UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas

They are absolutely hate groups, as they're only "our kind of women" womens rights groups. Much like the LGB Alliance, TERFs are NOT pro womens rights. 

Well said my pointy toothed friend. To elaborate for the benefit of TinMan:

JHC.   I'm gobsmacked that this kind of exclusionary behaviour has to be explained to someone who's presumably a cyclist. 

It's the pattern of behaviours that make them so insidious and obvious when you know what to look for.

Firstly oppose an out group that threatens the status quo.  Say cyclists or trans ppl.

Exagerate or invent a threat.  Light jumping or bathroom rape.
When in reality the opposite is true.  Dead cyclists from RTA's or abused and suicidal trans ppl.

Tell undecided people "they" are coming for them.

Use the resultant fear and reaction to cloak yourselves in respectability and supportive coverage to lobby that something must be done.

Double down on the status quo.

They did it to gays for decades, cyclists for decades and now they are doing it to trans ppl.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Well said my pointy toothed friend. To elaborate for the benefit of TinMan:

JHC.   I'm gobsmacked that this kind of exclusionary behaviour has to be explained to someone who's presumably a cyclist. 

It's the pattern of behaviours that make them so insidious and obvious when you know what to look for.

Firstly oppose an out group that threatens the status quo.  Say cyclists or trans ppl.

Exagerate or invent a threat.  Light jumping or bathroom rape.
When in reality the opposite is true.  Dead cyclists from RTA's or abused and suicidal trans ppl.

Tell undecided people "they" are coming for them.

Use the resultant fear and reaction to cloak yourselves in respectability and supportive coverage to lobby that something must be done.

Double down on the status quo.

They did it to gays for decades, cyclists for decades and now they are doing it to trans ppl.

I think there is an inherent difference between persecution in life, and a level playing field in sport.

There is only one question, does a trans woman have a physiological advantage over a born woman?

Does having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning lead to increased strength. Clearly it does or testosterone would not be a banned substance. How much time with reduced testosterone levels is required to redress the balance, or is it never equalised?  

This is a strange viewpoint.

Are groups that advocate for gay rights or black lives not interested in human rights?

Cis women may only represent 99% of women on the planet but being pro cis women's right doesn't make you a hate group.

If increasing the rights of group X will diminish the rights of group Y then surely group Y should be able to say something about that without being labeled bigots?

When when you're an exclusionary group that's fighting to diminish others rights because they're not "our kind of woman", yes, they're a hate group.  

Have any women ever been harmed by the inclusion of trans women in spaces previously reserved for cis women only.

They have.

So if you're concerned about the safety of cis women you're hateful?

If you're concerned that trans women have inherent advantages over cis women in some sports then you're hateful?

Accusing people you disagree with of bigotry is a pretty poor substitute for a decent rational argument.

Have any women been harmed by cis-identifying males accessing single gender spaces. 
yes they have.

is this rate astronomically higher than the rate of cis-women harming women in single gender spaces? Yes. 
is this rate higher than the rate of trans-women harming any women in single gender spaces? ALSO yes. We know this because the rates are so low there are no meaningful statistics on crimes commited by trans women 
 

so, in any rational society a good approach is to address the higher risk factors first. You also consider the relative rights of those involved - rights are not absolute, as should be well known, so you have to balance the rights of a group or individual against the rights of the other. 
 

When confronted by a comparatively minor in occurrence , and in some cases exceptionally weakly defined "harm" versus the provable harm that comes from denying one of the single most marginalised and discriminated against groups in modern society, it feels a little wrong to decide that any amount of perceived "harm" justifies further excluding and demeaning a group of people just trying to live an already harder to live life. Seperate but equal is a phrase that hasn't been used for a while, for good reason 

To put this in cycling terms, an apt comparison is bike registration. It causes more harm than the "problem" it would "solve" causes, and neatly ignores the million uninsured motor vehicles showing that registration woukdnt be enforced anyway...

Are you aware that it is becoming difficult to ascertain the crime statistics committed by transwomen due to said crimes being increasingly recorded as being committed by women (this include those men self identifying as women). Interesting how this obscures what would be a useful piece of information isn't it?

