Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Rico1304]

So what has happened to make women suddenly start committing rape?  Do TW retain male offending patterns? Are they men chancing it? How did all these women grow penis’s?  Is it the water? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Here you go, all here.  
 

 

So, we don't know how many of the women charged with rape were accomplices. And we don't know anything about the victims or the circumstances of the crime.

 

And we still don't know who said that no trans woman would ever commit rape. (It's almost like you made that bit up )

 

Here are some more stats.

 

[dockers_strike]

Women havent suddenly started being charged with rape. You dont have to be 'trans' to be a 'woman' charged with or sent down for rape.

 

Women raping men is rare but not unheard of. Most cases of women charged with rape are a mixture of lesbians, whether wearing strap ons or not, penetrating another woman in a sexualised way. There will be some trans in there as well.

 

There was that famous case a couple of years back of that girl wearing a strap on pretending to be a man and penetrating her partner at a hotel in Chester.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So what has happened to make women suddenly start committing rape?  Do TW retain male offending patterns? Are they men chancing it? How did all these women grow penis’s?  Is it the water? 

Some trans women still have the cocks they were born with.

Some men and some trans women commit rape; not because they are men or because they are trans women, but because they are horrible cunts.

[Bob]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Some trans women still have the cocks they were born with.

Some men and some trans women commit rape; not because they are men or because they are trans women, but because they are horrible cunts. 

while many people commit rape because they have been the victims of rape or other sexual assault previously themselves and are not necessarily a cunt as I might define one.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Whilst she seems a bit TERF-y, I think that Prof has a point when it comes to data. If you want to be able to spot societal trends, and remedy the unwanted ones, you need detailed information.

 

Should the legal definition of rape ever be changed (as some argue) to include cis-women being perpetrators rather than mere accomplices, it'd be helpful to have that data. Otherwise, some might intimate it's all those pesky trans' fault. Surely no one would do that, right?

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

1 hour ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

And that is the issue, not the fabricated one, we are not talking about cervical smears for men who have transitioned who have had reconstructive surgery and a cavity has to be inspected because the woke police say so.

 

It's about women who have transitioned to men, or are planning to do, keeping up with cervical smear testing, that's the issue, not this complete fabrictaion online. Some of whom will be missing out as they are misgendered. 

 

So the phrase 'only women have a cervix' is both true, biologically, and false, from a construct angle and this is the argument not the nonsense dickheads are throwing about.

 

Again, the arguments on the fringes are not the real arguments and need to be ignored on both sides as they pollute discourse.

 

EDIT: Misread the women to men part.

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

Women havent suddenly started being charged with rape. You dont have to be 'trans' to be a 'woman' charged with or sent down for rape.

 

Women raping men is rare but not unheard of. Most cases of women charged with rape are a mixture of lesbians, whether wearing strap ons or not, penetrating another woman in a sexualised way. There will be some trans in there as well.

 

There was that famous case a couple of years back of that girl wearing a strap on pretending to be a man and penetrating her partner at a hotel in Chester.

You have to have a penis to rape someone.  The example you provided wasn’t a ‘rape’ it was sexual assault.  Stonewall don’t believe it was even a crime.  

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Some trans women still have the cocks they were born with.

Some men and some trans women commit rape; not because they are men or because they are trans women, but because they are horrible cunts.

96% of sexual assaults are carried out by men.  Telling someone you aren’t a man changes nothing. 

[Rico1304]

48 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Whilst she seems a bit TERF-y, I think that Prof has a point when it comes to data. If you want to be able to spot societal trends, and remedy the unwanted ones, you need detailed information.

 

Should the legal definition of rape ever be changed (as some argue) to include cis-women being perpetrators rather than mere accomplices, it'd be helpful to have that data. Otherwise, some might intimate it's all those pesky trans' fault. Surely no one would do that, right?

She says that there are very few instances of assisting. 
 

It really is amazing to see the lengths some people will go to in denying them fucking obvious.  

