Article Rise & fall of journals + Is male/female divide a social construct? (Richard Dawkins)

[Railko]

I already cited the witness statement from the girls themselves, and you haven't shown otherwise. You've only shown that biased sources will try to hide damning evidence.

I did. Your own linked sources place blame on the schools: 

"Wisconsin parents questioned the Sun Prairie School District about reports a transgender senior student exposed male genitalia while showering next to 14-year-old girls. The district admitted school policies were not followed."

Considering the school admitted fault and said that they didn't inform either party of what was going on, I think the school has more credence here. The unclear policies led to this confusion.

You see the "other"? @_@
You're just proving that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task, because "only other" literally means that it's the only one other than the one previously mentioned (e.g. 647(d)).

So if it's "only other", as in not relevant to the original topic (as it was whether indecent exposure applies to the restrooms) why include it? It's obviously not the other we're talking about. Remember, you said that penal code 647 was primarily about prostitution:

That California penal code is primarily about engaging in or soliciting for prostitution.
California Penal Code 288(a) states that it is illegal for a person to engage in any lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. “Lewd and lascivious” acts refer to any actions that are indecent or of a sexual nature with an individual under the age of 14. This includes “arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires” of the person or child. We will often see these charges commonly referred to as child molestation in the state of California. - https://www.gddlaw.com/2021/04/21/califo...duct-288a/

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." Code 647 clearly specifies "a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view." These are all different places. Can you guess which is a restroom and which are not?
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."
California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts."

Which, while 288 might also reference lewd and lascivious acts in reference to a minor, they're not using it to the exclusion of all other acts (which is why 647a also mentions lewd acts) and why people can still be charged even if not involving a minor. It just feels like a digression?

Authorities say Chilcoat was also accused of sticking his hand under the stall door and "moaning."
Police say the witness told officers that he believed that Chilcoat was "pleasuring himself" inside the bathroom stall.

"Conduct... likely to offend or alarm."

In Pennsylvania, indecent exposure is defined as intentionally exposing your genitals in a public place or anywhere other people are present, knowing or should know that the conduct is likely to offend or alarm them. - Google AI

So again, not just simple exposure to the same-sex in a that-sex only space.

All of the indecent exposure laws we've looked at so far have it so that it has to be done with intent to alarm, offend, or be lewd to the other party. Otherwise it's not considered indecent. That being said, once intent is proven it applies regardless of sex, because it's indecent. 

https://abc7.com/post/ucla-on-lookout-af...m/2229523/
"Around 11:20 a.m. on July 11, a man was using a men's bathroom on the third floor of the Ackerman Union building when he noticed another man standing in front of a restroom stall exposing himself.
The incident lasted for about 10 seconds and then the suspect walked out. The victim is associated with UCLA, according to a campus alert, but it did not specify if the victim was a student.
The suspect is described as man between 40 and 50 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, has short black hair, facial hair, dark-colored eyes and was last seen wearing a black or gray shirt and black pants."

2017 incident: In July 2017, UCLA police issued a warning to students after a man exposed himself inside a men's restroom on campus. The incident occurred in a third-floor bathroom in the Ackerman Union.
2018 incident: In November 2018, UCLA police arrested a suspect for allegedly exposing himself and masturbating in front of students multiple times near the campus.
- Google AI

So again, the only arrest involved someone pleasuring themselves. You keep proving my point, over and over again.

Those aren't the same cases.

2017 case (my case): A man was using a men's bathroom and exposing himself. "UCLA issued a warning for students about a man who exposed himself inside a men's restroom on campus." Happened July 11, 2017. 

2018 case: A man was talking to women outside of his car and masturbating to them. "In each incident, a man had been seen masturbating in his car after asking to speak to a woman who was walking in the area. The incidents happened off campus, but all the women targeted were UCLA students, Kilgore said." Happened Nov 1, 2018. 

Are you just grabbing stuff off of the Google AI without even reading it? lmao

I have no idea what you are, as you've been very dodgy about it. You might be a women and might be black/minority, but I don't really know what to believe. You're probably just a troll.

Since this is the internet I actually should be dodgier about any and all personal details. After all, safety is important.

Could say the same about you, though (regarding being a troll). 

I said "only other place." Please learn how to read. 9_9

But if it wasn't to insinuate that indecent conduct would only apply there, then why point it out?

If you checked the citations:

The meta-analysis of seven relevant studies shows that confirmed false allegations of sexual assault made to police occur at a significant rate. The total false reporting rate, including both confirmed and equivocal cases, would be greater than the 5 % rate found here.
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...015-0666-2
These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177...1210387747
Approximately 5% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types.
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_looku...n%20Koppen

So unless you think 87 is 2-10% of all sexual assault allegations, it's a drop in the bucket.
FRA is only considered rare in relation to the percent who regret consensual sex:

Second, regret is not rare after casual sex: from 35% to more than 70% of the participants reported regret after consensual sex.

Again, the rich and famous are prime targets.

Yes, but those are usually single false allegations at a target, like one or two women accusing a man. You don't get clusters of women all falsely accusing the same man of creepy behavior. 

"Sexual harassment" not sexual assault. 9_9
No citations about sexual assault.
Whether an unhealthy power dynamic or not, if an adult consents, at the time, it's still consent.

Similar logic applies.

"Overall, analysis of naturally occurring victim-survivor comments surrounding reasons for not reporting their sexual victimisation demonstrated that deciding not to report an assault remains a multifaceted decision (Johnson, Citation2017; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., Citation2011). Nevertheless, the three dominant main themes identified, lack of faith in the CJS, self-blame and knowing the perpetrator, provide contemporary explanation and support surrounding why many women continue to not report a sexual assault to the authorities. Indeed, the aforementioned reasons for non-reporting of sexual assault appear to reflect commonly believed rape myths. Rape myths can be described as inter-correlated beliefs and stereotypical ideas used to justify and excuse rape (Burt, Citation1980). Common myths which bias judgements about sexual assault include victim-blaming, doubting the truth of allegations, excusing the accused behaviour and pre-conceptions of ‘real’ rape (Bohner et al., Citation2009). Internalising these stereotypes or being aware that other people including police believe them (Lorenz et al., Citation2019), may impact a woman’s decision to report a sexual assault."

It is debatable if it's true consent in some unhealthy power dynamics though. It's why dating certain people (like doctors or psychologists) is considered unethical and can lead to suspensions or legal action, and why 18 year olds dating 30 year olds is often frowned upon. Yes, they have consented, but it leaves questions open as to how much a power dynamic plays in their relationship, and if someone in these situations later comes out and says they were coerced, everyone understands.

Ahem, you're the one who brought up Weinstein: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17333-...l#pid75439

I'm talking about the whole consent thing, from it's start to now. It doesn't appear relevant nor helpful to the thread.

If you want to talk ethics, privacy, consent, and safety are powerful ethical arguments. Using a particular bathroom is not, itself, an ethical argument.
I've already said that trans men could use men's spaces, as that wouldn't risk anyone's safety. Trans women are biological men, who do pose a greater risk to women.
Slave owners also claimed the slaves were "better off" in slavery than free in Africa. So "less harm" arguments have a history of being misused.
Even just looking at it through a consequentialism lens (least harm), the potential harm to such a small minority dwarfs the potential harm to the vastly larger number of women.

But they didn't ask the slaves, who would have vehemently disagreed. Meanwhile, transwomen say the women's bathroom would be best for them, and cis women are validating that statement. And the women are the ones who have a say in this. 

Again, majority opinion is not an ethical argument, just like it wasn't during slavery.
The minority here are the transgenders. You seem to conflating minorities with minority opinions. They are not interchangeable. 

