Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

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.

Ha ha so women who were raped were just unlucky their wasn’t a man around as it could easily have been him!  See where it leads you?  

[Pidge]

26 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Not "people with prostates". Men.

As pointed out the Lancet say "women" throughout that article. So the idea that they are avoiding the term for no reason is nonsense.

[Strontium]

Just now, Babb'sBurstNad said:

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.

 

Of course it's misleading. A trans prostitute is not being attacked because they are trans. They're being attacked because they are a prostitute. A trans person who works in an office is not at any significantly greater risk than a non-trans person who works in an office, yet the rhetoric makes it seem like they are.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Ha ha so women who were raped were just unlucky their wasn’t a man around as it could easily have been him!  See where it leads you?  

Exactly. Now apply the same logic to trans people.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Exactly. Now apply the same logic to trans people.

Jesus, it’s amazing.  
 

On the Covid thread everyone can follow the science and chuckle at the people denying it or making excuses.  Step in here and TWAW makes as much sense as Ivermectin works sheeple! 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Of course it's misleading. A trans prostitute is not being attacked because they are trans. They're being attacked because they are a prostitute. A trans person who works in an office is not at any significantly greater risk than a non-trans person who works in an office, yet the rhetoric makes it seem like they are.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

And with that gents, I'm gonna flounce like TK out of here. Have a good day, it's been an interesting discussion, but I fear we're unlikely to find any common ground here, so I won't waste any more of your time.

[Pidge]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Of course it's misleading. A trans prostitute is not being attacked because they are trans. They're being attacked because they are a prostitute. A trans person who works in an office is not at any significantly greater risk than a non-trans person who works in an office, yet the rhetoric makes it seem like they are.

And what's the data backing that up?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Best of luck @Pidge 

 

[TD_LFC]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

And what's the data backing that up?

 

33 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

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.

 

 

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

And with that gents, I'm gonna flounce like TK out of here. Have a good day, it's been an interesting discussion, but I fear we're unlikely to find any common ground here, so I won't waste any more of your time.

Before you go do you think TW are a subset of men, or women?  

[TD_LFC]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

And what's the data backing that up?

Tracking back through the other stats you'd have to wonder, given the disproportionate level of abuse transgender people in the workplace experience how they managed to fall into sex work in the first place...

 

It's almost like they're being set up to fail by the essentialists.

[Pidge]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

 

 

That has no bearing on an analysis of two cohorts of office workers.

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

That’s an opinion piece published by a student.  It doesn’t prove any of the points it tries to make.  It’s pretty much bullshit.  
 

https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1280971658719789060?s=21

[Babb'sBurstNad]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Before you go do you think TW are a subset of men, or women?  

Neither!

 

*blows raspberry and runs away*

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Neither!

 

*blows raspberry and runs away*

Ha ha. Have a good day. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Pidge said:

That has no bearing on an analysis of two cohorts of office workers.

 

Office work was just an example. I could have picked any job not in the sex industry.

 

The point was, it's the much higher rates of sex work among trans people that is responsible for the elevated risk. No sex work, no elevated risk. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

[Pidge]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Office work was just an example. I could have picked any job not in the sex industry.

 

The point was, it's the much higher rates of sex work among trans people that is responsible for the elevated risk. No sex work, no elevated risk. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

No sex work, less elevated risk is an equally likely scenario (more so, I'd assume). The point is you are using one risk factor to deny even the possible existence of others, with no evidence. It really isn't hard to understand that.

[TD_LFC]

17 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

That’s an opinion piece published by a student.  It doesn’t prove any of the points it tries to make.  It’s pretty much bullshit.  
 

https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1280971658719789060?s=21

Opinion pieces and scientific studies are infinitely more interesting to read on both sides, it wasn't presented as evidence on either side just like the study I posted a few days ago (just like I don't believe the paradox institute is your go too source of science news).

 

The science is still in it's infancy, relatively speaking, to draw any absolute conclusion.

 

Out of interest, ignoring the extreme sides of the argument you like to hide, why do you think the vast number of people who happen to be trans and just want to go about their lives peacefully decide to be trans?

 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

No sex work, less elevated risk is an equally likely scenario (more so, I'd assume). The point is you are using one risk factor to deny even the possible existence of others, with no evidence. It really isn't hard to understand that.

 

As I say, it's just a function of the statistics.

 

For instance, if sex workers are twice as likely to be the victims of violence, and the proportion of transwomen working in sex work is twice that of non-trans women, then you would expect transwomen as a cohort to be twice as likely to be the victims of violence. But once you'd adjusted for the fact they're twice as likely to be involved in sex work, the risk is equal to that of non-trans women.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It's an interesting one. You take a crime that cannot be committed by women

I've got to say, I'm surprised that rape is defined (in English law, at least) as penetration with a penis. If someone forcibly bummed you with a big strap-on, I'm pretty sure that would be a bit rapey.

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Opinion pieces and scientific studies are infinitely more interesting to read on both sides, it wasn't presented as evidence on either side just like the study I posted a few days ago (just like I don't believe the paradox institute is your go too source of science news).

 

The science is still in it's infancy, relatively speaking, to draw any absolute conclusion.

 

Out of interest, ignoring the extreme sides of the argument you like to hide, why do you think the vast number of people who happen to be trans and just want to go about their lives peacefully decide to be trans?

 

How is the science in its infancy? Which bit of the science is unsettled in your opinion?   
 

You frame it like a decision, I don’t think I would.  I think a lot have GD, I think some are AGP. I have said a billion times I have no issue with TP living their lives as they see fit. I just don’t think TW should have all the rights of women. Single sex spaces for women are important and certain roles in limited circumstances should be set aside for women.  I also think TW shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.  That’s it.  Hardly Hitler.  

[TD_LFC]

Because, despite what an architecture under grad (sorry he may have graduated now) says, scientists are still trying to understand what happens in the brain/body of transgender people both in development and beyond.

 

Given there's no clear answer I think it's fair to say it's too early to draw any absolute conclusions rather than sticking to sex is binary, trans women are men etc etc etc.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Because, despite what an architecture under grad (sorry he may have graduated now) says, scientists are still trying to understand what happens in the brain/body of transgender people both in development and beyond.

 

Given there's no clear answer I think it's fair to say it's too early to draw any absolute conclusions rather than sticking to sex is binary, trans women are men etc etc etc.

Did you read all the links in his piece? Quick work! 
 

The fact that scientists don’t understand all mental illnesses doesn’t follow that sex isn’t binary.  That’s just fucking mental.  No clear answer? Ha. 

[Pidge]

18 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

As I say, it's just a function of the statistics.

 

For instance, if sex workers are twice as likely to be the victims of violence, and the proportion of transwomen working in sex work is twice that of non-trans women, then you would expect transwomen as a cohort to be twice as likely to be the victims of violence. But once you'd adjusted for the fact they're twice as likely to be involved in sex work, the risk is equal to that of non-trans women.

Quite convenient how the proportions have matched up so neatly...