General News

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

fascinating how frequently the argument becomes "trans women shouldn't be afforded dignity because cis men will abuse that" and yet people still won't just face that the problem is cis men, not trans women.

 

I'd also say if you actually care about rape victims, you should probably focus more on the sub 1% conviction rate for reported cases, and the trauma that women are put through for that minimal chance of justice (near enough two thirds don't go to court because the victim is so destroyed by the process of trying to get justice that she drops it), rather than only bringing rape up when it becomes a tool to smear a group who have absurdly high victimisation rates (like, over 50%).

 

And since No Debate has once again been brought up, it's fascinating how frequently people ignore all context as to it. The No Debate position was generally taken after Channel 4's "genderquake", with live debates between trans people and anti-trans activists, and with planted audience members who shouted abuse at the trans panellists. Even if we set aside everything else, a position of "we will not participate in public debates where we'll be ritually abused as light entertainment" is not only understandable, it is completely justified. 

But, beyond that there are significant issues with the idea that trans identities are up for debate, and that participation in society by trans people is up for debate. It creates a completely unmeetable double standard as it does with every other minority group - random cis men aren't expected to answer for and be accountable for the actions of Andrew Tate, white people aren't expected to be accountable for the actions of people like Dylann Roof (the Charleston Church shooter), straight people aren't expected to be accountable for the actions of Ted Bundy. And yet white supremacists will constantly expect all black people to answer for the crime stats, homophobes have used the actions of Jeffery Dahmer to justify suspicion of all gay people, and we're seeing the same here, where people are genuinely suggesting that we should restrict the rights of all trans people because of the likes of Isla Bryson. All demographics have scummy people and good people in them, but majority demographics aren't expected to answer for the scummy ones in them.

 

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-did-we-learn-from-the-census/

Comparing with the prison population

Mar Vickers and Wings over Scotland have published comparisons of the census data with figures on men and women in prison for sex offences. In March 2021, there were 11,660 men and 103 women, plus 92 “trans women”, in prison in England and Wales for sex offences. 

• 11,660 men out of a population of 29.5 million = 1 in 2,530 men serving time for sex offences.
• 103 women out of 30.4 million = 1 in 295,000 women serving time for sex offences.
• 92 transwomen out of 48,000 = 1 in 522 transwomen serving time for sex offences.

That suggests that men who identify as “trans women” are five times more likely than other men, and 566 times more likely than women, to commit sexual offences. 

If the numbers of “trans women” goes down further through recalculation, this proportion will rise.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-did-we-learn-from-the-census/

Comparing with the prison population

Mar Vickers and Wings over Scotland have published comparisons of the census data with figures on men and women in prison for sex offences. In March 2021, there were 11,660 men and 103 women, plus 92 “trans women”, in prison in England and Wales for sex offences. 

• 11,660 men out of a population of 29.5 million = 1 in 2,530 men serving time for sex offences.
• 103 women out of 30.4 million = 1 in 295,000 women serving time for sex offences.
• 92 transwomen out of 48,000 = 1 in 522 transwomen serving time for sex offences.

That suggests that men who identify as “trans women” are five times more likely than other men, and 566 times more likely than women, to commit sexual offences. 

If the numbers of “trans women” goes down further through recalculation, this proportion will rise.

Boney M said this years ago.

 

"Mar Vickers, she brought up her son.

 

Ma ma ma ma.

 

Mar Vickers, to be a woman.

 

Ma ma ma ma."

 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

The logic of your argument is that there should no single sex spaces at all - ie, men and women should share changing rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards, prison wards etc, and that nobody should be allowed to create a space for one sex because to do would be to unfairly discriminate against the other because of a tiny minority of ‘scummy’ individuals. If that’s what you think, fine - at least there is a logical consistency in what you’re arguing.
 

I disagree, however. The fact is, men are overwhelmingly more dangerous to women than vice versa. Men commit the vast majority of sex crimes and violent offences - male pattern criminality is fundamentally different to female criminality. That is why we have single sex spaces. As a man, I understand that there are certain spaces I cannot enter and I also understand that this is not a judgment against me personally - it’s because I am a man and there is no way of determining which men are a risk and which are not. To pick up your example, we don’t segregate along racial lines because there is no evidence that one race is overwhelmingly more dangerous than any other race - there would be no justification in doing so. The same does not apply to sex. 
 

I believe in single sex spaces because the evidence we have about male and female behaviour supports their existence. And once you have such a policy, it doesn’t make any sense to me to allow an opt-out for men who believe it shouldn’t apply to them. A safeguarding policy that allows anybody to opt-out if they choose is no safeguarding policy at all. 

