Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Boss]

9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

You said women don’t have to fear walking down the street when in fact they absolutely do.  
 

Sabina must have been equally unlucky.   Her and the 76 other women murdered since Sarah.  

 

No, I didn't. I said, "Most women" i.e. the majority of women don't have to fear being attacked in the street. And I specifically meant for the way they look. Transgender people are the victims of hate crimes perpetrated against them. 

[Boss]

12 minutes ago, CapeRed said:

I dont know where you get the 1 in 34 million stat from but you cannot compare a kidnap, torture, rape and murder against a physical attack. The physical violence stat should be compared to gender based violence stats which often include rape or sexual assault. I would hazard a guess that they are much higher for women born biologically.

 

The actual statistics for transgender people that have been physically attacked at some point in their lifetime is around 47%. I was specifically talking about attacks that happened in the last calendar year. That's where the 10% figure came from.

[Rico1304]

28 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

No, I didn't. I said, "Most women" i.e. the majority of women don't have to fear being attacked in the street. And I specifically meant for the way they look. Transgender people are the victims of hate crimes perpetrated against them. 

They don’t have to? By who’s measure? This is fascinating. And it doesn’t matter what they look like, just being a woman is enough. 
 

Just because they aren’t attacked every time they go out doesn’t mean they don’t fear it.  Fucking unbelievable.  

[Bob]

39 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

We do. But until today you’d have been a bigot for suggesting TW compete in the open category.  
 

The results of the interviews undertaken as part of the study is compelling reading.   

Hyperbole and B words notwithstanding, “Open” may exist as a term but reality is it means men’s in most circumstances.

 

like the way professional football is open, both in gender and sexuality, but at the highest level is exclusively straight males.

 

why bring in sexuality I imagine I hear you cry? It’s because despite football being so universally popular, and despite there being a lot of gay men, there’s somehow never been an openly gay man play professional football at the highest level, because the sport is not sufficiently inclusive to either make them want to play it, or (probably more likely) make them be willing to come out while playing it.

 

so say we have “open” sport all you like, but if it doesn’t feel inclusive and it actually just means men’s sport, then is it genuinely open?

 

theres absolutely a need to protect women’s sport in terms of fairness, safety, integrity etc, but there’s also a need for sport to be inclusive of all, or at least try to be, so saying “we already have open sport” the problem doesn’t exist is ignorant. 

[Bob]

Not wanting to get involved in a second topic, the argument that’s brewing now isn’t one that either side need be in.

 

women, trans people, gay men and women, ethnic minorities, all have to suffer hate crime because our society is overly hateful.

 

there doesn’t have to be competition or argument here. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Hyperbole and B words notwithstanding, “Open” may exist as a term but reality is it means men’s in most circumstances.

 

like the way professional football is open, both in gender and sexuality, but at the highest level is exclusively straight males.

 

why bring in sexuality I imagine I hear you cry? It’s because despite football being so universally popular, and despite there being a lot of gay men, there’s somehow never been an openly gay man play professional football at the highest level, because the sport is not sufficiently inclusive to either make them want to play it, or (probably more likely) make them be willing to come out while playing it.

 

so say we have “open” sport all you like, but if it doesn’t feel inclusive and it actually just means men’s sport, then is it genuinely open?

 

theres absolutely a need to protect women’s sport in terms of fairness, safety, integrity etc, but there’s also a need for sport to be inclusive of all, or at least try to be, so saying “we already have open sport” the problem doesn’t exist is ignorant. 

Fuck me.  This is about fairness and safety.  Being gay offers no advantage in competition.  Being a man in womens sports offers a fucking massive advantage.  
 

hopefully in time we’ll have moved on enough for sexuality not to matter in sport.  
 

Obvouisly womens sports has fucking loads of openly gay athletes.  Wonder where the problem is? 

 

 

[Boss]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They don’t have to? By who’s measure? This is fascinating. And it doesn’t matter what they look like, just being a woman is enough. 
 

Just because they aren’t attacked every time they go out doesn’t mean they don’t fear it.  Fucking unbelievable.  

 

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my argument on purpose with every reply? I was talking specifically about transgender hate crimes, as well you know. 

[SasaS]

10 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Hyperbole and B words notwithstanding, “Open” may exist as a term but reality is it means men’s in most circumstances.