A trend that has been noted however from the data available is that (a) transwomen show a male pattern in rates of offending and (b) half the transwomen in prison are in for one or more sex offences. An increasing number of whom are in womens' prisons.

So if transwomen are in single sex female spaces, the biological women are at least the same risk as sharing the space with a non-identifying as women male.

Another point to pick up on, is if (particularly) we go with self Id, how is any woman supposed to differentiate between true trans and a pretending "cis-gender" male?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prison-policy/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-offenders-are-skewing-crime-st...

Oh that old chestnut again.

im assuming you're a member of LGB Alliance, given the copy and paste (literally) "talking points" that yiu seem to think are so killer ... 

the claim that trans women exhibit a "cis male" pattern is complete hookup because, as the cps have stated, there are not enough cases identified to actually produce meaningful stats... 

but sure, you keep on with "not-our type-of-woman". It's absolutely NOT a bigoted piece of hokum that should have been buried in the 1940s but is still rearing it's ugly head amongst, thankfully, a shrinking number of TERFs .

I owe a large number of my rights as a gay cis man to trans women and men, and am also a compassionate human who actually cares...

Looks like Addison didn't get the memo, 3:28 onwards in this video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lAZjoPaXwt8&t=391s

You might also want to give Caitlyn a refresher too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56960011.amp

Mr Phelps, even after having a relationship with an intersex partner still feels that allowing biological males to compete in womens sports is unfair

https://www.insider.com/michael-phelps-trans-athletes-womens-sports-dopi...

Yes, because as we know, all trans people are a homogenous group and cannot possibly have their own view points. What's next in your attempt to be relevant?

btw Mrs Jenner was pro trans sports until ... she decided to run as a republican candidate when the republicans platform is anti trans. Shock. A politician (wanna be) happens to change their mind when it's politically expedient, like, I don't know, prominent remainer Boris  too thick to know they're at a party Johnson ?

So, found that definition of biological female yet? You asked and two of us answered your trivial questions, I'm sure yiure managed a basic treatise by now? Come on. Tick rock. Fame awaits this masterful revelation. 

You know what, I don't think it really matters in this regard. I don't have to define what a biological anything is. Let's leave it to the sports governing bodies and see what they decide. It might even come down to what the paying public decide what they want to see in womens sports.

It's not my fight. This is for women to fight it out for themselves. They've been fighting for their rights for quite a few years so they are well set up for this type of thing. I'll just sit this out and watch from the sidelines.

Ive enjoyed this little too and fro. I wish you all the best and genuinely hold no grudge or judgement against you. I hope a outcome that's fair for everyone can be reached, whatever that is. 

Gotcha, you've used a term to demean trans people (by making them seperste but equal) but yiu don't have to define it. 
Feminism is everyone's fight, and I'm constantly aware of my assumed privileges in life, plus where I'm not so lucky. 
 

please enjoy life but don't think it's not your fight. I'm in this to make everyone's life a little better. 

Cis Women have been raped and sexually assaulted by trans women given access to their women only spaces.

Your argument is that this harm is acceptable relative to the harm caused by excluding trans women from these spaces.

That is a perfectly logical way to look at the problem but when you're asking cis-women to accept a higher risk of rape and assault 'for the greater good' it seems a bit rich to then call them bigots for having a different perspective.

It's also how, historically, courts have assessed the balance of rights. It's also pointing out the occurrence is far lower than reportage might indicate, AND that a trans woman is more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator.  
Thatsnalso not what these groups actually represent, which would be blindingly obvious if more than a cursory glance from you went their way. They are very much trans women are not women, and very much of the idea that they should know the contents of someone's pants anytime they wish.  See MsGs standard TERF idea that they need to know who is "true trans" and that allowing someone to "self ID" - you know, having that crazy idea that human adults might have agency and be able to decide who they are for themselves , shock! - is ldangerous"

it's the standard, tired old dog whistling nonsense and hyperbole that's been taken advantage of by the right wing. 

You can justify your position in anyway you like but, to put it bluntly, you're asking cis women to accept that the occasional rape or sexual assault is the price you want them to pay for your vision of a fairer society.