But if the minority and a substantial part of the majority (cis women) agree, I think that counts for something. After all, slaves were a minority, but when they wanted to be freed and there was a substantial part of the majority (white men) that agreed, that led to the slaves' eventual emancipation.

You're conflating your personal opinion with being able to speak for all women (which you've accused me of).
You can't use your leftist bullshit "lived experience" excuse to discount valid opinions. It doesn't hold up to the simplest logical test. If it did, only murderers and murder victims could opine on murder. I speak for women I've either read, heard, or know personally. Any person can validly opine on and discuss any ethical matter. Inferring someone might be a pervert to stifle opposition is intellectually dishonest and fallacious.

Yet, the stats agree that most women don't care, or don't see it as an issue. If I'm biologically a woman, I at least have some say since it'll affect me and I know about the issue, and if the stats support that more women than not feel transwomen can use the women's restroom, I can then say I speak for most women. Whereas you really don't have a horse in this race, and don't have the stats to support you. Never said anything about my lived experiences (although it does help), it's mostly the stats.

Do you think it's normal to bring up graphic discussion of another man's genitalia during a discussion into whether transwomen should use the bathroom? 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...016-9181-6

"Consistent with Westbrook and Schilt, we also observe a strong fixation on penises (regardless of gender, transgender status, or stance on bathroom usage), e.g.:

‘Wait until 12-year-old Susie comes face-to-face with Mr. Happy.’; ‘We are talking about big penises in the ladies’ room; children and those with the correct chromosomes should come first!’; ‘If a penis is allowed to wander freely around a women’s bathroom, do you really think that penis wants to stay tucked away, regardless of who it’s attached to?’; ‘The right thing to do is let trannys with penises share girl’s bathrooms? BS!’; ‘Don’t let the penis or beard fool you; I’m 100% woman in my brain’; ‘I couldn’t care less if the woman next to me has a penis or not’; ‘Is it okay for him to flip out his penis in the girl’s bathroom in front of your daughter?’; ‘Some women have a penis, some men have a vagina’; ‘If you have a penis, then it’s fine for a woman to want you out’; ‘It is not a transgender’s right to put their penis in front of women’; ‘Maybe we should put penis and vagina on the bathroom doors, so HE will not be confused.’

"
Like regardless of opinions on the topic I think this is a weird thing to think and post online in discussions of the topic. I think it's perverted, some might say mentally ill, but if a person can't have a rational discussion on the topic without veering off into graphic discussions of penises or sexualities, there might be something wrong.

Protecting against a tyranny of majority is why the US is a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. IOW, the majority doesn't rule.
I've already shown many examples of trans women being threats.
And it's rich for you to suddenly discount anecdotes when you cite them all the time. 

Eighty-two percent of gender diverse offenders with sexual
offence histories were trans-women and the remaining
17% were in the “other” group. On average, these
offenders were 42 years at the time of the study. Two-
thirds were serving their first federal sentence and about
half (46%) were serving indeterminate sentences.
...
Over 80% of gender diverse offenders with sexual offence
histories were trans-women. Sexual offending indicators
showed... that the highest
proportion of victims were children or female. In addition, a
majority of this sub-group caused death or serious harm to
their victim(s).
- https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/csc-sc...2_O-en.pdf
In 2018 the MOJ released statistics showing half of the people in prison who declare themselves transgender have been sentenced with one or more sexual offences. We have now obtained new data which is the clearest and most recent evidence confirming the vast majority of these trans sex offenders were born male. These MOJ statistics show that transgender women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality. We conclude that transwomen in prison exhibit a propensity to sexual crime that matches their birth sex and not their gender identity. This is relevant and necessary information when making legislation and policies designed to keep women safe.
- https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender...-offences/

Well, you were the first to discount factual evidence as "anecdotes".

First study, only a third of incarcerated gender diverse are even sexually offending (99 were in prison, 33 were sexual offenders), and most of the transwomen offenders are committing as their birth sex, not as women. They're not using the women's bathrooms to offend, nor is being a transwoman their excuse:
"Almost two-thirds (64%) of these offenders committed a current sexual offence while 88% were convicted for prior sex offences. Almost all (94%) had committed their offences while living as their biological sex."

The second study, they're not really showing the evidence for their claims? It either all links back to them, or it's in an excel spreadsheet where it's impossible to verify where they got the numbers from. And they're claiming they show a "male-type pattern of criminality" by comparing it to the current prison population, when women are known to also sexually offend but get away with it more than men because of gender bias: 

"For a variety of societal reasons, female sexual abuse is likely to remain unnoticed. Some researchers have found that the incidence of sexual contact with boys by women is much more prevalent than is contended in the clinical literature (Condy, Templer Brown & Veaco, 1987).

Many researchers consider Finkelhor and Russell's (1984) estimates of the prevalence of female sex offending to be the most accurate to date. Their tentative evaluation is that females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males, either acting alone or with a partner. Graham (unpublished) validates Finkelhor and Russell's (1984) estimates by indicating that 24.62% of male sex offenders in his study had a history of sexual abuse by a female. Finkelhor and Russell (1984) also estimated that approximately 6% of sexual abuse against females and 14% of sexual abuse against males is thought to be perpetrated by females acting alone."

Men are more likely to get caught, but the rates of offending are likely as high for women. Transwomen aren't conclusively displaying "male type patterns of criminality".

And if you're comparing both offending men and transwomen's likelihood of hurting someone, trans people in the UK are about 0.5% of the population, with trans women being 0.10% of that. Men in the UK are 49.25% of the population, so if we extrapolate the amount of male sexual offenders in prison (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison, or 16.79%) to the wider male population, around 8% of men in the population are possible offenders. Using the 2019 stats listed on FairPlay's website for trans women (81 offenders out of 163) and extrapolating it to the wider transwomen community, only about 5% are offending at any given time. 

But as the first paper said, most don't do it as a woman, but as their birth sex. If 94% of sex offenders are offending as men, and 6% as women, then it would be like 0.3% of the trans woman population doing it as women (6% of 0.005 transwomen population). It's not a huge risk, and most if not all of the offenders are either doing it as men, or aren't committing crimes in a bathroom (as neither paper actually said whether they're entering women's spaces to offend.) 

Again, it only comes into question when the performance is so far beyond all other competitors.
You have not shown that they had no women's performance for comparison.

If women are just getting into the Olympics, what prior records would they have? What could someone reference to see how well a woman can do? Women were banned from the events until recently in history, what are they referencing if not prior records?

I expect you'll quit making anecdotal arguments yourself from now on.
Studies on transgender offenders goes against the politics of largely leftist academics, but I've given two above.
Here's another one:

This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne et al. (2011) followed a population of individuals who
had undergone surgical and legal sex reassignment involving hormonal and surgical
treatment between 1973 and 2003 (324 in total) and compared them to a matched control
group of their birth sex. It is crucial to emphasise that this study looks only at those who
have undergone hormonal and surgical transition, which is a much tighter group than
individuals who self- identify as transgender.
...
The researchers state:
‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same wastrue regarding violent crime.’
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female
comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so
were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration.
- https://committees.parliament.uk/written...18973/pdf/

The researcher who worked on that, Dhejne, has said people are misrepresenting her findings:

"Dhejne: The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse."

As the pdf you linked also acknowledged, and they agree that conclusions about rape specifically cannot be drawn from the study:

Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.

Violent crime in the study could be anything: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

"Any criminal conviction during follow-up was counted; specifically, violent crime was defined as homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offense." It could be that transwomen are more likely to go to robbery after an expensive surgery. It could be that transwomen are more likely to try and kill people who may threaten them for being trans. We don't know what exactly they were in for, and we can't assume it's for sexual offenses. 

Crime also went to a male pattern in the FtMs, suggesting that if it is true, it's not innate to transwomen, and can be unlearned.

"By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime." 