[No2]

Two trans people elected in Germany for the Greens. Maybe its not wise to take them on?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

It's an interesting one. You take a crime that cannot be committed by women, and by expanding who is classified as a woman the data skews. Similar to when a crime is redefined and you see a sudden spike (take assault, for example).

 

At the end of all that though, no matter how the crimes or groups are defined, the people most likely to be victims are trans.

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It's an interesting one. You take a crime that cannot be committed by women, and by expanding who is classified as a woman the data skews. Similar to when a crime is redefined and you see a sudden spike (take assault, for example).

 

At the end of all that though, no matter how the crimes or groups are defined, the people most likely to be victims are trans.

Really?  Where’s your data on that?  Since Sarah Everard was murdered there’s been 77 women and girls killed by men.  

[Captain Willard]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Really?  Where’s your data on that?  Since Sarah Everard was murdered there’s been 77 women and girls killed by men.  

I think the point is that statistically trans are more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators. As is the case with women but on a much bigger scale and for the whole of human history. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

18 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Really?  Where’s your data on that?  Since Sarah Everard was murdered there’s been 77 women and girls killed by men.  

It's the Office for National Statistics' data.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales

[Strontium]

On 24/09/2021 at 20:51, Rico1304 said:

The Lancet, a medical publication, unable to say ‘women’. 
 

 

 

4 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's almost as if The Lancet understands stuff better than you do.

 

Except The Lancet has no problem saying "men". It's only women they're trying to erase.

 

Announcing the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer - The Lancet

 

Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer in men, and there were about 1·4 million new cases around the world in 2020. Prostate cancer accounts for an estimated 15% of all cancer cases in men worldwide and is the most common form of cancer in men in in 112 countries

 

Not "people with prostates". Men.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

96% of sexual assaults are carried out by men.  Telling someone you aren’t a man changes nothing. 

Well, er, rape is bad, we can agree that.

You're barking up the same tree that homophobes use when they elide from homosexuality to paedophilia.

 

Denying the existence of trans people is not the way to protect women from sexual violence.

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It's the Office for National Statistics' data.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales

 

I think we've covered stuff like this before. This is predominantly a function of the fact that trans people are disproportionately likely to be involved in sex work, which is a high risk profession.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I think we've covered stuff like this before. This is predominantly a function of the fact that trans people are disproportionately likely to be involved in sex work, which is a high risk profession.

That doesn't change the original statement's veracity though.

[Rico1304]

22 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It's the Office for National Statistics' data.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/trans-people-twice-as-likely-to-be-victims-of-in-england-and-wales

That doesn’t say they were victims because they are trans though does it? 

[Strontium]

8 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

That doesn't change the original statement's veracity though.

 

Right, but it's misleading. It implies they're the victims of crime because they are trans, when in reality it's because they're much more likely to be involved in high risk occupations.

[Rico1304]

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Well, er, rape is bad, we can agree that.

You're barking up the same tree that homophobes use when they elide from homosexuality to paedophilia.

 

Denying the existence of trans people is not the way to protect women from sexual violence.

Who’s denying their existence? How you’ve got to that position is fucking beyond me.  
 

You are the one who believes that someone can change sex by, well, just deciding to. Without the position of TWAW the whole thing falls apart, that’s why seemingly sensible people are willing to suspend belief to protect it. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

That doesn’t say they were victims because they are trans though does it? 

No. Similarly, the statistics on cis-women's deaths at the hands of men don't state they were victims purely because they were women. It's up to us to decide if we think there's a trend and some kind of correlation.

 

I merely stated trans people are the most likely to be victims of crime. Then posted the data you asked for.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Right, but it's misleading. It implies they're the victims of crime because they are trans, when in reality it's because they're much more likely to be involved in high risk occupations.

I don't think it is misleading. The ONS collects data, and it's up to people to interpret that. One could similarly argue down the rates of violence against people of colour, or women due to societal status, class, wealth etc. I doubt many would though.