Cis women are simply the collateral damage in your grand plan and any of them that object to that will be vilified as TERFs/Bigots etc.

As a gay man how would you feel if the government introduced a policy that would lead to an increase in homophobic violence and then told you to accept the increased risk to your personal safety as the price of a better society for all?

Again, you fail to address the disparity in rates.  To put it bluntly, yiur argument is the usual dog whistle garbage that TERFs usually throw out, chiefly because it fails to address that cis-men cause more issues in womens spaces than trans-women do, and don't seek to address the higher risk factor first. It's exactly the same as the less important cycle registration chestnut that idiot drivers spout. It ignores the million uninsured drivers and pretends any solution is better 

and yes, society is about accepting risk for some when not doing so has a disproportionately shitty effect on others. That you don't give a damn that trans people are, historically and currently, one of the most discriminated, abused and scarred groups is apparent and abhorrent. That just allowing people to live their lives isn't ok with you because they need to be collectively punished for the actions of a few. A few so small that meaningful stats don't exist on offending rates but you can't take any risk...

what's the purpose behind this policy you've just made up? What does it address? What benefit would it bring that would make balancing the increased  risk to me and others worthwhile? See, notice how your frankly pathetic "what about...." fallacy doesn't help you in any way, because I'm not goi g to talk in absolutes but actually analyse the situation from a rational standpoint, as opposed to the dog whistling you're doing? 

Simple question.

Will the policy of allowing trans women access to women only spaces increase the absolute risk of sexual assault for the cis women currently occupying the spaces?

Yes or no?

The answer is yes.

You are telling cis women that they have to accept that risk. Would you accept a similar risk to yourself without objection.

Trans women have a very high rate of sexual offending in women's prison. The absolute number is low only because the number of trans women in women's prisons is low. The relative risk compared to a cis woman is huge.

Why should vulnerable cis women have to accept that increased risk?

Rich_cb wrote:

Simple question. Will the policy of allowing trans women access to women only spaces increase the absolute risk of sexual assault for the cis women currently occupying the spaces? Yes or no? The answer is yes. You are telling cis women that they have to accept that risk. Would you accept a solar risk to yourself without objection. Trans women have a very high rate of sexual offending in women's prison. The absolute number is low only because the number of trans women in women's prisons is low. The relative risk compared to a cis woman is huge. Why should vulnerable cis women have to accept that increased risk?

Not sure that allows you to infer anything about sport though...?  (EDIT - Apologies if you'd already moved to the general.  This discussion is inherently going to go to the maximal case obviously).  Are you only saying "we should examine putting trans women together with cis-women in prisons?" (and maybe we should also add qualification about people who were already in prison who chose to transition while in prison before being moved...?)  If you're extrapolating to any other case I think you need some other evidence.  Prisons are very different environments than most spaces and there is a ton of evidence for different - and specific - behaviours there.  I seem to recall there's a high rate of sexual assaults in men's prisons - rather higher than outside prison.  Maybe we should police all men's changing rooms then (or men should have a criminal records check before sharing changing rooms)?

Additionally I would guess - no evidence, sorry but someone else will deffo know! - that trans individuals are at a much higher risk *within* prisons also.  Multiple factors on that, doubtless.

You're normally excellent at finding research / citing evidence - that's why I'm asking!

We were discussing offending rates. Statistics are available for sexual offending rates within prisons.

Trans women have a far higher rate of sexual offending within prisons than cis women.

This article contains statistics on offending in prisons and trans prisoner numbers:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-off...

Number of total prisoners in women's prisons here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-popu...

Crunching the numbers there were 34 trans women in women's prisons. They were responsible for 7 sexual offences over 3 years.

The corresponding figure for cis women is approximately 3,900 prisoners and 90 sexual offences over the same period.

3900/90 gives a rate of 1 offence per 43 inmates.
34/7 gives a rate of 1 offence per 4.9 inmates.

An order of magnitude larger.

If just 10% of the female prison population were trans women we could expect the number of sexual assaults to double.

Is the trauma inflicted on those 7 women worth the benefit of housing 34 trans women in a women's prison?

I don't think it is.

