I think I've made my stance fairly clear. There are reasons why women have separate sports and separate exclusive places. Men (in which I include trans women) should not have access to these spaces. It is for society to work out how to protect trans women.

One concept that needs to be addressed is that "trans woman" can mean virtually anything physically from Mike Tyson to Blaire White. As long as the Tyson-esque male espouses that he is indeed a trans woman, then to doubt him would be considered improper/out of bounds in today's discourse. Perhaps he is. Who are we to say?

We can sort trans people into those who undergo medical transition and those who don't. Still, one can be transgender and not undergo medical transition. Then there is the further distinction between trans women who have undergone bottom surgery and those who have not.

In the past, I've heard that trans women would typically wait until they "passed" (a subjective measure) or were on HRT for an extended time before using a women's bathroom, but these days, anything goes - and so the legal pushback was needed. What we're seeing now is trans backlash, brought about by the trans movement's impulse to erase the deep-rooted categorical distinctions of male and female. The movement was on its strongest ground when it aimed for integration.

So what bathroom should Leo Macallan use?

Trans men get erased from conversations like these because men tend not to care if trans men use their spaces. Nobody will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a men's room.

Blaire White belongs in the women's room, but not all trans women do.

Trans men get erased from conversations like these because men tend not to care if trans men use their spaces. Nobody will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a men's room. — BitconnectCarlos

But if the law requires that one's biological sex determines which bathroom one can use then plenty of women will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a women's bathroom.

unisex toilets — Michael

What would your response be to women and parents of young women who object to the idea of a male (biological or not who otherwise possesses a male sex organ) regularly being a few inches away from said woman or young woman while their pants are down (ie. vulnerable)? Surely you're aware most rapes are performed by individuals with penises. So it's natural to want to separate the two. At least in places people don't "choose" (per se) to be at or utilize per necessary human function and existence (ie. the restroom). You can live 1,000 lifetimes fulfilled without ever having to pick up a basketball or a tennis racket or a weight set. The same is not true of having to use the restroom. If you don't use the restroom, your organs would rupture and you'd literally die (you'd likely involuntarily relieve yourself long before then, but that's not the point). That reason alone is enough to separate the two into distinct lines of thought and discussion that should exclude using "restrooms" and "sports teams" in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal in requirement to human life.

Moreover, as far as prisons, do you think "identifying as a female" by one's own statement is enough or does one have to have physically undergone surgery or otherwise have been diagnosed by a medical professional (ie. isn't just inaccurately self-diagnosing and therefore increasing/belittling the plight of truly and accurately medically diagnosed individuals -- like If I just happened to feel odd one day and say "oh i have cancer" and start taking up all cancer wards and equipment available for no reason when I don't really need it leaving those who actually do without recourse, of course not, that would be absurd, any doctor who permitted that ruse to go on would irrevocably lose his license)? I mean, honestly, at least when I was younger and I got into a small legal affair, I was thinking, "Damn, so if I just say I'm a chick they'll put me in a women's prison? I mean shoot... sign me up and call me Sally." :lol:

Beyond that, do you think a biological female identifying as male (presumably possessing the "organs", or perhaps not, actually especially not) wouldn't be singled out in prison anymore so than anyone else? To the point of it being cruel and unusual punishment? What about the opposite where a biological male identifying as a woman (perhaps not possessing the organs) ends up impregnating female inmates if placed in a woman's prison? (It's likely a fair few miss "male companionship", shall we say, or are otherwise aware that being pregnant in prison entails certain rights and privileges, codified as well as de facto, and might consider such to be in their best interest for the longevity of their stay?)

It is for society to work out how to protect trans women. — Malcolm Parry

Indeed it is. And in fact has been done long ago, irrespective of such terminology, condition, or circumstance. It's called The Law or "the Constitution". Perhaps you've heard of it? It doesn't matter what I am or think I am, if you harass me, that's a crime, and if I can document it, you'll be cited and you'll see your day in court. If you assault or batter me, you'll be arrested and thrown into a nice cage while you await your trial. And if you resist? Oh boy... don't get me started if you resist -- it doesn't take much "searching" to see that you will be shot by multiple police officers in defense of their life. No one will complain. A few people unfortunate enough to have been close to you may cry, then move on, while the rest of society cheers. That. My friend. Is how we protect the weak, vulnerable, or marginalized. By law, order, and if you choose to rebel, a volley and barrage of bullets. That's... literally all that is humanly possible to perform. I mean, seriously, if you violently resist a law enforcement officer, odds are you will be shot to death. Killed. Do you understand how permanent and effective that is for mortal beings? What more could possible be done as far as protecting the good/innocent/vulnerable from the bad/guilty/criminal offender? Can you really think of anything? Death is the end. And that's what people who commit crimes against ANY citizen risks. There's really nothing else that can be done. That's the highest order of protection available. There's simply nothing else further that exists in fiction or non-fiction alike. I mean, short of some magical barrier that deflects bullets (and insults) around one's person... and I wouldn't hold out for that. Not in this world, no.