According to the co-author of the study, trans women aren't prone to a "male pattern of criminality", but if they were it seems the best way to prevent it would be to offer more mental health care and be more accepting of trans identities, as people do today.

No, you haven't shown a single study on the offending rate of transgenders (that doesn't source the same "news sites" you're criticizing me for). You just keep making spurious claims.
I've now given you studies that show there is no difference in the criminality between men and trans women, making free access to women's spaces a greater danger to women.

First two don't show that and the third is disproven, by the very researchers who made the study. 

You sure show zero concern for the victims, past, future, and including children.
And you don't know how much it happens, as:

In the U.S., police departments have varying, and often conflicting, policies on recording the gender identity of offenders. While the FBI collects information on gender identity for hate crime statistics, there is no federal standard for recording gender identity in routine police reports.
- Google AI

Then why did you feel so sure that studies prove that transwomen are a danger? 

Please learn to read. Getting attention doesn't mean that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."

If you're being noticed for being trans, you're not fitting in. You're sticking out. That's what that means. 

https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-2-e...-offending - this one only cites "a sense of powerlessness and establish their ideal image of masculinity" and "hostile masculinity," and notably from "feminist theorists." Not actual, existing masculinity. This "sense of powerlessness" would actually be exacerbated in trans women.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...uaintances - this one specifies "a culture of “hypermasculinity”" and does not support this claim, either in the excerpt of this study (behind paywall) nor the full study cited by it.
I really wish people knew how to read studies, beyond just the abstract.

What is "actual, existing masculinity"? And how is this sense exacerbated in transwomen, when trans women are trying to escape masculinity?

That isn't the full study at all. That's a completely different paper with no relation to the one I linked. Mine was published in 2007, yours 2020. I linked the abstract to show that even with strangers, the motivations are largely the same, confirmed by other studies. 

Here's a different source on stranger assault, a pdf: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/..._women.pdf

"Studies of incarcerated rapists indicate that younger men generally commit sexual assaults against strangers.29 Most researchers believe that rapists have generally negative or adversarial attitudes toward women. Although they may have had difficulty sustaining adult relationships, the offenders studied usually had access to consensual sexual partners.30 Offenders who participated in research on sexual assault often exhibited a sense of sexual entitlement, need for power and control, hostility and anger, and acceptance of interpersonal violence of all kinds.31 Studies of incarcerated rapists have also found that a large proportion had at least one previous conviction, although it was generally not for a sex offense and tended to be for a violent crime, burglary, or theft.32 Among those studied, most rapists were not exclusively sex offenders. However, those who were convicted of a sex offense were far more likely than other offenders to commit a subsequent sex offense."

They don't like women and feel entitled to them, and these acts are often done by hypermasculine men who feel violence is acceptable towards women. 

Non-academic "conservative sources" are not compiling for academic purposes, with the necessary controls. Using these are an exhaustive list, upon which to base crime statistics, is not scientifically sound. Since many jurisdictions do not record gender identity, many likely go unnoticed as just run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases. Again, not a representative sample.
For the third time now. "But fair enough. UN advisor." Personally, I don't care how many women have lost medals to transgenders. I only care that they are losing to transgenders at all. Any disenfranchisement is still disenfranchisement.

True, but as they explained there wasn't much to go off of elsewhere. 

The amount does matter, because it's reasonable for some trans women to do better than cis women, just as it would be reasonable for some cis women to do better than trans women. If transwomen are unequivocally doing better than cis women, then it might be unfair. If it's a more mixed result, or if trans women aren't naturally better than cis women, then it doesn't matter if they win some if they don't have an unfair advantage. 

No, they couldn't, because it's not in the interest of the US to put our own troops in harm's way. We're talking about troops on the ground here. Not weapons and funding.
Quit trying to move the goalpost. The US has a formal security treaty with Japan. We have no such formal treaty with Israel.

I'm saying if this was really about women's safety, they would pull out all the stops to protect them, wouldn't they? The fact that they're not, and they're fighting despite you saying this:

No, objective measures devalue women's contribution in combat. Israel requires all citizens to serve in the military because they have such a small population and are constantly under attack. Not really a choice if your very survival relies on having bodies, any bodies, to throw at the threats.
Woman do not have the stamina, pack weight capacity, strength, etc. that men do. Unless the US comes under attack by equally advanced and numerically superior forces, there's zero justification for putting women, in general, in harm's way.

Means that there is something gained these days by having women fight in combat. Maybe the women are doing well enough to support their inclusion, or Israel doesn't care about its female solders, because if it was a big issue they could ask allies for aid. Maybe not the US, but it has many allies who were eager to help at the beginning of the war. Why not take advantage of that, if you care about your female soldiers?

LOL! Ukraine does need troops, right now.

“A troop contingent from one country or another could be present in Ukraine for as long as it isn’t part of Nato. But for that we need to have a clear understanding of when Ukraine becomes an EU member and when a Nato member,” Zelenskyy said.
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2...-zelenskyy

Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership, which would commit EU & US troops, but that will not happen, as that would risk world war. Even having NATO troops in Ukraine, without NATO membership, could risk Putin taking it as a NATO attack and retaliating against EU & US targets.

See, so some nations are trying to take advantage of their alliances and get more troops. Why wouldn't Israel try something similar?

Until you have any more solid data than what I've provided, it will have to suffice.
Since you don't have that data, you cannot credibly claim that you know the percentage. So quit making such unsupported claims.

It still ultimately is a small amount, and most did their crimes before transitioning. And research shows that that can be mitigated by being more accepting. 

64% of all women and 85% of Democrats support "abortion should be legal in all or most cases." That's literally abortion on demand.

"Abortion on demand" refers to the concept that a pregnant individual should have the right to obtain an abortion at their request, rather than needing to fulfill specific legal or personal conditions. - Google AI
No, current mainstream Democratic policy generally opposes new work requirements for welfare and seeks to weaken existing ones, viewing these programs as essential protections against inequality and advocating for more comprehensive benefits rather than stricter mandates. - Google AI

No restrictions on welfare means supporting women no matter how many baby daddies they amass.

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.
“To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree,” says the study’s author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “It’s pervasive.”
- https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...a1c9462927
In 2010, 41 percent of U.S. births were to unmarried parents. As a result, the share of U.S. children whose family lives are shaped by multi-partner fertility is substantial. Carlson also reported the findings of a variety of other studies indicating that as many as one in five children have a half-sibling, and as many as one in three mothers on welfare have a child with more than one partner.
- https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-parent...%20partner.

"Abortion on demand" sounded like abortion anytime, anywhere, no matter how developed the baby is, so I wanted to have an idea of what you were talking about. If it's just being able to access abortion fairly without legal stipulations or weird religious hampering, that doesn't sound too problematic.

Seems like the multiple dads welfare thing is at least partially linked to divorce and marriage though? 

"The new data, pulled from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, shows that this kind of family structure is found at all levels of income and education. And it’s frequently tied to divorce and remarriage, not just to single motherhood, Dorius says. Forty-three percent of the women with kids with multiple dads were married when their first babies were born." -from the NBC link.

It doesn't seem like they're just running around having kids they can't afford - they are settling down, having families and then somewhere in the marriage things go wrong and they need to find a new partner. I don't see anything too wrong with that. 

The rest probably need education to prevent such things happening in the future (like if they're having multiple kids without thinking about the risks), but in the meantime their kids do need to be supported, and I don't see anything wrong with supporting a family who does need the money. 

I've humored this little red herring of yours long enough. Remember, you brought this up when the actual topic of discussion was illegal indecent exposure.
I've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the laws you try to cite.

Do you? As far as I know, neither of us are lawyers, and the sources I'm citing from are either the official ones, or ones transcribed by lawyers. You seem to be trying to find some sort of loophole in them to account for what you say. 