You talk of single sex spaces and yet you don't actually consider the impact they also have on trans people. Like, lets talk sex crimes and in particular let's talk about behaviour within prison wards. Are you aware of the concept of V-Coding? It is a truly abhorrent practice that occurs when trans women are put in male prisons and the prison staff use those trans women to pacify incarcerated men through their institutionalised rape: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ijlse

 

As to the argument around men opting out, this is a fundamental level at which we will never agree. Trans women are not men, not sociologically, not biologically. As far as I am concerned a trans woman who has undergone medical transition is a biological woman (and vice versa with trans men), because medical transition alters your biology (this is the entire point of all medicine - to alter your biology to treat the condition). It does not alter chromosomes but chromosomes are frankly irrelevant - they are the blueprints for the body, not the reality of the body. The endocrinology of the body and the reproductive capabilities of the body are far more important (and the reproductive capabilites are not binary for that matter, we don't define infertile and fertile as different sexes). The counterpoints to that get far closer to arguments for intelligent design that I'll ever give the time of day to.

 

My position is not that there should be no single sex spaces at all, it's that single sex spaces which treat trans men as women and trans women as men fundamentally fail to achieve the point of single sex spaces and instead are the wilful endangerment of trans women, which ultimately endangers all women through increasing harassment of people for slighter and slighter gender non-conformity (case in point, women being harassed for being taller than average: https://www.yahoo.com/news/walmart-fires-64-cisgender-woman-210344920.html)

[The Doctor]

40 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-did-we-learn-from-the-census/

Comparing with the prison population

Mar Vickers and Wings over Scotland have published comparisons of the census data with figures on men and women in prison for sex offences. In March 2021, there were 11,660 men and 103 women, plus 92 “trans women”, in prison in England and Wales for sex offences. 

• 11,660 men out of a population of 29.5 million = 1 in 2,530 men serving time for sex offences.
• 103 women out of 30.4 million = 1 in 295,000 women serving time for sex offences.
• 92 transwomen out of 48,000 = 1 in 522 transwomen serving time for sex offences.

That suggests that men who identify as “trans women” are five times more likely than other men, and 566 times more likely than women, to commit sexual offences. 

If the numbers of “trans women” goes down further through recalculation, this proportion will rise.

 

There are several very basic errors in this assessment (which should have been immediately obvious at the idea that trans women are far more likely to commit sexual offences than cis men, in contrary to every single piece of research on this topic which indicates that trans people are far more frequently victims of sexual offences than perpatrators, see for instance the post you're responding to with the indication that 50% of trans women have faced sexual assault), but lets go with the simplest. sex offences is anything under under the sexual offences act 2003, which includes solicitation - now, let's consider for a moment that 7 years ago, even before the current demonisation hit full speed, there was mass employment discrimination against trans people: https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces. Now, if you're facing significant employment discrimination and you have bills to pay, what might you end up doing? If you said sex work, you would be correct: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10066761/

[Foxdiamond]

Just reading BBC News about the Romeo & Juliet clause. Have I understood correctly that for example 2 kids having underage sex at age 14 will be viewed as OK?  I find this as another example of early sexulization of children aided by adults alarming. Perhaps I'm missing something?

[filthyfox]

In other news....  shocking revelations in Court that a person with a penis is a MAN!

 

Someone must have got very rich over that complicated conundrum!

Edited 17 April by filthyfox

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps so.

 

Hopefully (or not so hopefully) one day we'll find out.

 

5 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Advanced species will clearly have no sense of humour after such an elongated existence  

 

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

Maybe they all read their own versions of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and play their own version of Cosmic Encounter where the humans are their version of the Vogon or the Loser. 

... or, judging by the quality of discourse that then often turns into conflict, as seen on here and out in the wider world, they'll simply watch us squander our gift of intelligence, destroy ourselves and then shrug at yet another species not making it through the Great Filter.

[Innovindil]

13 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Just reading BBC News about the Romeo & Juliet clause. Have I understood correctly that for example 2 kids having underage sex at age 14 will be viewed as OK?  I find this as another example of early sexulization of children aided by adults alarming. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Think it's pretty common sense tbh. I lost mine at 15 with another 15 year old. Would have been odd, and unnecessary, if a teacher had started reporting us for it. And that was over 20 years ago. 

[Foxdiamond]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Think it's pretty common sense tbh. I lost mine at 15 with another 15 year old. Would have been odd, and unnecessary, if a teacher had started reporting us for it. And that was over 20 years ago. 

The benchmark is as low as 14? 

[The Doctor]

24 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Just reading BBC News about the Romeo & Juliet clause. Have I understood correctly that for example 2 kids having underage sex at age 14 will be viewed as OK?  I find this as another example of early sexulization of children aided by adults alarming. Perhaps I'm missing something?

In the crime and policing bill? My understanding is not that it's necessarily viewed as ok, but that it doesn't prompt mandatory reporting regardless of circumstance. So, where coercion or significant power imbalances occur, that still gets reported and isn't ok, but that two teenagers engaging with each other consenually doesn't benefit from being treated that way. It's not a "yea, you're 14, go for it" deal, and that really should never be the case, but two teenagers who like each other and decide to do something reckless don't necessarily face police investigation into them, and that seems right to me, it's not a matter that the police should get involved with (which the current law has it as, through the offence of statutory rape), rather the responsible adults for these teenagers should be ensuring if they're going to engage in stupid behaviour they don't do so recklessly and that they have safe access to care in the event of something going wrong

Edited 17 April by The Doctor

[Innovindil]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

The benchmark is as low as 14? 