But if the law requires that one's biological sex determines which bathroom one can use then plenty of women will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a women's bathroom. — Michael

Sure, and I wouldn't support such a law. However, I don't believe that male genitalia belongs in women's locker rooms under any circumstances.

I have heard of incidents where FtMs enter women's locker rooms, and it leads to chaos.

Sure, and I wouldn't support such a law. However, I don't believe that male genitalia belongs in women's locker rooms under any circumstances.

I have heard of incidents where FtMs enter women's locker rooms, and it leads to chaos. — BitconnectCarlos

So your suggestion is that bathrooms should be divided by "has a penis" (including trans men with an artificial penis) and "doesn't have a penis" (including trans women who have had their penis removed)?

No. Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. A very passable trans woman (e.g., Blaire White) belongs in a women's restroom even with male genitalia.

No. Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. A very passable trans woman (e.g., Blaire White) belongs in a women's restroom even with male genitalia. — BitconnectCarlos

Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? Is the masculine-looking cisgender woman who is often mistaken for a man required to use the men's bathroom, despite both her biological sex and gender identity being female?

Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. — BitconnectCarlos

Everyone should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration, and one such way is to not lash out when someone you don't want using your bathroom is taking a piss. Just wash your hands and leave.

I used to frequent a nightclub where all the toilets were unisex. It's really not a big deal.

If a man decides to start using women's spaces, is anyone even allowed to confront him in your view? What is the proper response if he claims to be trans but just hasn't started transitioning?

Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? — Michael

It can be difficult. Ambiguity is inherent to gender transition; it is a process, not an immediate switch from A to B.

Yet just because dusk and twilight exist doesn't mean there's no such thing as day and night.

And yes, unisex toilets are one way out of this difficulty.

If a man decides to start using women's spaces, is anyone even allowed to confront him in your view? What is the proper response if he claims to be trans but just hasn't started transitioning?

It can be difficult. Ambiguity is inherent to gender transition; it is a process, not an immediate switch from A to B. — BitconnectCarlos

Why does appearance matter? If the concern is the safety and well being of cisgender women, and if you say that trans women who pass as biological women ought use women's bathrooms, then there's the implicit claim that trans women who pass as biological women are less likely to sexually assault cisgender women in women's bathrooms than trans women who don't pass as biological women. Is there any basis behind such a claim?

But if you're not making such a claim then what's the reasoning in only allowing trans women who pass as biological women to use the women's bathroom? Is it just that cisgender women would be uncomfortable with transgender women who don't pass as biological women using the women's bathroom? I don't think that's a sufficiently good reason. There are likely plenty of homophobic women who are uncomfortable around lesbians and racist white men who are uncomfortable around black men, but that's not a sufficiently good reason to restrict bathrooms by race or sexuality.

Yeah. It's the difference between being cautious around men for good reasons and assuming that men are latent rapists, the former's something behavioural and can {and usually is} done without prejudice, the latter treats men as if they are always on the verge of boiling over into rape as if it's an essential facet of masculinity, just waiting to get out — fdrake

I hear you, as the latter causes suffering for men, generally. But I do not think that is what's happening here. Otherwise, the general separation of males and females would suffer the same objection. I don't htink it does, or can.

In the discussion, the latter move also calls trans women men — fdrake

Yes, and that can be truly problematic in a social sense. But I do not think it wrong. If your conception is that men are male, then they are men, on their own logic.

responds to trans women as if they are latent rapists on the basis that they are men male. — fdrake

This is what I think is happening, and what gets said to me/in the media etc. If the word "man" is equated with "male" for the speaker in question, that's worth noting. This does also make me want to throw out, what would normally be, a confrontational challenge:

Are you happy to accept the "not all men" movement as legitimate and a reasonable objection to the feminism concept that "Not all men, but always men""? I find both true, but hte latter is what matters for safety.

rape anpossible aspect of every man's personality — fdrake

I think that's functionally true, and that is why females take it to be "latent". No one thinks all men are rapists unless they're insane or trolling. But most females have had unwanted sexual contact with a man. It is justified.