So you've 

- selected a small sample and are pretending you can extrapolate out from this small sample  it's such a small sample that the confidence levels are hugely low  and I'm also aware of these stats because they're the same stats LBG alliance uses to call for collective punishment of all trans people  after calling trans women "men" of course, 

- selected a self selecting small sample of people exhibiting criminal behaviour, and appear to be extrapolating this out as if it applies to the wider population. This is unsound in obvious ways. Firstly it is too small a sample to be meaningful, has no control group, and it's trying to draw a link between existing criminals and further criminal behaviour and a group withiut that (proven) initial behaviour. 
 

Fortunately for everyone , people with a little more idea on how to balance harm have looked at this and concluded you remain wring

You are entitled to your bigoted opinion, based on a seeming fear of the other and ignoring the much wider societal issues while yiu collectively punish one of the most marginalised and discriminated groups in modern society, but it remains an opinion with fortunately no policy implications amongst more rational members. 
 

I think you're done here. 

I've provided statistics.

The difference in rates of offending between the two groups is enormous.

The sample sizes are indeed small and you are correct that confidence intervals will be wide but it is the best evidence that we have and given the size of the difference between the two groups it is still likely to be significant.

You can choose to base your opinion on the best evidence available or you can choose otherwise.

Your position is that you are willing to see a small number of additional cis women suffer sexual assaults and rapes in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.

Why should you, as a cis man, be able to call for a policy which you know will lead to more cis women being raped?

What gives you the right to denigrate the women who object to this?

Throwing around words like bigot doesn't win you the argument, it just exposes the weakness of your position.

Rich_cb wrote:

I've provided statistics. The difference in rates of offending between the two groups is enormous. The sample sizes are indeed small and you are correct that confidence intervals will be wide but it is the best evidence that we have and given the size of the difference between the two groups it is still likely to be significant. You can choose to base your opinion on the best evidence available or you can choose otherwise. Your position is that you are willing to see a small number of additional cis women suffer sexual assaults and rapes in order to produce a more trans inclusive society. Why should you, as a cis man, be able to call for a policy which you know will lead to more cis women being raped? What gives you the right to denigrate the women who object to this? Throwing around words like bigot doesn't win you the argument, it just exposes the weakness of your position.

No, you've provided numbers. Calling them "statistics" when you haven't analysed for obvious sources of bias (in reporting of and collection, to give two obviousnstarting points for why your analysis is laughably poor and wouldn't meet GCSE stats requirements) and then *admitting* that your confidence is low (while failing to address the self selecting nature of your sample and the failure to account for population make up ie offences, age groups, sentence length, conditions etc) by just hand waving away "this is the best we have" as if that makes it any better!

If yiu have crap, untrustworthy data that's too flawed to make extrapolations from, don't extrapolate from it then!  
 

My position is not what you've decided it is. My position is that the starting point is balance of rights between the most marginalised and the rest of society, and you've singularly failed to show anythung (ironically, you've made your position worse - like TERFs usually do so you're in an undistinguished grouping at least) to dissuade me that this balance test still needs to be undertaken. 
 

I have the right to call out bigoted behaviour, such as yours, at all times. I'll call out bigoted groups that are anti trans and refuse to call all women women, instead dead naming or -gendering one of the most discriminated against groups (I love that you still won't address why you are for collective punishment - you do realise that's usually considered a war crime, yes?) we have in society, while ignoring an issue that's of greater risk - which is offneifng rates of  cis-men. 
 

Going to address your logical fallacies? Or will yiu pretend they somehow strengthen your position? 

statistic
/stəˈtɪstɪk/
plural noun: statistics
a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.

I'm pretty sure what I presented meets that definition.

Have you any data whatsoever to back up your position?

Rich_cb wrote:

statistic /stəˈtɪstɪk/ plural noun: statistics a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data. I'm pretty sure what I presented meets that definition. Have you any data whatsoever to back up your position?

I've highlighted the bits that, despite you quoting, you don't appear to understand 

1) there was no "study" .  Such a study would have included - assuming it is following usual best practice -  the control and bias measures I've talked about before.  I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this

2) 34 is not a "large quantity" of numerical data. It's also not even numerical data as it is, by its nature, approximating qualitative experiences into categories that can then be counted, but given the rather large flaw already with your numbers, and your complete inability to address a single one of the failings I've already covered, trying to explain this one to you seems like a lost cause.