Yup, between two 14 year olds.

 

What's the problem if they are both the same age and mature enough for it? 

[Thefox81]

I lost mine at 14. With a 15 yr old from Scotland. Oh sweet Cheryl. Back when life was was easier.

[Torquay Gunner]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Yup, between two 14 year olds.

 

What's the problem if they are both the same age and mature enough for it? 

Physically, but maybe not emotionally. Big difference. 

[leicsmac]

 

Speaking personally, I don't disagree with you because you're dumb or immoral, Mr Vance.

 

I disagree with you because your entire apparent ethos and worldview when applied to policy is going to get a huge amount of people, if not civilisation itself, fvcking killed.

Edited 17 April by leicsmac

[Robo61]

18 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Physically, but maybe not emotionally. Big difference. 

Of course you are right,  but there's a big but,  if you are not emotionally mature enough to take part,  then how are you emotionally mature enough to understand the consequences and so then how would it be right to criminalise it,  and which party is the criminal. 

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

 

There are several very basic errors in this assessment (which should have been immediately obvious at the idea that trans women are far more likely to commit sexual offences than cis men, in contrary to every single piece of research on this topic which indicates that trans people are far more frequently victims of sexual offences than perpatrators, see for instance the post you're responding to with the indication that 50% of trans women have faced sexual assault), but lets go with the simplest. sex offences is anything under under the sexual offences act 2003, which includes solicitation - now, let's consider for a moment that 7 years ago, even before the current demonisation hit full speed, there was mass employment discrimination against trans people: https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces. Now, if you're facing significant employment discrimination and you have bills to pay, what might you end up doing? If you said sex work, you would be correct: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10066761/

Sex work may be part of the issue but wouldn't that also apply to women that also have bills to pay? The headline remains that in the 2021 census, 'trans women' are 5-times more likely to commit sexual crimes than men.

 

You said...

[Trans women are not men, not sociologically, not biological]. 

...but they are men legally. It's very clear.

[FoxyPV]

18 hours ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Wtf?

Lol I needed to add some levity into a wholly depressing post

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Just reading BBC News about the Romeo & Juliet clause. Have I understood correctly that for example 2 kids having underage sex at age 14 will be viewed as OK?  I find this as another example of early sexulization of children aided by adults alarming. Perhaps I'm missing something?

 

My daughter got pregnant at 14 by a boy of 16.

 

We reported it to the police as she was clearly underage, but they refused to take it further as it was deemed to be consensual. 

 

We found out some time ago that he has since been convicted of assault and sex with a minor (under the age of consent) and now is a schedule 1 offender.

 

Karma.

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, Thefox81 said:

I lost mine at 14. With a 15 yr old from Scotland. Oh sweet Cheryl. Back when life was was easier.

Wouldn't have been if she had got pregnant 

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Of course you are right,  but there's a big but,  if you are not emotionally mature enough to take part,  then how are you emotionally mature enough to understand the consequences and so then how would it be right to criminalise it,  and which party is the criminal. 

I don't think the children are criminal but rather the adults that should be caring for minors

[Sampson]

16 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I don't think the children are criminal but rather the adults that should be caring for minors

Not being funny, but you really think parents should control everything a 14 year old does in their entire life? And more so be criminally liable for it?  There’s no way as a parent you can genuinely stop this without caging them up in their room.
 

No wonder no one has kids anymore. The expectations and pressures on parents are insane. Giving parents the threat of criminal liability of 2 14 year olds have sex with each other strikes me as not feasible in the least and only going to increase pressure on parents who already are held up to often ridiculous expectations.

Edited 17 April by Sampson

[Robo61]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not being funny, but you really think parents should control everything a 14 year old does in their entire life? And more so be criminally liable for it?  There’s no way as a parent you can genuinely stop this without caging them up in their room.
 

No wonder no one has kids anymore. The expectations and pressures on parents are insane. Giving parents the threat of criminal liability of 2 14 year olds have sex with each other strikes me as not feasible in the least. 

My memory is shocking,  but I do remember being a 14 year old,  it would appear a few on here don't. 

[Zear0]

45 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

My memory is shocking,  but I do remember being a 14 year old,  it would appear a few on here don't. 

Some of us were doing important stuff like playing WoW and certainly not wasting our time with girls. 

[Foxdiamond]

52 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not being funny, but you really think parents should control everything a 14 year old does in their entire life? And more so be criminally liable for it?  There’s no way as a parent you can genuinely stop this without caging them up in their room.
 

No wonder no one has kids anymore. The expectations and pressures on parents are insane. Giving parents the threat of criminal liability of 2 14 year olds have sex with each other strikes me as not feasible in the least and only going to increase pressure on parents who already are held up to often ridiculous expectations.

It may be very difficult but I would suggest parents (I am) take more notice of what their children are doing. Only last week the majority here were saying that Adolescence highlighted how ignorant they were 

[Md9]

I have never heard any body so obsessed with someone as trump is with Biden. He can’t go a single day without talking about him