It's an uncomfortable reversal of a norm. We wouldn't expect people to call white people Black because they want to be Black — AmadeusD
Can you show me what the source you have for being "four times more likely" is? — fdrake
It wasn't intended that way. — fdrake
if all that matters were odds, women who are sex offenders against women should also be excluded from women's prisons — fdrake
"no, in fact there was no evidence in the paper that trans women are uniquely risky" — fdrake
This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
that — fdrake
Have you read the paper? This is patently untrue and clear attempt to avoid the vitriol of trans activists who routinely harass and attempt to 'cancel' anyone saying anything they don't like in the lit — AmadeusD
I don't know that that's true, but if the community itself, in some significant proportion notices this (my personal trans friends do, also) then it cannot be hte case that this is some inarguable situation where we have to just do as were told (which is the postion). — AmadeusD
They're saying it because they are male. Nothing else. They do not need to justify that further. — AmadeusD
then it cannot be hte case that this is some inarguable situation where we have to just do as were told — AmadeusD
You are not wrong, but you are not concluding something reasonable, imo. — AmadeusD
1 ) Talking about trans women's rates of sex offence using data.
2 ) Construing trans women as latent rapists on the basis of their {alleged} manhood.
I have the time of day for the former, the latter can suck a bag of dicks, believing something in the manner of ( 2 ) and motte-baileying back to ( 1 ) can suck a larger bag of dicks. It isn't just about being factually correct, people can believe all this stuff in the wrong way. I am not saying you're doing this specifically. I'm bringing the calcified prejudices I usually bring to this discussion's terrain, where knee jerk reactionary crap suffices. — fdrake
This is why I quoted her about it. — fdrake
There is a world of difference between
1 ) Talking about trans women's rates of sex offence using data.
2 ) Construing trans women as latent rapists on the basis of their {alleged} manhood. — fdrake
the latter can suck a bag of dicks — fdrake
excluding people from spaces because of personal discomfort, or feelings of unsafety, can also work as a vector of discrimination. — fdrake
in which everyone thinks everyone else is a reactionary blowhard centralising a clear cut issue which we should've stopped speaking about ages ago — fdrake
If women are horrible to each other it's fair game, but if one {alleged} man is horrible to them it's a cause for uproar. — fdrake
I often see this as well-poisoning by association. I don't paint all TRAs in the light of terfisaslur. But they exist and are worth mentioning. — AmadeusD
The exact same logic applies to sexual assault. — AmadeusD
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. — Leontiskos
I assume that's not your intention, based the previous exchange around the same thing - but I find it very, very hard to see a justification for dismissing female concerns based on millennia of data and lived experience as anything but "I don't take it seriously" or some such.. Could you be a bit more specific about what's wrong with that? I don't think a male has any standing to make such dismissals.. — AmadeusD
Conceptual example being that pro-trans protesting and agitation tends toward chaos and violence, from what I've seen. The anti(lets say) crowd doesn't, until confronted by the former. The former also seeks confrontation (at events, lectures, clubs etc..) and seeks to violate the rights of those with whom they disagree. This is why the ruling is helpful (these are not supposed to be arguments just reports). — AmadeusD
Yep but that flies in the face of both the empirical evidence, and the work in that paper. You should read it throroughly (I have, but its been some time). The Dutch Protocol and surrounding work is also an interesting tidbit in this area.. — AmadeusD
A government survey has counted 125 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, but the Ministry of Justice says these figures are not yet a reliable reflection of the true numbers. The MoJ says 60 of them have been convicted of one or more sexual offences but it didn't identify their gender. There are likely to be more trans inmates, on shorter sentences and who are less likely to be sex offenders, who don't show up in this data.
"Any assessment of a transgender offender's risk of reoffending should be based on valid, evidenced factors that relate to that individual, as for any other offender. We have seen no evidence that being transgender is in itself linked to risk. Risk assessments must be free from assumptions or stereotyping."
There is provision for any female prisoner - trans or not - to be housed in a men's prison if she's deemed especially dangerous.
We have to place each of a cisgender man, a cisgender woman, a transgender man, a transgender woman, and two non-binary individuals with ambiguous genitalia into one of the teams and one of the bathrooms.
Who goes where and why? — Michael
Non Binary Team A or B according to their biological sex. — Malcolm Parry
Not that difficult — Malcolm Parry
It was non-binary with ambiguous genitalia, i.e biologically intersex. — Michael
The general gist I get from your answer is that the divisions should be “cisgender women” and “everyone else”? — Michael
Is it not obvious why there is segregation? — Malcolm Parry
They’re intersex — Michael
I’m not disputing your suggestions, just seeking clarity. — Michael
There is no person that is not male or female. There may be difficulty categorising them when they are young but they are either male or female. — Malcolm Parry
If there is some doubt then they should use the facilities that most reflect their appearance. — Malcolm Parry
Is this also true of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery (including genitals)? Or is it only “natural” appearance that matters? — Michael
Biology — Malcolm Parry
I would say only natural but if someone has surgery and looks like a woman, who would know otherwise? — Malcolm Parry
What about biology determines if someone is male or female? You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.