Yes, you found one that reported she said to stop. If true, that doctor violated her consent and should be sued.
But again, only one anecdote, where I've explained why men are not treated like this. If more women were assertive, the pattern of treatment would likely change.

It's one anecdote, but that happens often:

"Nearly one in five women say that a provider didn’t believe they were telling the truth, and one in seven (13%) say their provider suggested they were personally to blame for a health problem they were experiencing. One in 10 women say their provider has refused to prescribe them pain medication they thought they needed."

Like, if the person doesn't believe you there's not much more assertiveness is going to do for you. If up to 100% of women report pain during these procedures, and some are even struggling to stand and function after the procedure, they should stop. It's the Hippocratic oath - do no harm. 

So, assuming treatment could be fair both ways and not just more pain for women, most women wouldn't mind specific tests testing their mass or density. Some might even welcome it if it leads to better care on the female biology side of things.

Please learn to read... like the entire context (e.g. "in terms of competitive advantage").

Yeah, I'm saying even there it's not always an advantage. There are different intersex conditions that are being caught in the Olympics but not all would give an athlete an advantage on the field: "Women with severe AIS are resistant to androgens such as testosterone. Thus, it cannot confer any athletic “advantage”" They really cannot be equated to trans people. 

No, 65 is after menopause. Hence irrelevant.
Requiring pregnancy test results would violate their HIPAA rights.

No. You often have to get a pregnancy test before any important medical procedures if you're a woman. In fact, it seems underused - doctors recommend more women get pregnancy tests before doing anything at the hospital:

"It is crucial to assess pregnancy risk when caring for reproductive-aged women and prescribing potentially teratogenic medications. This is especially important for women seeking care in the emergency department (ED), who are at high risk for unintended pregnancies, and may be unaware of their pregnancy status. Given that sexual histories are not always reliable and may be time-consuming in a busy ED, one of the most reliable and efficient ways to evaluate for pregnancy is with pregnancy testing."

Also HIPPA prevents medical professionals from leaking your personal info - it doesn't prevent them from giving you pregnancy tests. 

Again, you don't accommodate disorders, and that's literally what gender dysphoria is.

I've just shown you that's not true. If you're arguing gender dysphoria is a mental disorder (or a mental illness, as they're synonymous), then it must receive accommodations, like other mental disorders:

"The words “psychiatric disability” and “mental illness” are often used interchangeably. The term mental illness is typically used in a medical context to refer to a wide range of conditions related to emotional and mental health. The term psychiatric disability is typically used in a legal or policy context to refer to impairments covered under the ADA."

"Examples of psychiatric diagnoses include anxiety disorder, depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder and schizophrenia."

"Rights under the ADA. Applicants and employees with psychiatric disabilities have two main rights under the ADA. First, they have a right to privacy. Except when asking for an accommodation, they can choose whether to tell the employer about their disability. Second, they have a right to a job accommodation unless this causes undue hardship for the employer."

All mental disorders, illnesses and disabilities can receive accommodations. If gender dysphoria is causing "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," as the APA diagnostic criteria says, it could reasonably apply. You don't get to pick and choose what disorders receive accommodations and treatment. 

No, treatment is treating the objective delusion that a person is a gender other than their biological sex. Placating delusion is called enabling, which is the opposite of treatment.
Only the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender dysphoria falls under the ADA, so this is not settled law.

Gender dysphoria is not a delusion, as people with gender dysphoria acknowledge they're not physically the sex they identify as. That's the reason why they're transitioning - to bring their body into some sense of alignment with what they feel. Delusions are false beliefs which are held contrary to factual evidence and are easily disproven; unless anyone can conclusively prove a trans person doesn't identify as the gender they feel they are it is not a delusion. 

Even then, if it were a delusion doctors don't respond to delusions by telling the person they're wrong - they allow the delusional person to speak about the delusion and get reassurance, support, and care. You don't keep on telling them they're wrong, because it wouldn't make a difference if they're actually delusional, and could exacerbate the condition:

• "Do not reason, argue, or challenge the delusion. Attempting to disprove the delusion is not helpful and will create mistrust.
  
• Assure the person that they are safe and no harm will come.
  
• Always use openness and honesty.
  
• Encourage the person to verbalize feelings of anxiety, fear, and insecurity – offer concern and protection to prevent injury to themselves or others.
  
• Convey acceptance of the need for the false belief.
  
• Focus on building a trusting relationship with the person rather than the need to control their symptoms – remain calm.
  

If you or anybody else actually believed it was a delusion, you wouldn't be reacting like this to trans people, but showing compassion or concern. And if being trans were a delusion, trans people would not need surgery or support to be the gender they identified as - they'd just say they were as if it were a fact, the same way schizophrenics say the government is after them or that they have medical implants like it's a fact.

And if it doesn't fall under the ADA, it would be considered an endocrine/medical disorder that still requires treatment, so while not a disorder in the truest sense, it's still something that would require some sort of care: "The ultimate goal would be to categorize TGNC treatment under an endocrine/medical diagnosis."

Again, different weight class. 9_9

My bad, I corrected lower down.

Again, in terms of fair competition, intersex are equivalent to transgender. Both disadvantage and disenfranchise actual women.
Which mixed-sex sports did they count? U14 Irish dance is divided into men's, women's, boy's, and girl's classes. And is the "Ladies Champion of Champions national pool tournament" or "US Women’s Snooker Open" mixed-sex?
Even leaving those out, the number of medals lost to trans/intersex is still very high.
Yes, you can count every following athlete as displaced. If the tranny didn't take second, the women who placed third would have... meaning she was robbed of a second place medal and the next woman up robbed of the third place medal. You can absolutely predict that the next best would place. There is no other option.

No, because if you're trying to count typical biological males with advantages, you would not bring in someone with a disorder of sex development. Their body is physiologically different, may not function exactly like a biological males (and doesn't, considering the person didn't develop as one) so they shouldn't be considered.

Dancing and snooker can be done with men and women, in mixed groups (and with dancing, by oneself). While those tournaments may not have been, if you're trying to show the harms of transwomen entering women's sports, including physical harm, you should exclude sports where mixed groups play without issue. 
 
And you can't, because it's not guaranteed how an athlete will do with or without the presence of a trans woman. If transwoman A displaces cis woman A and cis woman B and ciswoman C take home silver and bronze, that doesn't mean they would have won if the transwoman weren't there. If cis woman A took the place of transwoman A, ciswoman B and ciswoman C may have still taken home silver and bronze. You can't guarantee how the rest of the runners would have done (as we know racers can have varying performances even against the same competitors) and it's dishonest to try.

Not for the total weight and league you cited. Try again.

Whoops, you're right! Though even in the 185+ weight class she's still doing pretty well with scores like 1553.1lbs and 1539.9lbs. She's not too far off from her best.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Strict testosterone testing in sports for female athletes began in 2011, when the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), now called World Athletics, implemented a "hyperandrogenism policy". This policy set a limit on naturally-occurring testosterone for women and was the first time that sports authorities used testosterone levels as a measure for eligibility.
- Google AI
In 2011, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was at the forefront of transgender sports policies by becoming one of the first major athletic organizations to adopt guidelines for the participation of transgender student-athletes.
- Google Ai

Where does it say that "testosterone testing was implemented due to transgenders"? These are two different quotes without sources.

Anecdotal. 9_9

I did give proof of the social segregation with some of those discrimination cases. 