You can just believe that without doing a Dworkin and saying penis = rape. — fdrake

I more-or-less agree, because I've suffered both rape, and false rape claims against me. That said, there is nothing wrong with point out "Someone with a penis = vastly more likely to rape". that seems empirically true, and justifies a lot of this type of reaction.

The lobbyists here were calling trans folk rapists loudly in the street and handing out pamphlets to that effect. — fdrake

I spoke about violence and (impilictly) property damage. Being a dick is fully allowed in society. Violence and property damage are not. This is why "gender critical" speakers regularly win legal battles about platforming, and trans activists are (semi)regularly losing legal battles around their activities ( one in NZ was quite the to-do given how low-level it was - but this came after several groups failed to prevent a women from coming here and speaking her mind. We can see a single direction that the unacceptable aspects of that issue are - preventing the free speech of a woman, and assaulting her when you couldn't shut her up. There are plenty of these examples like Stock, Maya Forstater, Hollow Lawford-Smith, Alison Bailey and many others

I also looked at your spreadsheets — fdrake

The UK MOJ statistics? That's what I used for my assessment and even calibrated 50% of hte raw numbers to be favourable to trans women. I noted the Fair Play source wasn't as good, but gave some further info. I wouldn't rely on that to present hte "table" i gave.

There is provision for any female prisoner - trans or not - to be housed in a men's prison if she's deemed especially dangerous.

Yet the furor over Isla Bryson? Please notice that statements aren't hte whole picture. You might trust the scientist, but I've outline very good reason for the author to state what they did, despite their paper showing something else. This also happened with that Scientific American infographic a few years ago that seemed to say that because intersex, sex wasn't binary - the author said as much. The author was not a scientist, but that aside, the infographic itself required a sex binary to make sense and stated exactly that.

I hope the analogy is sufficiently on the nose that I don't need to substitute things into it. — fdrake

I have literally no clue how this analogy relates to our stats.

The MoJ is hesitant to conclude that the trans folk in the data are representative of trans folk's patterns of offending, why? — fdrake

To avoid the inevitable backlash. The courts are dealing with it now, including several attempts to have it reversed on EHRC appeals (absolute nonsense, and I think none will go far). If you don't think this is likely, I can only say "hehe". The fact which you put forward doesn't actually change anything - these are the prisoners we care about. The ones who end up not included in the data don't move the needle on what the data is telling us (particularly as the 100% is a calibration favourable to trans women at an exceptionally generous degree)

particularly dangerous sex offenders of women in men's prisons. — fdrake

Ambulance, meet bottom of hill. As the facts show, on those many cases I provided.

So what was the purpose of the bill, if we need to talk about it in terms of trans women in prisons? — fdrake

Trans women are male. Males are housed in male prisons. This isn't hard, is it?

Determined by what? — Michael

SRY.

They’re intersex — Michael

Intersex is a misleading term. No one is neither male or female - almost all intersex conditions are conditional on which sex you are.

s a transgender woman more likely to sexually assault a cisgender woman in a women's prison than a cisgender man to sexually assault a transgender woman in a men's prison? — Michael

It seems so, yes. But I do not have data on that. It is also not quite the right question, and this wants us to retroactively assess whether or not X is occurring. What the policies on "this" side, let's say, want to do is avoid the risk entirely. I understand you're putting forth a separate risk that might outweight this one, so putting aside the retroactivity, I think its patently clear males are a higher risk to females than they are to other males, regardless of identity. Your point is not lost, though. It is far more likely that consensual relationships between non-trans males and trans women would occur in my view, than assault. So it may be that your scenario plays, but I have no reason to think so. Particularly as this was the case, for decades with no notable uptick in those types of assault, from what I can tell.