 

like the way professional football is open, both in gender and sexuality, but at the highest level is exclusively straight males.

 

why bring in sexuality I imagine I hear you cry? It’s because despite football being so universally popular, and despite there being a lot of gay men, there’s somehow never been an openly gay man play professional football at the highest level, because the sport is not sufficiently inclusive to either make them want to play it, or (probably more likely) make them be willing to come out while playing it.

 

so say we have “open” sport all you like, but if it doesn’t feel inclusive and it actually just means men’s sport, then is it genuinely open?

 

theres absolutely a need to protect women’s sport in terms of fairness, safety, integrity etc, but there’s also a need for sport to be inclusive of all, or at least try to be, so saying “we already have open sport” the problem doesn’t exist is ignorant. 

Open doesn't mean representative of all categories, it means anybody who is not eligible for protected categories, such as women's sport or disabled sport categories can compete, without having to prove eligibility.

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my argument on purpose with every reply? I was talking specifically about transgender hate crimes, as well you know. 

I’m reacting to what was written. Can’t help you more than that.  

[Rico1304]

I had never realised how you lefties were so misogynistic.  It’s a revelation. 
 

(It’s not really). 

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Open doesn't mean representative of all categories, it means anybody who is not eligible for protected categories, such as women's sport or disabled sport categories can compete, without having to prove eligibility.

And if he’d read the report like I’ve suggested about 3 times it covers all of the protected characteristics from the Equality Act.  Not just sex.  It literally takes 20 mins to read.  

[Boss]

12 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I’m reacting to what was written. Can’t help you more than that.  

Can't you see we're talking about two different things?

 

I'm talking about hate crimes committed on the transgender community and you're talking about rape and abductions committed by men, on women. Women don't usually get attacked walking down the street, because people disapprove of them being women.

 

Women usually get attacked for sexual gratification, or because a killer is looking for a victim. Incidentally, trans people also get raped and murdered, so it's not just an issue that solely affects women.

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, Boss said:

Can't you see we're talking about two different things?

 

I'm talking about hate crimes committed on the transgender community and you're talking about rape and abductions committed by men, on women. Women don't usually get attacked walking down the street, because people disapprove of them being women.

 

Women usually get attacked for sexual gratification, or because a killer is looking for a victim. Incidentally, trans people also get raped and murdered, so it's not just an issue that solely affects women.

Women get attacked for being women all the time. Where are you getting this from. 
 

No trans person has been killed in the U.K. for over 3 yrs. the last one that was, from memory, was killed by her husband. So not because she was trans.  
 

You said most women have nothing to fear for walking down the street in a dress. That’s plainly bollocks. 
 

1 in 34m chance remember.  Rubbish 

[Rico1304]

Remember the argument ‘Well the women athletes don’t seem to mind’. 
 

Here’s why;

 

 

[Boss]

35 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Women get attacked for being women all the time. Where are you getting this from. 
 

No trans person has been killed in the U.K. for over 3 yrs. the last one that was, from memory, was killed by her husband. So not because she was trans.  
 

You said most women have nothing to fear for walking down the street in a dress. That’s plainly bollocks. 
 

1 in 34m chance remember.  Rubbish 

 

Last year 207 women were killed by a man in the UK. 118 of which were killed by someone other than their partner, or ex-partner (so the exact scenario you're talking about re: Sarah Everard). So that's 118 women in 34 million or a 99.9996% chance of not being killed by a nutter. You're acting like women are being abducted in the UK on a mass scale, which is plainly not the case.

 

Also, it's futile to look at transgender murder statistics in the UK because the police don't record transgender as its own category when they record an individuals death. I might be wrong here, but I presume a MTF transgender person is classified as a man, and a FTM transgender person is classified as a woman.

 

 

[Rico1304]

12 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Last year 207 women were killed by a man in the UK. 118 of which were killed by someone other than their partner, or ex-partner (so the exact scenario you're talking about re: Sarah Everard). So that's 118 women in 34 million or a 99.9996% chance of not being killed by a nutter. 

 

Also, it's futile to look at transgender murder statistics in the UK because the police don't record transgender as its own category when they record an individuals death. I might be wrong here, but I presume a MTF transgender person is classified as a man, and a FTM transgender person is classified as a woman.

 

Also, you're acting like women are being abducted in the UK on a mass scale, which is plainly not the case.