No, you're not getting away with equivocating words. I clearly showed that social transition is a step in the transition process.
Again, go try and tell a socially transitioned trans women that he's not a woman yet. See how that works out for you. 9_9

Yes, social gender transition is a form of gender change that involves aligning one's outward expression of gender with their internal gender identity, rather than a change in their gender identity itself. This non-medical process can include changing one's name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyles, and mannerisms to reflect their true gender, but does not involve any physical or hormonal intervention.
- Google AI
Social transitioning is a nonmedical, reversible form of gender transition. For some people, it is the only type they want. For others, social transitioning is the first step toward legal recognition or medical gender affirming care.
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...nsitioning
Many folks also choose to affirm their gender identity through medical means, such as the use of hormones or surgery. Others wish to only socially transition but not medically transition. Both types of gender identity and expression affirmation are valid. Social transition is your own journey and something you can initiate without a provider.
- https://library.nshealth.ca/TransGenderD...%20surgery.

But maybe you are trying to defend people you have no understanding of. @_@

Yeah, but they're not changing their gender. Their gender is what they identify as, the way they see themselves. Transitioning is to bring their physical body in line with how they see themselves, but they're not suddenly a woman because they put on a dress. 

https://www.iamclinic.org/blog/can-you-b.../#anchor-1

"Acknowledging that your gender identity is trans does not require anything other than recognizing how your body understands itself- from within."

https://www.pointofpride.org/blog/how-do...f-im-trans

"In his article on first realizing he identified as a trans man, writer Kasey Leblanc shares that he spent much of his adolescence and early adulthood dressing in conventionally "feminine" clothing: "The clothes you’ve worn in the past and the clothes you’ll wear in the future do not dictate your gender, nor do they determine your 'transness.' So if you’re comfortable in jeans and a hoodie, or if you want to rock some nail polish, remember this: Clothes don’t make the person. You do."

Remember that there are many parts to gender, such as:

• Gender expression. This includes how you dress, how you use your voice and language, and your behavior.
  
• Gender presentation: This is how the world sees and understands you.
  
• Gender identity: This is how you see yourself.
  

Transitioning is a process of changing how you show up as your authentic self. Many trans people choose to transition in some way, so that their gender expression and presentation align with their identity."

Your gender is always with you, and doesn't really change. The social and medical transition is useful if someone wants to show their gender identity or bring things into alignment, but it's not necessary, and doesn't make you more or less trans. 

And then if you look you can find multiple trans people on social media saying "they didn't change their gender":
1: "I never changed my gender. My gender identity was always feminine."
2: " In my opinion, I never changed my gender. My gender was always what it is and I had to change other aspects of myself to match."
3: " I didn't change my gender. I changed my body to align better with what my gender has always been, though I didn't always have the words to describe it."

So you are completely out of touch. Got it.

I did reiterate what you said, that "nobody denies actual racists exist." But people can also choose who they want to be with, and who they want in the group. It may not be legal and if not it could be subject to the law... but if it's legal, they can do as they'd like.

Black safe spaces only exist at colleges because they overtly exclude whites. This is discrimination because colleges are places of public accommodation.
Private clubs/groups have zero need to call themselves "safe spaces," as they are already isolated by their own membership guidelines.
IOW, you're conflating entirely different things again.

Colleges are but as I pointed out, the clubs may or may not be. Most clubs don't call themselves a safe space because they're not about a sensitive topic, but in the case of race and other identities some people may need that reassurance that the club isn't going to feature people that may fight them, that may not understand their struggles, etc. Also unlike other clubs there are people who may actually want to harm black people, so reassurance and a safe space is understandable. 

That's called an appeal to authority, and it's a fallacy.

Nope. Where's the authority figure? Also, I'd hope we'd go for even vaguely scientific sources here, seeing as it's a science forum.

Because it is... if you don't live in a Democrat-run shithole, where crime is so prevalent that people become numb and prone to the bystander effect.

There's no correlation between politics and crime rate: "The data and long-term research do not support the claim that Democrat-led cities are inherently more dangerous. Crime rates are influenced by a complex mix of socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural factors — not by a mayor’s political affiliation."

So you really thought I also meant gay men would protect women? @_@
Are you really that dense? @_@

This is what I'm talking about. Nobody said anything about gay men, you're just inserting them in and hand-wringing over something I never said. Gay people are living in your head rent free.

The missing data is on trans women offenders, but I've given some data on that above.
You can't be so dumb that you honestly think date rape stats apply to stranger assault, can you? @_@

My data also applies to stranger assault: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/..._women.pdf

That was obviously (I guess not for you) a reply to "if the laws state you cannot deny someone on the basis of sex or gender, that could be seen as discrimination."
Looking like a fop or tomboy is irrelevant. Or it would be if transgenders hadn't muddied the water. Again, more harm done by transgenders.

Ah, well I already kinda acknowledged that with the "Plus, discrimination laws may or may not apply". 

If only you could read. 9_9
In crayon: there could be no author selection-bias, but still be self-selection bias and non-representative samples.
Sample size alone does not ensure a representative sample.
From your link"

This advice is NOT for:
    Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.

Duh.

They have the methodology listed for both studies I quoted. One did it online via Amazon Turks, the other went on forums, universities and Tinder itself:

"Men (n = 67) and women (n = 149) aged 18–56 years (Mage = 22.87, SD = 7.09) participated in an online survey advertised in online participation forums, the researchers’ social networks, and to first year psychology students in exchange for course credit. All participants were current or former Tinder users and the majority of the participants were from the United Kingdom (n = 164) or USA and Canada (n = 32)."

Feels fairly representative to me (though probably moreso for the UK population than USA or Canada).

And that might not be the best source I picked out, but it does actually apply for some studies. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...0-sec-0008

"The minimum sample size per group must be calculated based on the statistical test used. However, in some fields of study, such as pharmacology or biological research, a minimum of five per group is recommended and considered acceptable by academic journals in the field. Recommendations for minimum sample sizes for clinical studies suggest having at least 100 in each group. However, recent advances in sample size calculation have challenged these recommendations and have investigated the potential of simulation‐based methods." 

And that's what I've been taught, generally. Maybe things have changed, but that's what I know. 

Not my problem if you're completely ignorant about dating apps also having online websites.
Again, the profiles are the same on both. It wouldn't make sense for a company to segregate it's users by platform, as that would artificially limit the number of potential matches users could see.

No, I'm saying why did you differentiate, because if you're using (ex.) Tinder on the website, it would still count as using the app, for all intents and purposes? Especially if it's the same experiences.

I'm expecting you to beg off, regardless of what I say. You're obviously intellectually dishonest, no matter how many times I've corrected you.
I speak like I listen to women, in my personal life and otherwise. Can't help it if you're so ignorant of any women who disagree with you. Seems to indicate narcissism.
Objective reality clearly shows that what many women say, and even think, they want does not align with what they actually go for.

While there is no universal study proving "women don't know what they want," various sources suggest that women's stated desires may differ from their actual preferences, and that factors like societal expectations, fear of conflict, and limited self-awareness can influence what women say they want versus what they truly desire in a partner or relationship.
- Google AI

That you don't know this might be evidence that you're not lesbian or bisexual. That would make you, if a biological women, frustrated with foppish leftist men.
Did I miss where you told me why women favor Democrats? @_@

I'm not "intellectually dishonest", you just don't like the sources provided. Plus, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith, I disagree heavily with your claims, so it'd make sense to cut things off, right? Unless you wanna keep going at it lol

So you listen to women, yet think they don't know what they want... what an oxymoron.

Women generally know what they want when it comes to basic stuff, like rights or physical needs, but beyond that it varies because women are not a monolith. Even your Google AI overview says there's no universal study proving "women don't know what they want", and that's because women are individuals and every person has a different need.

[Syne]

I did. Your own linked sources place blame on the schools: 

"Wisconsin parents questioned the Sun Prairie School District about reports a transgender senior student exposed male genitalia while showering next to 14-year-old girls. The district admitted school policies were not followed."

Considering the school admitted fault and said that they didn't inform either party of what was going on, I think the school has more credence here. The unclear policies led to this confusion.

