Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”
I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:
I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?
I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?
I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.
I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.
So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?
Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.
I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.
I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.
I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.
This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.
What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?
So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.
Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.
That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.
Do you know what that word means?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"
First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?
This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.
I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.
That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.
I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.
I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.
I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.
You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?
Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?
I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.
I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.
So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?
Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.
So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?
I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.
Is there a word for fear of penises?
I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?
Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.
There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?
If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.
Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.
Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.
I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.
Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.
So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?
I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.
I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.
Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.
No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.
Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.
Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?
That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.
Who wrote the paper?
Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?
No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.
Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.
“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”
You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?
I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?
When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.
Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.
My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.
-feminist
DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?
You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.
Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.
I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.
I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.
You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?
That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.
I’m comfortable with data, thanks. Just not on my phone when I don’t have my reading glasses.
Anyone familiar with statistics should be aware of its many limitations.
Bias in interpretations is an obvious one.
She’s biased.
Excellent. I have a background in statistical analysis. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with the data, so we can discuss. I look forward to a precise and evidence-based discussion.
Get comfy PP. I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a long time.
New poster. I’d settle for any factual data that shows that trans women patterns of criminality are different than males. I’ve looked long and hard for it. It doesn’t exist.
But of course that doesn’t matter. These people don’t believe that females have the right to define themselves or exclude males from accessing their private spaces.
The author of the paper was interviewed and the study is broken into two cohorts. The more recent cohort with hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria did not in fact have a "male pattern of criminality" as is often claimed. Those claims are based on only the first and oldest cohort. This study is cited out of context all the time. This is what the actual AUTHOR of the paper had to say. Bolding added by me.
https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
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.
This research was not focused on criminal behavior. Even you accept that these populations from the 70s and 80s were comparable to those today (I don't), this data shows mixed conclusions, not that convictions are noticeably different. The author acknowledges that there are mixed findings. The author attributes this to improved healthy and psychological care, which is an interpretation or opinion, not a factual statement as correlation is not causation. There is no data from cohorts beyond 2003 which could align to the 73 to 88 cohort group where transwomen and cis males had similar rates of criminal convictions.
Furthermore, this study is not relevant to our discussion about the safety of transwomen in women's spaces because Dhejne's report used studies that were ALL conducted in different transgender health-care services where a diagnosis was made according to DSM criteria (ranging from DSM-III-R to DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2013) or according to the ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992). No such diagnosis is required for cis males or transwomen to access female spaces. For example, CA Senate Bill 132 enacted in January of 2021, allows incarcerated males to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on self-declared “gender identity.” If you want to have a real conversation about women's safety and the threat of violence at the hands of transwomen vs cis male predators, then you need to be able to distinguish these as two different groups. And trans activists are unable to do so.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”
I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:
I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?
I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?
I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.
I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.
So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?
Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.
I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.
I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.
I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.
This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.
What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?
So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.
Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.
That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.
Do you know what that word means?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"
First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?
This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.
I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.
That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.
I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.
I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.
I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.
You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?
Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?
I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.
I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.
So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?
Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.
So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?
I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.
Is there a word for fear of penises?
I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?
Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.
There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?
If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.
Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.
Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.
I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.
Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.
So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?
I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.
I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.
Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.
No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.
Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.
Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?
That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.
Who wrote the paper?
Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?
No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.
Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.
“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”
You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?
I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?
When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.
Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.
My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.
-feminist
DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?
You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.
Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.
I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.
I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.
You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?
That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.
I’m comfortable with data, thanks. Just not on my phone when I don’t have my reading glasses.
Anyone familiar with statistics should be aware of its many limitations.
Bias in interpretations is an obvious one.
She’s biased.
Excellent. I have a background in statistical analysis. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with the data, so we can discuss. I look forward to a precise and evidence-based discussion.
Get comfy PP. I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a long time.
New poster. I’d settle for any factual data that shows that trans women patterns of criminality are different than males. I’ve looked long and hard for it. It doesn’t exist.
But of course that doesn’t matter. These people don’t believe that females have the right to define themselves or exclude males from accessing their private spaces.