 

 

Women, over reacting as usual. Men are the true victims here. Usually when they dress as women.  
 

Fucking listen to yourself man. Women are beaten, raped and assaulted in massive numbers.  Luckily not all of them are murdered.  
 

I honestly find this astonishing.  
 

You don’t think say, the press, would mention it if a TW had been murdered?  

[Boss]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

Women, over reacting as usual. Men are the true victims here. Usually when they dress as women.  
 

Fucking listen to yourself man. Women are beaten, raped and assaulted in massive numbers.  Luckily not all of them are murdered.  
 

I honestly find this astonishing.  

 

You honestly find it astonishing that the facts don't back up your presumptions?

[s(k)aturation]

 

Next we'll be forced to pull out the statistics of US women murdered by being tied down on Carnegie's railroad tracks.

 

 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Boss said:

 

You honestly find it astonishing that the facts don't back up your presumptions?

I honestly find it astonishing that you are trivialising the fact that despite dressing down, not going out alone at night, not speaking to strangers, taking all the safety advice possible 118 women were still murdered by men and you think they are still not in as much danger as men in dresses.  Now, can you include all the GBHs, all the ABHs, all the stranger rapes, all the unreported rape estimates and the times when the murderers didn’t quite get a victim. It’s fucking mental.  
 

Women are safe not many are murdered

men dressed as women are in danger. 

[skend04]

2 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Next we'll be forced to pull out the statistics of US women murdered by being tied down on Carnegie's railroad tracks.

 

 

Have there been any since the silent movies?

Even they got away though, no idea why they all complain.

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

I had never realised how you lefties were so misogynistic.  It’s a revelation. 
 

(It’s not really). 

 

I always have this in the back of my mind:

 

Socialist Workers Party leadership under fire over rape kangaroo court | Rape and sexual assault | The Guardian

 

Quote

The SWP's leadership is under fire for setting up a "kangaroo court" to hear allegations of rape and sexual misconduct dating back to 2008 against the man. The allegations made at the party's disputes committee were dismissed by a panel of seven and never passed on to the police.

One alleged victim claimed that during the hearing, she was asked if she "liked to have a drink".

A transcript of the SWP's annual conference in January, leaked to the Socialist Unity blog, revealed that senior officials pleaded with hundreds of activists to trust in the committee's verdict and reminded lay members that the party had "no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice".

[s(k)aturation]

Just now, skend04 said:

Have there been any since the silent movies?

Even they got away though, no idea why they all complain.

 

Not to mention all the poor exploited workers who laid them (pardon the pun), who inadvertently would have had blood on their hands had the cow catcher have done its job.

 

 

[skend04]

3 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Not to mention all the poor exploited workers who laid them (pardon the pun), who inadvertently would have had blood on their hands had the cow catcher have done its job.

 

 

Nooo!

Gnasher probably has "poor" and "worker" alerts added. He'll be along to blame the EU in a second.

[s(k)aturation]

3 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Nooo!

Gnasher probably has "poor" and "worker" alerts added. He'll be along to blame the EU in a second.

 

Those good people in Brussels and the old rolled-up maps of the Congo in their bottom drawer?

 

Nevair!!!

 

 

[Bob]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

Open doesn't mean representative of all categories, it means anybody who is not eligible for protected categories, such as women's sport or disabled sport categories can compete, without having to prove eligibility.

How does that change my reply. There is open sport that is not inclusive. You suggested we already have open and women’s sport. 
 

Rico chimed in immediately saying “we do. But until today you’d be a bigot for saying TW compete in the open category.”

 

it’s that response I was replying to.

 

he went on to say this is about fairness and safety, which is the same shit he always does, as it’s not… it’s clearly cited numerous times throughout that it’s about inclusion, fairness and safety. 
 

by deliberately choosing to only see two of those three, and ignore the former he’s able to say “see, Trans women should play in open categories, simple, like I said. aren’t I amazing and clever and always right?”, only the open category is not inclusive because our society is not inclusive, because it’s dominated by the voices of white men who don’t want it to be inclusive. If it were inclusive there’d be more successful black coaches and gay players in men’s football, for instance.

 

so pointing at “Open” categories and saying “don’t know what the problem

is, you’re allowed to play over there with them lot” doesn’t fix anything.