That's not the school admitting fault... if only you read beyond confirming your bias.
That's the school saying the transgender did not follow school policies.

At the same time, the district admitted something wrong happened: "The simple truth is that this incident should not have happened. But it did, and the District addressed it long before the recent publicity."
...
"Sun Prairie Area School District does not condone any student of one sex being present in a state of undress in the presence of students of another sex. What happened in this incident was not in line with our District’s practices."

IOW, what the transgender did was "not in line" with existing school district policy.
A student's parent questioning the clarity of the policy doesn't, itself, mean the policy was unclear.

So if it's "only other", as in not relevant to the original topic (as it was whether indecent exposure applies to the restrooms) why include it? It's obviously not the other we're talking about. Remember, you said that penal code 647 was primarily about prostitution:

That California penal code is primarily about engaging in or soliciting for prostitution.
California Penal Code 288(a) states that it is illegal for a person to engage in any lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. “Lewd and lascivious” acts refer to any actions that are indecent or of a sexual nature with an individual under the age of 14. This includes “arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires” of the person or child. We will often see these charges commonly referred to as child molestation in the state of California. - https://www.gddlaw.com/2021/04/21/califo...duct-288a/

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." Code 647 clearly specifies "a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view." These are all different places. Can you guess which is a restroom and which are not?
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."
California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts."

Which, while 288 might also reference lewd and lascivious acts in reference to a minor, they're not using it to the exclusion of all other acts (which is why 647a also mentions lewd acts) and why people can still be charged even if not involving a minor. It just feels like a digression?

Not my problem if your reading comprehension cannot keep up with exhaustively defining terms to show that simple same-sex exposure, in a same-sex space, is not, in itself, illegal.
I've not only shown that all of your examples that led to arrests included more than simple same-sex exposure in a same-sex space, I've also shown that the all the laws pertaining to lewd or lascivious behavior do not specify simple same-sex exposure.

If simple same-sex exposure were illegal and, as you've pointed out, it does make people uncomfortable, why aren't more people reporting it? Because it's an expected possibility in a same-sex space. So all your citations about discomfort with same-sex nudity have only served to prove my point.

All of the indecent exposure laws we've looked at so far have it so that it has to be done with intent to alarm, offend, or be lewd to the other party. Otherwise it's not considered indecent. That being said, once intent is proven it applies regardless of sex, because it's indecent. 

And you can't prove intent from simple same-sex exposure in a restroom or locker room.
This says nothing about opposite-sex exposure.

Those aren't the same cases.

2017 case (my case): A man was using a men's bathroom and exposing himself. "UCLA issued a warning for students about a man who exposed himself inside a men's restroom on campus." Happened July 11, 2017. 

2018 case: A man was talking to women outside of his car and masturbating to them. "In each incident, a man had been seen masturbating in his car after asking to speak to a woman who was walking in the area. The incidents happened off campus, but all the women targeted were UCLA students, Kilgore said." Happened Nov 1, 2018. 

Are you just grabbing stuff off of the Google AI without even reading it? lmao

No, making a point. Since your example didn't lead to any arrest, I found similar UCLA examples that did. In each case, it was more that simple same-sex exposure in a same-sex space.
But if you can find info on an arrest and charges brought against the man in your example, go ahead. Otherwise, you're making an irrelevant argument, as no specific law was brought into play.

Since this is the internet I actually should be dodgier about any and all personal details. After all, safety is important.

Could say the same about you, though (regarding being a troll). 

I'm not the one here being dodgy and repeatedly intellectually dishonest.
If you want to keep personal details private, don't try to use your supposed identity as authoritative or somehow excluding other opinions.

But if it wasn't to insinuate that indecent conduct would only apply there, then why point it out?

Exhaustive definition of terms... or just basic English reading comprehension. 9_9

Yes, but those are usually single false allegations at a target, like one or two women accusing a man. You don't get clusters of women all falsely accusing the same man of creepy behavior. 

"Again, the rich and famous are prime targets."

Similar logic applies.

"Overall, analysis of naturally occurring victim-survivor comments surrounding reasons for not reporting their sexual victimisation demonstrated that deciding not to report an assault remains a multifaceted decision (Johnson, Citation2017; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., Citation2011). Nevertheless, the three dominant main themes identified, lack of faith in the CJS, self-blame and knowing the perpetrator, provide contemporary explanation and support surrounding why many women continue to not report a sexual assault to the authorities. Indeed, the aforementioned reasons for non-reporting of sexual assault appear to reflect commonly believed rape myths. Rape myths can be described as inter-correlated beliefs and stereotypical ideas used to justify and excuse rape (Burt, Citation1980). Common myths which bias judgements about sexual assault include victim-blaming, doubting the truth of allegations, excusing the accused behaviour and pre-conceptions of ‘real’ rape (Bohner et al., Citation2009). Internalising these stereotypes or being aware that other people including police believe them (Lorenz et al., Citation2019), may impact a woman’s decision to report a sexual assault."

It is debatable if it's true consent in some unhealthy power dynamics though. It's why dating certain people (like doctors or psychologists) is considered unethical and can lead to suspensions or legal action, and why 18 year olds dating 30 year olds is often frowned upon. Yes, they have consented, but it leaves questions open as to how much a power dynamic plays in their relationship, and if someone in these situations later comes out and says they were coerced, everyone understands.

Either women are adults, and equal to men, or they are not, and we should, to some extent, continue to treat them as children... assuming they don't understand what they are consenting to, assuming they are easily manipulated, etc..
Personally, I think it's hypocritical to demand women are equal while infantilizing them.
If not understood in the past, it should now be clear that reporting a sexual assault when it happens has the best chance of a conviction. But that assumes a criminal conviction is the goal, instead of a civil suit payday. If anything, the lack of convictions, that contribute to the lack of faith in the CJS, is a self-fulfilling result of the lack of reporting.

I'm talking about the whole consent thing, from it's start to now. It doesn't appear relevant nor helpful to the thread.

Again, your seeming ignorance of consent and you repeatedly dodging very simple questions: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17333-...l#pid74935

But they didn't ask the slaves, who would have vehemently disagreed. Meanwhile, transwomen say the women's bathroom would be best for them, and cis women are validating that statement. And the women are the ones who have a say in this. 

Again, you're acting like you speak for all women.

But if the minority and a substantial part of the majority (cis women) agree, I think that counts for something. After all, slaves were a minority, but when they wanted to be freed and there was a substantial part of the majority (white men) that agreed, that led to the slaves' eventual emancipation.

What you think that counts for has nothing to do with how laws are made. The objective ethical violation of enslaving other humans, and the impetus to remedy that, has nothing to do with men wanting to use women's spaces. The latter can actually be seen as a patriarchal intrusion into women's domains, and as I've shown, to the harm of women.

Yet, the stats agree that most women don't care, or don't see it as an issue. If I'm biologically a woman, I at least have some say since it'll affect me and I know about the issue, and if the stats support that more women than not feel transwomen can use the women's restroom, I can then say I speak for most women. Whereas you really don't have a horse in this race, and don't have the stats to support you. Never said anything about my lived experiences (although it does help), it's mostly the stats.

You can only speak for "most women" by completely ignoring a, still, large percentage of women. Leftist "live experience," of being a particular minority, is exactly how you are trying to discount my opinion (e.g. "don't have a horse in this race"). Even though I've repeatedly told you that I'm responding to the actual concerns of women and from my own natural inclination to protect women. You seem to think it's wrong to protect women who literally say that want to be protected, but I guess that's a result of your leftist bubble.

