when the victim is a woman, given that rape (defined as penile penetration) women may lead to unwanted pregnancy.

Those who feel threatened — DifferentiatingEgg

No threat - it's just wrong

You would need to establish that trans people pose unique risks in prisons. — fdrake

I agree. But Leon is on the right track - this is patent. The unique risk is the clear, and usually not-abated differential in strength and tendency to abuse females. Females don't have that tendency.

The relevant comparison is trans women in women's prisons — fdrake

Fully 4 times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime in the UK vs the non-trans MALE population. If this isn't a screaming, screeching, wildly intense red flag for you... what would be? There's also all this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate
https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/us-news/transgender-inmate-sexually-assaulted-cellmate-at-womens-prison-suit/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112432880/transgender-prisoner-investigated-for-sexual-assault-behind-bars
https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/keep-trans-offenders-like-me-out-of-womens-prisons-says-karen-white-0qqdg5tsm - perhaps the most telling.

It's utter hypocrisy. — fdrake

Not if you realise you've got the terms wrong. It protects females. Get that right.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ (more of an interest piece).

Seems an ally of various gender related essentialisms, not my cup of tea. — fdrake

It is a fact of life. Men are entirely reasonably seen as potential abusers, because almost all abuse is carried out by men (read: males, whether transwomen or not). I have to say, if it's not your cup of tea to acknowledge the inherent risk females undergo to be around males - just..what the fuck is going on up in that noggin LOL.

They're sexually assaulting each other just fine in there without trans womens' help — fdrake

This comes across as, "I literally do not care about women" talk. It's probably worth noting that it is not mutually exclusive to understand and respect a trans identity and still not want policy to violate the male/female demarcation. They exist together in millions (perhaps billions) of people. So using Banno's logic, we're all good lol.

can certainly imagine someone who looks at a trans man and sees someone who isn't a risk because they're seeing a woman, but I imagine they're still taking the precautions they take with men if they interact with Buck Angel. — fdrake

I can understand this position, but I cannot understand thinking anything more than "perhaps this might be the case for some small number of people". Most people see a woman simpliciter - the same way you'd see a woman in the 80s pop scene as a woman (or David Bowie as a man). It is, in some significant sense, costume (as it is with all others! Not a trans thing) and we can't be in other's heads. We have different experiences of what the activists say on either side, so I can't in good conscience say one way or the other on that. Just that my experience is very much counter to your assumption.

Which is the thing I'm referring to, for all practical purposes in social life people who think trans X aren't X treat nevertheless treat trans X as X whenever the trans X person passes as X. That includes perceived sense of safety. — fdrake

Vehemently disagreed. Often, people silence themselves for fear of the social repercussions as a result of the utterly abysmal response from TRAs to any criticism whatsoever. And then there's the actual assault/intimidation/inappropriate behaviour trans women do engage in (plenty of examples, don't want to put more links i here except this one ) so it is not unreasonable, at all, for a female to say "Fuck no" to males in their spaces, regardless of their identification. I certainly don't want a female in my spaces of that type, regardless of how they look. I just don't take on a risk the way a female does in the reverse scenario.

Though there's a particular kind of disgust suspicion and revulsion scrutiny that trans peeps are subject to, trans women aren't just men {allegedly}, and thus latent predators... they're latent predators wearing camouflage! They're sneaking up on you like they're a woman! — fdrake

Fixed (im jesting that it's 'fixed' - that's just my view and experience). But then, generally only happens to trans women. Because they are male. It is the male doing all the lifting - not the trans. That part is almost irrelevant until you look at the stats and realise that trans women are vastly more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males. I do not think it is "you're in camouflage" and rather "It doesn't matter what you're wearing. You are male. Stay out". I think that's entirely fair and I think point-blank period MALES trying to tell females what they can and cannot allow in their spaces is utterly reprehensible and just another form of misogynistic horseshit we've been battling for millennia.

As an aside, trans women "pass" extremely rarely. Most claiming that they pass are obviously lying. The ones I am friends with joke about this obvious obstacle to the goal often.

↪Banno

My impression is that the majority of the people who really support the lobby are thinking with their gut, as everything about trans existence violates taboos, much like homosexuality used to.

The specific taboo with trans women is... they're men... and men are latent predators... so we've got men camouflaged as women... lying on forms to get access to women... who they'll certainly rape with their superior muscles. Which, broadly, is something bad feminists and conservatives can agree on, man bad dangerous woman weak protect. — fdrake

I want to throw out some ideas to complicate the discussion a bit. One could argue that the idea of men as latent predators has less to do with physiological expressions of male sex chromosomes, such as height and strength, than it does with psychological-behavioral characteristics that supposedly distinguish men from women. For instance, according to Google AI, men comprise about 93.2% of the U.S. prison population, while women make up around 6.8%. Some argue that sex-based differences in brain structure explain this wide gap. As the argument goes, males are biologically more prone to aggression, impulsivity and violence than females. We can add to those who put forth this argument some gender researchers who propose that many who identity as gay and lesbian are situated at intermediate points on the masculine-feminine biological spectrum, and many who identify as trans may have brain physiology opposite to their chromosomal sex.