What about biology determines if someone is male or female? You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition — Michael

It is a biological condition which affects phenotype due to aberrations in sex differentiation, after determination is complete.

biological sex is determined by outward appearance — Michael

Humans are (around) 91-99% accurate in predicting sex from facial appearance alone

the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities — Michael

They do. It is easy to think otherwise, given the potential for aberration. And it is reasonable to take those aberrations into account in terms of how to deal with those categories in society. But they are 'true' categories, in that they admit of no exceptions (that I am at all aware of, even conceptually).

every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. — Michael

It is the case, though, Michael. Ambiguous phenotype doesn't affect sex. Otherwise particular phenotypic aberrations within unambiguous sex would alter sex determination, but they don't. Intersex is phenotypically intersex. Not that you are literally between the two sexes.

Why should transgender women have to be exposed to cisgender male violence for cisgender women to be protected from transgender female violence? — Michael

Because they are male. This is, obviously, uncomfortable but the reverse risk is perverse. All males run that risk in prison with males. Females do not, as they are not housed with males. Perhaps comes down to any opinion.

This is the incorrect way of assessing sex determination. SRY is the correct way, with other genetic abnormalities appearing during sex differentiation. You can tell, because the article runs its premise on: "determines the development of sexual characteristics in an organism.." and that: "Some species (including humans) have a gene SRY on the Y chromosome that determines maleness." further on.

So it's good to be careful whether you're wanting to assert determination or development are variable. Only the latter is.

There is no single determinant in these cases. — Michael

There is; as above.

This is simply not a complicated topic, until you want to pretend Sex isn't binary. Then it gets weird. Luckily, that's not the case.

Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? — Michael

The person who can tell that they aren't. That's what passing is about, no? :up:

And yes, unisex toilets are one way out of this difficulty. — BitconnectCarlos

Unisex + female-only.

SRY. — AmadeusD

Are you saying that a biological male is anyone with an SRY gene and a biological female is anyone without an SRY gene?

The person who can tell that they aren't. — AmadeusD

I believe that Jane passes as a woman. John believes that Jane doesn't pass as a woman.

Does Jane pass as a woman? Ought Jane be allowed to use the women's bathroom?

Why does appearance matter? If the concern is the safety and well being of cisgender women, and if you say that trans women who pass as biological women ought use women's bathrooms, then there's the implicit claim that trans women who pass as biological women are less likely to sexually assault cisgender women in women's bathrooms than trans women who don't pass as biological women. Is there any basis behind such a claim? — Michael

Appearance matters. It reflects how one spends one's time and one's values. If the appearance doesn't match the claim, the claimant is not credible. I don't make the rules.

Trans women who don't pass might not even be on HRT. If a trans woman isn't on HRT, there is no way "she" should be using the women's bathroom. Even if a trans woman is early in her transition, she's likely essentially indistinguishable from a regular guy and should therefore not be using the women's restroom. It's those people who are mid-transition where things get dicey.

Also, trans women who have been on HRT for a while likely have very low T and a low sex drive. They are also weaker. So they should be less of a danger. It's also terrible PR for the trans movement.

On balance, I would place greater trust and safety in a woman who has been transitioning for years versus one who has just begun their transition for many reasons.

I have literally no clue how this analogy relates to our stats. — AmadeusD

I'll say it in a few ways.
Trans women were only included in the MoJ data set if they had committed crimes like sex crimes.

You could not have found trans women in it if they'd served time for petty things with minimal sentences.

To be recorded as a trans woman, they had to go through a procedure which elicited that data, which only occurred after quite a long time in jail - IE, they must have served crimes with longish sentences. It's why the MoJ spent so much time clarifying it.

Say that 1% of people called David in prison are there for sex offences. Consider the population of Davids that used to play guitar. In order to find out whether any given David plays guitar, they need to be interviewed thoroughly. Then stipulate that the interviews occur after 1 year in prison.

You would then find that any David that played guitar in the data was imprisoned for at least as long a time as one who was not, and usually longer on average. The minimum sentence time for guitar playing Davids in the prison records is 1 year.

Make the simplifying assumption that half of the offences with sentences over 1 year are sex offences. Then if you have a David that played guitar in the data set, and looked at what they were in there for, it's a 50% chance they'd be a sex offender.

Actually recording a David as a guitar player means the sample of Davids which are guitar players will have longer sentences. So if you query the prison for data on Davids which are guitar players, they'll have 50% sex offence rate rather than the 1% of Davids in the general population. Even if in the general prison population Davids who play guitar have the same 1% rate.

If you interviewed them immediately to establish their guitar playing status, then the rate goes back to the 1% they were at in the general population.