Do you think it's normal to bring up graphic discussion of another man's genitalia during a discussion into whether transwomen should use the bathroom? 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...016-9181-6

"Consistent with Westbrook and Schilt, we also observe a strong fixation on penises (regardless of gender, transgender status, or stance on bathroom usage), e.g.:

‘Wait until 12-year-old Susie comes face-to-face with Mr. Happy.’; ‘We are talking about big penises in the ladies’ room; children and those with the correct chromosomes should come first!’; ‘If a penis is allowed to wander freely around a women’s bathroom, do you really think that penis wants to stay tucked away, regardless of who it’s attached to?’; ‘The right thing to do is let trannys with penises share girl’s bathrooms? BS!’; ‘Don’t let the penis or beard fool you; I’m 100% woman in my brain’; ‘I couldn’t care less if the woman next to me has a penis or not’; ‘Is it okay for him to flip out his penis in the girl’s bathroom in front of your daughter?’; ‘Some women have a penis, some men have a vagina’; ‘If you have a penis, then it’s fine for a woman to want you out’; ‘It is not a transgender’s right to put their penis in front of women’; ‘Maybe we should put penis and vagina on the bathroom doors, so HE will not be confused.’

"
Like regardless of opinions on the topic I think this is a weird thing to think and post online in discussions of the topic. I think it's perverted, some might say mentally ill, but if a person can't have a rational discussion on the topic without veering off into graphic discussions of penises or sexualities, there might be something wrong.

Straw man, as I've only brought up genitalia in specific cases of exposure... arguments you've freely and repeatedly engaged with.
Nowhere have I argued that genitalia alone is any determining factor.
Here, you're making this straw man into an ad hom to boot... compounding fallacies.

Well, you were the first to discount factual evidence as "anecdotes".

You only seemed to discount it in a tit-for-tat.
You didn't seem to understand that anecdotes are not good, representative evidence... as you repeatedly presented it as such.
I didn't represent any anecdotes as representative.

First study, only a third of incarcerated gender diverse are even sexually offending (99 were in prison, 33 were sexual offenders), and most of the transwomen offenders are committing as their birth sex, not as women. They're not using the women's bathrooms to offend, nor is being a transwoman their excuse:
"Almost two-thirds (64%) of these offenders committed a current sexual offence while 88% were convicted for prior sex offences. Almost all (94%) had committed their offences while living as their biological sex."

If they were born transgender (born in the wrong body), it doesn't matter if the offenses occurred before or after transition.
If they weren't born transgender then there's social/environmental causes for the disorder. Again, try telling a transgender that.

You're lying about the first study. As usual, what you paraphrase (instead of quote) never accurately reflects what you purport to be citing.
This is the only mention for your "only a third" claim:

One-third (33%) of the offences committed had multiple
victims.

Hell, even the part you quote debunks your mischaracterization.

The second study, they're not really showing the evidence for their claims? It either all links back to them, or it's in an excel spreadsheet where it's impossible to verify where they got the numbers from. And they're claiming they show a "male-type pattern of criminality" by comparing it to the current prison population, when women are known to also sexually offend but get away with it more than men because of gender bias: 

"For a variety of societal reasons, female sexual abuse is likely to remain unnoticed. Some researchers have found that the incidence of sexual contact with boys by women is much more prevalent than is contended in the clinical literature (Condy, Templer Brown & Veaco, 1987).

Many researchers consider Finkelhor and Russell's (1984) estimates of the prevalence of female sex offending to be the most accurate to date. Their tentative evaluation is that females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males, either acting alone or with a partner. Graham (unpublished) validates Finkelhor and Russell's (1984) estimates by indicating that 24.62% of male sex offenders in his study had a history of sexual abuse by a female. Finkelhor and Russell (1984) also estimated that approximately 6% of sexual abuse against females and 14% of sexual abuse against males is thought to be perpetrated by females acting alone."

Men are more likely to get caught, but the rates of offending are likely as high for women. Transwomen aren't conclusively displaying "male type patterns of criminality".

The MOJ Offender Management Statistics cited links to a PDF. 9_9
Simple math. If "females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males," can you tell who accounts for 87% of female abuse and 76% of male abuse?
That literally means that men do commit the vast majority of sexual assaults. Hence "male type patterns of criminality."

And if you're comparing both offending men and transwomen's likelihood of hurting someone, trans people in the UK are about 0.5% of the population, with trans women being 0.10% of that. Men in the UK are 49.25% of the population, so if we extrapolate the amount of male sexual offenders in prison (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison, or 16.79%) to the wider male population, around 8% of men in the population are possible offenders. Using the 2019 stats listed on FairPlay's website for trans women (81 offenders out of 163) and extrapolating it to the wider transwomen community, only about 5% are offending at any given time. 

Your math skills are as horrid as your reading skills.
UK male population is 29,200,000. If 13,234 are sexual offenders, that's 0.05% of the entire male population.
UK trans woman population is 48,000. If 81 are sexual offenders, that 0.17% of the entire trans woman population.

How you're supposedly "extrapolating it" is anyone's guess. 9_9

But as the first paper said, most don't do it as a woman, but as their birth sex. If 94% of sex offenders are offending as men, and 6% as women, then it would be like 0.3% of the trans woman population doing it as women (6% of 0.005 transwomen population). It's not a huge risk, and most if not all of the offenders are either doing it as men, or aren't committing crimes in a bathroom (as neither paper actually said whether they're entering women's spaces to offend.) 

Again, are they "born in the wrong body" or not. @_@

If women are just getting into the Olympics, what prior records would they have? What could someone reference to see how well a woman can do? Women were banned from the events until recently in history, what are they referencing if not prior records?

You seem to be conflating things again. Banning all women from participation in sports in general (or particular sports) has nothing to do with unfair competitive advantage. It can only be unfair advantage when it's compared to the performance of women. Unless I've missed it, you haven't shown any examples of women being banned for unfair competitive advantage without comparing the performance of other women.

Maybe you go lost in the weeds.

The researcher who worked on that, Dhejne, has said people are misrepresenting her findings:

"Dhejne: The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse."

As the pdf you linked also acknowledged, and they agree that conclusions about rape specifically cannot be drawn from the study:

Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.

Violent crime in the study could be anything: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

"Any criminal conviction during follow-up was counted; specifically, violent crime was defined as homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offense." It could be that transwomen are more likely to go to robbery after an expensive surgery. It could be that transwomen are more likely to try and kill people who may threaten them for being trans. We don't know what exactly they were in for, and we can't assume it's for sexual offenses. 

Crime also went to a male pattern in the FtMs, suggesting that if it is true, it's not innate to transwomen, and can be unlearned.

"By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime." 

According to the co-author of the study, trans women aren't prone to a "male pattern of criminality", but if they were it seems the best way to prevent it would be to offer more mental health care and be more accepting of trans identities, as people do today.

The PDF I cited already covered that in the Has it been discredited? section.

The ‘debunking’ of this study appears to be based solely on brief statements made by the lead
author in an interview some years later about how the data had been interpreted.

Doesn't change the fact that they compared a male pattern of criminality in general.

MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female
comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had
no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.

And straight from the actual study:

Results

The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.
Conclusions

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0016885

This means that MtF are as likely to offend as men, only now they have ready access to women's spaces. FtM having higher criminality just shows that it's even more detrimental for women to transition. There's zero reason to think all other offending rates between trans women and men match but somehow sexual assault wouldn't.

First two don't show that and the third is disproven, by the very researchers who made the study. 

No, one author, out of six, making claims doesn't disprove a whole study. Not "researchers" plural.
And comparing the numbers, the second study does bear out the similarity in trans woman versus man criminality.

You sure show zero concern for the victims, past, future, and including children.
And you don't know how much it happens, as:

In the U.S., police departments have varying, and often conflicting, policies on recording the gender identity of offenders. While the FBI collects information on gender identity for hate crime statistics, there is no federal standard for recording gender identity in routine police reports.
- Google AI

Then why did you feel so sure that studies prove that transwomen are a danger? 