Thus, many gay men may have less masculine and more feminine behavioral traits than typical straight men. And many lesbians may have more masculine traits than typical straight females. Do incarceration rates provide any evidence supporting this hypothesis? Not for gay men, but the statistics concerning incarcerated self-identifying lesbians are intriguing. Approximately one-third of incarcerated women in the US identify as lesbian or bisexual, whereas only 3.4% of the general female population identify as lesbian. Those who adhere to a biological explanation of gender-based behaviors will argue that lesbians as a statistical whole have more masculine traits than the straight female population, including aggressiveness, impulsivity and violence, and this explains their significant over-representation in prisons.

The same reasoning would suggest that as a whole, trans women may have been born with less of the anti-social male-correlated biological traits than straight men, and thus are less of a potential threat to women than the typical straight male.

I wanted to throw these ideas out there, knowing that they can easily be taken apart from many directions, biological as well as social.

(Note that a woman who is an elite powerlifter will receive special attention from a prison, for the exact same reason that men and women are separate.) — Leontiskos

They won't be excluded on the basis of their strength alone. — fdrake

They will receive special attention on the basis of their strength alone, actually.

If you think that placing biological men who are criminals into an all-woman environment will not endanger the women, then you are the one who has to demonstrate that the men pose no special risk. — Leontiskos

Wrong demographic innit.

The relevant comparison is trans women in women's prisons, not men generically in women's prisons. — fdrake

You've simply misrepresented what I've said. I spoke specifically about biological men.

Women who sexually assault women still go to women's prisons for god's sake. — fdrake

Now try to form a valid argument out of that claim.

Legislation that wants to send people to prisons based entirely on their natal sex for the protection of women then sends women {trans men} to serve sentences in buildings full of rapists. It's utter hypocrisy. You send a woman who passes as a man {how you see it} to a building with loads of women with dubious understandings of consent who might be attracted to her, who's way more likely to be the victim of sexual assault because she's a trans man. And she's a woman {according to how you see it}. — fdrake

Again, you don't seem to have any real proposals. I mean, are you proposing that trans men should be sent to men's prisons? As I said:

Logically, the abuse matter is tricky because a trans man or trans woman who has received hormone treatment will possess a strength somewhere between that of the average man and woman, and therefore they introduce a new (and varied) strength differential. For example, the trans man will be stronger than women but weaker than men, and therefore there is a potential for abuse in both women's and men's prisons. — Leontiskos

The rational position is that biological men should not be incarcerated with women (and biological men should not compete in women's sports). That leaves the question about trans men open. You can make an argument that they should be sent to men's prisons if you like. I don't think we need to physically protect men from biological women at the societal level of incarceration. The main problem I see with that is in prison, which seems a bad option no matter where we stand.

Fixed (im jesting that it's 'fixed' - that's just my view and experience). But then, generally only happens to trans women. Because they are male. It is the male doing all the lifting - not the trans. That part is almost irrelevant until you look at the stats and realise that trans women are vastly more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males. I do not think it is "you're in camouflage" and rather "It doesn't matter what you're wearing. You are male. Stay out". I think that's entirely fair and I think point-blank period MALES trying to tell females what they can and cannot allow in their spaces is utterly reprehensible and just another form of misogynistic horseshit we've been battling for millennia. — AmadeusD

Great points. :up:

We have fundamental societal reasons for separating males from females. The reasons hold whether those males have long hair, or have an earring, or identify as a woman. The reasons are based on biology, not mental beliefs.

@fdrake's concern is generalizable: "What if there is something about someone that makes them unpopular in prison?" The answer is that something should be done to protect them, within reasonable limits. It doesn't matter whether it is their long hair, their earring, or their mental identification that makes them unpopular.

It is really quite simple.

Trans women are trans women.

Women are women.

The problem arises in basic human interactions. If someone wishes to be referred to and thought of by others as a woman or man it is out of there hands. Familiarity will change people's perspective more than vitriol.

Honestly I cannot recall a time when I called said 'Hey woman!' or 'Hey man!'. I cannot fathom why anyone has any real issue calling someone by he or she as a trans man or trans woman other than if they felt they were being ridiculed or duped for some reason.