Replace David with person, and guitar player with trans woman. That's the effect. The sampling mechanism for the data inflates the crime rates of the demographic for serious crimes.

An active one, yes. That seems to be the deduction of biology.

I believe that Jane passes as a woman. John believes that Jane doesn't pass as a woman. — Michael

Are you using the women's bathroom? If not, you're not relevant. I know that's not your point, so to address your issue:

In the hypothetical, no, she shouldn't, assuming she is male. Passing isn't a criterion for me, though, so unsure why I'm asked to defend it. All i meant is that "who passes" is up the person assessing you. What to do, policy wise, is another question and I think one that appearance wont resolve.

You could not have found trans women in it if they'd served time for petty things with minimal sentences. — fdrake

Which are sentences we don't actually care about, for this assessment. Perhaps that's why I saw no relevance. I cannot understand why you would care about other crimes, when we're tlaking about propensity to commit sexual assault.

Which are sentences we don't actually care about, for this assessment. Perhaps that's why I saw no relevance. I cannot understand why you would care about other crimes, when we're tlaking about propensity to commit sexual assault. — AmadeusD

The maths of the situation makes it appear that trans women are much bigger criminals than they are, and the amount of exaggeration depends entirely upon the unobserved trans population, which committed petty crimes.

Here's an example with fake data:

This is a hypothetical table of sentence lengths of trans in a prison. This is the true table. People are either trans or not trans. Then I've put a column in "Has Trans Recorded", which tells you if someone in the prison has filled out a form which records that someone is trans. They get filled out after 1 year in prison.

$\begin{array} {|r|r|}\hline Sentence-Length-Years & Has-Trans-Recorded & Is-Trans \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \end{array}$

Now, if you freedom of information requested the prison, they'd select for "Has Trans Recorded" being "Yes", since that's just the trans people they'd have in their database. Which would be:

$\begin{array} {|r|r|}\hline Sentence-Length & Has Trans Recorded & Is-Trans \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \end{array}$

The mean number of years for a sentence in the first is 5*0.5+5*1 / 10 = 0.75
The mean number of years for the sentence in the second is 1.

You see the effect now?

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! — fdrake

Hey fdrake, sorry for not replying to you before. the black dog gets me man.

but I need to disagree with you.

Whoever you describe as the 'greater risk' is irrelevant to my understanding of morality.

what matters is fact. we have a number of factual examples of trans 'women' raping or assaulting women in female prisons.

I can provide those references for you, if you don't feel like steel-manning me.

you seem to have a problem with the court system determining that women are women.

I can't wrap my head around this. You are the first person here on TPF who I 'related' to, and I think highly of you.

But your arguments seem entirely of the woke variety, despite the fact that woke arguments continue to be proven wrong?

Like, I can provide evidence that the trans-affirmative model is failing? Failing trans people? Or evidence that woke thought entails mental illness?

There are myriad examples of trans female sex abusers abusing in female prisons.

So, the question to me is, how many sexual assaults are 'the cost' of empowering trans people in jails?

Zero? A number determined by statisticians?

There are trans criminals. pretending that this number is so small as to be irrelevant is duplicity.

I worry you are arguing from a utilitarian perspective that you can't prove valid?

The maths of the situation makes it appear that trans women are much bigger criminals than they are, and the amount of exaggeration depends entirely upon the unobserved trans population, which committed petty crimes. — fdrake

You're right - but it is patently, and unequivocally irrelevant how many trans woman carry out petty theft, or public nuisance (which isn't linked to identity such as auto-gynephiles who present publicly as such) or whatever. What matters is what's harming females. And there, there is clearly, inarguably a propensity over females, and very strongly arguably a propensity over non-trans males. This may be true for pedophilia as well, but I actually don't even care to look into that further than what I've seen. The point isn't that that is true, the point is that if we want to protect children crimes against shop owners isn't relevant.

Edited in: Someone asked about htis:
trans men in male prisons would be at serious risk. That's why they shouldn't be there.

Passing isn't a criterion for me, though, so unsure why I'm asked to defend it. — AmadeusD

You were responding to my question to BitconnectCarlos, who claims that it is acceptable for a trans woman who passes as a biological woman to use women's bathrooms. My question to him is relevant to his position. If you disagree with his position then my question isn't relevant, so I'm not sure why you answered it.