The author of the paper was interviewed and the study is broken into two cohorts. The more recent cohort with hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria did not in fact have a "male pattern of criminality" as is often claimed. Those claims are based on only the first and oldest cohort. This study is cited out of context all the time. This is what the actual AUTHOR of the paper had to say. Bolding added by me.
https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
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.
This research was not focused on criminal behavior. Even you accept that these populations from the 70s and 80s were comparable to those today (I don't), this data shows mixed conclusions, not that convictions are noticeably different. The author acknowledges that there are mixed findings. The author attributes this to improved healthy and psychological care, which is an interpretation or opinion, not a factual statement as correlation is not causation. There is no data from cohorts beyond 2003 which could align to the 73 to 88 cohort group where transwomen and cis males had similar rates of criminal convictions.
Furthermore, this study is not relevant to our discussion about the safety of transwomen in women's spaces because Dhejne's report used studies that were ALL conducted in different transgender health-care services where a diagnosis was made according to DSM criteria (ranging from DSM-III-R to DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2013) or according to the ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992). No such diagnosis is required for cis males or transwomen to access female spaces. For example, CA Senate Bill 132 enacted in January of 2021, allows incarcerated males to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on self-declared “gender identity.” If you want to have a real conversation about women's safety and the threat of violence at the hands of transwomen vs cis male predators, then you need to be able to distinguish these as two different groups. And trans activists are unable to do so.
The response was regarding male criminalized. This study is often mischaracterized by gender critical websites like third wave now and people like JK Rowling.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”
I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:
I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?
I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?
I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.
I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.
So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?
Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.
I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.
I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.
I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.
This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.
What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?
So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.
Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.
That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.
Do you know what that word means?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"
First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?
This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.
I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.
That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.
I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.
I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.
I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.
You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?
Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?
I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.
I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.
So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?
Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.
So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?
I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.
Is there a word for fear of penises?
I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?
Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.
There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?
If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.
Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.
Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.
I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.
Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.
So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?
I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.
I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.
Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.
No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.
Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.
Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?
That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.
Who wrote the paper?
Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?
No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.
Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.
“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”
You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?
I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?
When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.
Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.
My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.
-feminist
DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?
You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.
Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.
I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.
I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.
You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?
That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.
I’m comfortable with data, thanks. Just not on my phone when I don’t have my reading glasses.
Anyone familiar with statistics should be aware of its many limitations.
Bias in interpretations is an obvious one.
She’s biased.
Excellent. I have a background in statistical analysis. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with the data, so we can discuss. I look forward to a precise and evidence-based discussion.
Get comfy PP. I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a long time.
New poster. I’d settle for any factual data that shows that trans women patterns of criminality are different than males. I’ve looked long and hard for it. It doesn’t exist.
But of course that doesn’t matter. These people don’t believe that females have the right to define themselves or exclude males from accessing their private spaces.
The author of the paper was interviewed and the study is broken into two cohorts. The more recent cohort with hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria did not in fact have a "male pattern of criminality" as is often claimed. Those claims are based on only the first and oldest cohort. This study is cited out of context all the time. This is what the actual AUTHOR of the paper had to say. Bolding added by me.
https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
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.
This research was not focused on criminal behavior. Even you accept that these populations from the 70s and 80s were comparable to those today (I don't), this data shows mixed conclusions, not that convictions are noticeably different. The author acknowledges that there are mixed findings. The author attributes this to improved healthy and psychological care, which is an interpretation or opinion, not a factual statement as correlation is not causation. There is no data from cohorts beyond 2003 which could align to the 73 to 88 cohort group where transwomen and cis males had similar rates of criminal convictions.
Furthermore, this study is not relevant to our discussion about the safety of transwomen in women's spaces because Dhejne's report used studies that were ALL conducted in different transgender health-care services where a diagnosis was made according to DSM criteria (ranging from DSM-III-R to DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2013) or according to the ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992). No such diagnosis is required for cis males or transwomen to access female spaces. For example, CA Senate Bill 132 enacted in January of 2021, allows incarcerated males to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on self-declared “gender identity.” If you want to have a real conversation about women's safety and the threat of violence at the hands of transwomen vs cis male predators, then you need to be able to distinguish these as two different groups. And trans activists are unable to do so.