I don't need data to back up my position that the balance of rights test should be applied here, because, and again I'm explaining something quite obvious, part of the balance test involves looking at far more than just a single poorly founded sample that wouldn't pass a gcse stats module exam. 

So you have literally no data to back up your position?

Absolutely none?

The actual number of prisoners was 2900. 34 represented one group of said prisoners.

If you don't think that's a large enough number it suggests you have read very few published papers.

The best data we have suggests a sexual offending rate for trans women that is 10x higher than the rate for cis women.

Do you have any data whatsoever that shows otherwise?

My position that before deciding collective punishment is ok, we do a balance of rights test? No p, I don't need "data"to back up the position that the BALANCE OF RIGHTS TEST answers this by actually conducting an actual study 

you, yet again, hand waved away that you are drawing conclusions from a sample that is too small to draw such a conclusion from. Never mind you've completely ignored - for the what, fourth time now? It's hard to keep up with how much you ignore in the desperate need to "prove" you're right - that extrapolating from this back to the actual topic, which is womens access to sport (that's all women - unlike you, I know trans women are women) isn't possible. Not in a sound way. Of course, you will do so, because you're not arguing from a position of good faith, just bigotry. 
 

Your conclusion, as presented, is a lie.  Stop lying.  Stop being a bigot. Not difficult, I would hope. 

Rich_cb wrote:

We were discussing offending rates. Statistics are available for sexual offending rates within prisons. Trans women have a far higher rate of sexual offending within prisons than cis women. This article contains statistics on offending in prisons and trans prisoner numbers: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-off... Number of total prisoners in women's prisons here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-popu... Crunching the numbers there were 34 trans women in women's prisons. They were responsible for 7 sexual offences over 3 years. The corresponding figure for cis women is approximately 3,900 prisoners and 90 sexual offences over the same period. 3900/90 gives a rate of 1 offence per 43 inmates. 34/7 gives a rate of 1 offence per 4.9 inmates. An order of magnitude larger. If just 10% of the female prison population were trans women we could expect the number of sexual assaults to double. Is the trauma inflicted on those 7 women worth the benefit of housing 34 trans women in a women's prison? I don't think it is.

(This is all against the backdrop that UK prisons are neither safe nor effective at preventing people from returning to them.  This can also simply be read as "we need safer women's prisons" or just "we need better ways of dealing with (female) offenders").

Thanks - and I think as with the rest of this debate it all points to a wholly different arrangement than currently. Yes - we have separate units / facilities for certain categories of prisoners at elevated risk - sexual offenders I believe.  I'm not sure that those are both complete (all sexual offenders in them) and exclusive (only those in that category) however.

As you said earlier the sample size for trans people here is small.  Also what is the rate of sexual (and other assaults) on trans people in men's prisons?  Note we're already in a calculus of harm here because in many cases putting people in prison increases their risk of harm anyway.  (This is definitely arguable - for example it may overall decrease some women's risk).

Certainly it's the business of prisons (or should be...) to protect prisoners.  I think there should also be a focus on re-integration.  If we say people have the same status outside of prisons is it not important to reflect that within them?

The rapes and sexual assaults committed by trans women in women's jail's would clearly not have happened if the trans women were not in said jails.

What level of sexual violence are we prepared to accept in our prisons?

Is it ridiculous to say none?

Isolating those at highest risk of committing offences from those at highest risk of being victims of offences seems an entirely reasonable proposal in my opinion.

Rich_cb wrote:

The rapes and sexual assaults committed by trans women people in women's jail's would clearly not have happened if the trans women people were not in said jails.

Are you secretly agitating for the closing of all jails? How very leftie of you Rich. Unless you only care about certain genotypes getting raped. Or maybe you don't care at all and are using this datapicking as a cynical way to score points against the evil people who believe that trans folk have a right to the same considerations as everyone else.

Or maybe you do directly support a policy (that of viciously underfunded incarceration) that ensures people of all genotypes get brutalised and traumatised whilst inside - look at general assault (of all types) and suicide rates in prisons.