An active one, yes. That seems to be the deduction of biology. — AmadeusD

The deduction of biology is that an active SRY gene is responsible for the development of testes. What does that have to do with being biologically male? Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries? Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female.

If you disagree with his position then my question isn't relevant, so I'm not sure why you answered it. — Michael

"Who decides who passes" didn't seem a policy question, but fair enough. Sorry.

The deduction of biology is that an active SRY gene is responsible for the development of testes. — Michael

False. SRY determines maleness. Male phenotype (including testes) is derived from genetic material, which can result in aberrations in genetic expression.
Which means your next two questions are not relevant.

Then someone with ovotesticular disorder is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female. — Michael

Neither of these is true. Both of these aberrations occur during sex differentiation, not determination. A good way to know htis is that the second of these sometimes manigests as Turner syndrome. Turner Syndrome can only affect females.

SRY determines maleness. — AmadeusD

What's maleness?

Neither of these is true. — AmadeusD

You missed the preceding sentence:

Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries?

If the answer to this question is "yes" then someone with both testes and ovaries (i.e with ovotesticular disorder) is both biologically male and biologically female and someone with neither testes nor ovaries (i.e. with gonadal dysgenesis) is neither biologically male nor biologically female.

But if the answer to this question is "no" then what is the connection between an active SRY gene and being biologically male?

That is what determines maleness. What maleness is, is the active presence of SRY. There isn't a further answer. The 'further answers' are the ones for which you find all these holes (rightly - they are not the correct way sex is determined, but differentiated, and that is liable to wildly disparate outcomes. Though, it is to be noted the vast majority of people do not go through that).

You missed the preceding sentence: — Michael

I didn't. But those responses make it quite clear. I didn't htikn "No" was required, given those statements. Apologies.

what is the connection between an active SRY gene and being biologically male? — Michael

They are synomymous. That's the connection. We call "active SRY gene" maleness, in a human. I assume you're looking for a form and function response. And it is clearly true that males are supposed to have a certain form and function, and females are supposed to have another with genetic aberrations interrupted the processes.
What's the connection between "human" and human genetic material?

Great response. Your knowledge is greater than mine and I’ve learned a couple of things from these exchanges. My stance has not changed but it’s always good to acquire knowledge.

I think the maths undermines the degree of urgency of the issue, honestly. Fair Play's rhetoric goes hard on the degree of sexual criminality trans women have. It's central for portraying this as a crisis. That's also the rhetorical reason for focussing on trans women having a "male pattern of criminality".

It's quite difficult for me to take the panic seriously given we know, and presumably Fair Play knew since the MoJ knew, that the data paints trans people in an exaggeratedly bad light.

If it's more broadly about Man Dangerous Rapist Woman Weak Raped, we're back in the norms discussion, and I don't want to pretend that the motte is the bailey like I highlighted before.

but I need to disagree with you. — Jeremy Murray

I think you can disagree with me there about what's true, or whether the logic I presented reflects how people think, but not about the validity of the logic in the post.

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! — fdrake

If the claim is {a trans woman is a man} and {is more of a risk on that basis}, then the implication doesn't apply in context if its antecedent is false - that "a trans woman is a man" is false, ie that they are a woman. Or if the consequent is false - that trans women are more of a risk. So their perception would be incorrect if trans women were women or that trans women were not more of a risk. Their perception could still be correct, I'm just highlighting how I'm arguing with that remark.

You could also argue the implication, that "man implies more risk of sexual assault of women in prisons" is false, but I didn't do it at this point.

what matters is fact. we have a number of factual examples of trans 'women' raping or assaulting women in female prisons. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah there's absolutely examples. I don't think you immediately get to conclude that trans women are more of a risk than women on that basis, you see what I mean? It's similar to really violent offenders or sex offenders, they get special precautions, but you need to establish that someone is a sex offender or really violent to treat them that way. You'd need to establish that a demographic was on average sufficiently riskier to treat them differently.

There's also a question about the degree of perceived risk vs the real risk. Trans people generally get treated as if they're a massive risk in an absolute sense when it doesn't make much sense, like people terrified of the prospect of unisex bathrooms. It could be that there's more of a reason to keep trans women out of women's prisons than trans women out of women's bathrooms, it's just that the underlying reaction to both is the same for many people.

But your arguments seem entirely of the woke variety, despite the fact that woke arguments continue to be proven wrong? — Jeremy Murray

Also, I am afraid I am quite woke.