If you would like to ban trans women in california for entering women’s spaces then you’ll need to go to the state legislature.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”
I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:
I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?
I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?
I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.
I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.
So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?
Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.
I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.
I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.
I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.
This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.
What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?
So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.
Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.
That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.
Do you know what that word means?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"
First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?
This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.
I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.
That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.
I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.
I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.
I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.
You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?
Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?
I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.
I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.
So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?
Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.
So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?
I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.
Is there a word for fear of penises?
I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?
Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.
There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?
If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.
Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.
Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.
I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.
Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.
So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?
I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.
I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.
Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.
No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.
Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.
Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?
That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.
Who wrote the paper?
Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?
No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.
Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.
“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”
You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?
I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?
When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.
Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.
My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.
-feminist
DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?
You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.
Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.
I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.
I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.
You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?
That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.
I’m comfortable with data, thanks. Just not on my phone when I don’t have my reading glasses.
Anyone familiar with statistics should be aware of its many limitations.
Bias in interpretations is an obvious one.
She’s biased.
Excellent. I have a background in statistical analysis. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with the data, so we can discuss. I look forward to a precise and evidence-based discussion.
Get comfy PP. I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a long time.
New poster. I’d settle for any factual data that shows that trans women patterns of criminality are different than males. I’ve looked long and hard for it. It doesn’t exist.
But of course that doesn’t matter. These people don’t believe that females have the right to define themselves or exclude males from accessing their private spaces.
The author of the paper was interviewed and the study is broken into two cohorts. The more recent cohort with hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria did not in fact have a "male pattern of criminality" as is often claimed. Those claims are based on only the first and oldest cohort. This study is cited out of context all the time. This is what the actual AUTHOR of the paper had to say. Bolding added by me.
https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
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.
This research was not focused on criminal behavior. Even you accept that these populations from the 70s and 80s were comparable to those today (I don't), this data shows mixed conclusions, not that convictions are noticeably different. The author acknowledges that there are mixed findings. The author attributes this to improved healthy and psychological care, which is an interpretation or opinion, not a factual statement as correlation is not causation. There is no data from cohorts beyond 2003 which could align to the 73 to 88 cohort group where transwomen and cis males had similar rates of criminal convictions.
Furthermore, this study is not relevant to our discussion about the safety of transwomen in women's spaces because Dhejne's report used studies that were ALL conducted in different transgender health-care services where a diagnosis was made according to DSM criteria (ranging from DSM-III-R to DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2013) or according to the ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992). No such diagnosis is required for cis males or transwomen to access female spaces. For example, CA Senate Bill 132 enacted in January of 2021, allows incarcerated males to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on self-declared “gender identity.” If you want to have a real conversation about women's safety and the threat of violence at the hands of transwomen vs cis male predators, then you need to be able to distinguish these as two different groups. And trans activists are unable to do so.
The response was regarding male criminalized. This study is often mischaracterized by gender critical websites like third wave now and people like JK Rowling.
Research is often mischaracterized in the media. It doesn't change the reality that females face more risk when forced to share spaces with males.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
Do you go by they/them? It's fine if you're nonbinary. I didn't mean to offend you by saying cis. If you're not cisgender, that's okay, but cisgender and transgender people are who the study is about. I didn't look for info for anyone who is nonbinary or without gender. I don't think there is a lot of information about people who don't have a gender identity, but you might consider sharing more about your gender nonconforming experience or any studies that include stats for GNC people.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
Do you go by they/them? It's fine if you're nonbinary. I didn't mean to offend you by saying cis. If you're not cisgender, that's okay, but cisgender and transgender people are who the study is about. I didn't look for info for anyone who is nonbinary or without gender. I don't think there is a lot of information about people who don't have a gender identity, but you might consider sharing more about your gender nonconforming experience or any studies that include stats for GNC people.
No, I am an adult human female and I go by she/her, not 'cis'. I am happy to answer any questions that you have about my non-binaryness or GNC experience.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}