It's an uncomfortable reversal of a norm. We wouldn't expect people to call white people Black because they want to be Black (actually, a better example is the N word. Something I was routinely called in an ingratiating way when I was a battle rapper). I am not, and could not ,be an N word, even if that group wants me to be one. All i can do (and did) is get a 'pass'. There is no violation, just an exception.

Providing exceptions is far less uncomfortable, and far less controversial. I think. But your general premise is spot on.

Well, that is another related issue. I think it is perfectly fine for someone to be 'black' if they are actually 'white' ... it depends on the level you are talking about.

I am referring to an instance of someone raised in a black family with all the cultural background involved and worked for a charity serving black people. I believe they were then discovered to be 'white' and outrage ensued.

These things can be more complicated that it first seems. It is a bit like saying we are all human. Such definitions only serve a use within a certain domain.

I am assuming this is back on the forums due to the ruling in the UK? Or is it something else? The new ruling is perfectly fine btw. It is for legal reasons. It is absolutely not about discriminating against trans men and women. Some will always look for offence where there is none intended.

This comes across as, "I literally do not care about women" talk. — AmadeusD

It wasn't intended that way. I think it's quite useful to remember that the inmates of women's prisons are awful to each other often, and that includes sexual assault. Those places are not hotbeds of women's rights.

The logic for excluding trans women from women's prisons also doesn't really work conditionally either, if all that matters were odds, women who are sex offenders against women should also be excluded from women's prisons. And that's obviously not seen as the case. If people treated that seriously you'd yeet anyone who committed acts of sexual victimisation of women, in women's prisons, out of them for women's protections. But no, as you're saying, it's uniquely bad when a man does it and allegedly needs special protections.

perhaps the most telling. — AmadeusD

Those are a few instances of it. You can find similar instances regarding lesbianism and sexual assault in prison, or gay men in male prisons. Can you show me what the source you have for being "four times more likely" is? The last time I looked at this crap there was like 1 paper which even did this comparison with real data, the newspapers picked it up with a misinterpretation, then the paper's author had to go on the record to say "no, in fact there was no evidence in the paper that trans women are uniquely risky".

That paper, "The Swedish Paper" is the one the UK Parliament used {this one } as its primary source for the legislature.

Here is the author going on record showing their frustration with how much it gets misrepresented.

Dhejne: The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.

As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.

There you have it. To be clear:

No, the study does not show that medical transition results in suicide or suicidal ideation. The study explicitly states that such is not the case and those using this study to make that claim are using fallacious logic.

No, the study does not prove that trans women are rapists or likely to be rapists. The “male pattern of criminality” found in the 1973 to 1988 cohort group was not a euphemism for rape.

No, the study does not prove that trans women exhibit male socialization. The “male pattern of criminality” found in the 1973 to 1988 cohort group was not a claim that trans women were convicted of the same types of crime as cis men.

There is one justification I can think of for considering it to be so, at least when the victim is a woman, given that rape (defined as penile penetration) women may lead to unwanted pregnancy. — Janus

Yeah it's definitely an argument. "May lead to unwanted pregnancy" needs massaging though - man has vasectomy and it doesn't lead to it, infertile victim and it can't. I believe they should be treated with the same moral weight. It also provides an exemption for bumming, that'd have to go back into the sexual assault category when relevant.

Though I suppose you could say "it's worse because if it was penetrative vaginal sex involving a fertile man and a fertile woman it could lead to pregnancy", which kind of lays bare the social landscape regarding it too. Rape's {man raping woman} is uniquely bad because it's associated with a violation of womanhood and not just personhood and autonomy.

I wanted to throw these ideas out there, knowing that they can easily be taken apart from many directions, biological as well as social. — Joshs

It's a fun thing to think about.

The same reasoning would suggest that as a whole, trans women may have been born with less of the anti-social male-correlated biological traits than straight men, and thus are less of a potential threat to women than the typical straight male. — Joshs

We could talk about this in a different thread, perceived threat vs real threat. It's also extremely spicy.

Vehemently disagreed. Often, people silence themselves for fear of the social repercussions as a result of the utterly abysmal response from TRAs to any criticism whatsoever. And then there's the actual assault/intimidation/inappropriate behaviour trans women do engage in so it is not unreasonable, at all, for a female to say "Fuck no" to males in their spaces, regardless of their identification. I certainly don't want a female in my spaces of that type, regardless of how they look. I just don't take on a risk the way a female does in the reverse scenario. — AmadeusD

Yeah I agree, you just have to think about why they're doing that. They're doing that because they feel the trans woman is a man and is thus more of a risk, which they can be incorrect about if they are in fact a woman or are not more of a risk. A potential discussion of perceived safety vs real risk would also be interesting!