Because the ones I've cited do.
Even anecdotally, seeing how many trans women still behave in ways similar to men, like making physical threats a women could never hope to achieve.
if you're a woman, maybe you've never noticed how many trans women are a parody of women.

Please learn to read. Getting attention doesn't mean that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."

If you're being noticed for being trans, you're not fitting in. You're sticking out. That's what that means. 

Still not reading so well, huh?

https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-2-e...-offending - this one only cites "a sense of powerlessness and establish their ideal image of masculinity" and "hostile masculinity," and notably from "feminist theorists." Not actual, existing masculinity. This "sense of powerlessness" would actually be exacerbated in trans women.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...uaintances - this one specifies "a culture of “hypermasculinity”" and does not support this claim, either in the excerpt of this study (behind paywall) nor the full study cited by it.
I really wish people knew how to read studies, beyond just the abstract.

What is "actual, existing masculinity"? And how is this sense exacerbated in transwomen, when trans women are trying to escape masculinity?

That isn't the full study at all. That's a completely different paper with no relation to the one I linked. Mine was published in 2007, yours 2020. I linked the abstract to show that even with strangers, the motivations are largely the same, confirmed by other studies. 

Feeling the need to "establish their ideal image of masculinity" means such masculinity doesn't exist. Else why try to "establish" it? Any lack of masculinity would obviously be exacerbated after transitioning. But being feminist theory is enough to discount this citation.
If your citation is behind a paywall, I can't accept it sight unseen. 

Here's a different source on stranger assault, a pdf: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/..._women.pdf

"Studies of incarcerated rapists indicate that younger men generally commit sexual assaults against strangers.29 Most researchers believe that rapists have generally negative or adversarial attitudes toward women. Although they may have had difficulty sustaining adult relationships, the offenders studied usually had access to consensual sexual partners.30 Offenders who participated in research on sexual assault often exhibited a sense of sexual entitlement, need for power and control, hostility and anger, and acceptance of interpersonal violence of all kinds.31 Studies of incarcerated rapists have also found that a large proportion had at least one previous conviction, although it was generally not for a sex offense and tended to be for a violent crime, burglary, or theft.32 Among those studied, most rapists were not exclusively sex offenders. However, those who were convicted of a sex offense were far more likely than other offenders to commit a subsequent sex offense."

They don't like women and feel entitled to them, and these acts are often done by hypermasculine men who feel violence is acceptable towards women. 

I can't find the source studies cited: 31. Rozee and Koss (2001); Abbey et al. (2007).
Unless you can, this is not an acceptable source.

Non-academic "conservative sources" are not compiling for academic purposes, with the necessary controls. Using these are an exhaustive list, upon which to base crime statistics, is not scientifically sound. Since many jurisdictions do not record gender identity, many likely go unnoticed as just run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases. Again, not a representative sample.
For the third time now. "But fair enough. UN advisor." Personally, I don't care how many women have lost medals to transgenders. I only care that they are losing to transgenders at all. Any disenfranchisement is still disenfranchisement.

True, but as they explained there wasn't much to go off of elsewhere. 

The amount does matter, because it's reasonable for some trans women to do better than cis women, just as it would be reasonable for some cis women to do better than trans women. If transwomen are unequivocally doing better than cis women, then it might be unfair. If it's a more mixed result, or if trans women aren't naturally better than cis women, then it doesn't matter if they win some if they don't have an unfair advantage. 

An unfair advantage is still unfair.

No, they couldn't, because it's not in the interest of the US to put our own troops in harm's way. We're talking about troops on the ground here. Not weapons and funding.
Quit trying to move the goalpost. The US has a formal security treaty with Japan. We have no such formal treaty with Israel.

I'm saying if this was really about women's safety, they would pull out all the stops to protect them, wouldn't they? The fact that they're not, and they're fighting despite you saying this:

No, objective measures devalue women's contribution in combat. Israel requires all citizens to serve in the military because they have such a small population and are constantly under attack. Not really a choice if your very survival relies on having bodies, any bodies, to throw at the threats.
Woman do not have the stamina, pack weight capacity, strength, etc. that men do. Unless the US comes under attack by equally advanced and numerically superior forces, there's zero justification for putting women, in general, in harm's way.

Means that there is something gained these days by having women fight in combat. Maybe the women are doing well enough to support their inclusion, or Israel doesn't care about its female solders, because if it was a big issue they could ask allies for aid. Maybe not the US, but it has many allies who were eager to help at the beginning of the war. Why not take advantage of that, if you care about your female soldiers?

Not "these days."

Women were first allowed into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) at its establishment in 1948. - Google AI

Again, no allies are willing to send in troops to fight on the front lines.

LOL! Ukraine does need troops, right now.

“A troop contingent from one country or another could be present in Ukraine for as long as it isn’t part of Nato. But for that we need to have a clear understanding of when Ukraine becomes an EU member and when a Nato member,” Zelenskyy said.
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2...-zelenskyy

Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership, which would commit EU & US troops, but that will not happen, as that would risk world war. Even having NATO troops in Ukraine, without NATO membership, could risk Putin taking it as a NATO attack and retaliating against EU & US targets.

See, so some nations are trying to take advantage of their alliances and get more troops. Why wouldn't Israel try something similar?

The point, you seem to have completely missed, is that they are not getting troops. Zelenskyy even pissed off Biden, by asking for more aid after already getting a lot. Israel knows the reality where Zelenskyy obviously does not.

Until you have any more solid data than what I've provided, it will have to suffice.
Since you don't have that data, you cannot credibly claim that you know the percentage. So quit making such unsupported claims.

It still ultimately is a small amount, and most did their crimes before transitioning. And research shows that that can be mitigated by being more accepting. 

Again, similar, if not higher, rate, and are they "born in the wrong body" or not? @_@

64% of all women and 85% of Democrats support "abortion should be legal in all or most cases." That's literally abortion on demand.

"Abortion on demand" refers to the concept that a pregnant individual should have the right to obtain an abortion at their request, rather than needing to fulfill specific legal or personal conditions. - Google AI
No, current mainstream Democratic policy generally opposes new work requirements for welfare and seeks to weaken existing ones, viewing these programs as essential protections against inequality and advocating for more comprehensive benefits rather than stricter mandates. - Google AI

No restrictions on welfare means supporting women no matter how many baby daddies they amass.

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.
“To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree,” says the study’s author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “It’s pervasive.”
- https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...a1c9462927
In 2010, 41 percent of U.S. births were to unmarried parents. As a result, the share of U.S. children whose family lives are shaped by multi-partner fertility is substantial. Carlson also reported the findings of a variety of other studies indicating that as many as one in five children have a half-sibling, and as many as one in three mothers on welfare have a child with more than one partner.
- https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-parent...%20partner.

"Abortion on demand" sounded like abortion anytime, anywhere, no matter how developed the baby is, so I wanted to have an idea of what you were talking about. If it's just being able to access abortion fairly without legal stipulations or weird religious hampering, that doesn't sound too problematic.

Seems like the multiple dads welfare thing is at least partially linked to divorce and marriage though? 

"The new data, pulled from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, shows that this kind of family structure is found at all levels of income and education. And it’s frequently tied to divorce and remarriage, not just to single motherhood, Dorius says. Forty-three percent of the women with kids with multiple dads were married when their first babies were born." -from the NBC link.

It doesn't seem like they're just running around having kids they can't afford - they are settling down, having families and then somewhere in the marriage things go wrong and they need to find a new partner. I don't see anything too wrong with that. 

The rest probably need education to prevent such things happening in the future (like if they're having multiple kids without thinking about the risks), but in the meantime their kids do need to be supported, and I don't see anything wrong with supporting a family who does need the money. 

Doesn't matter how it sounds to you, what I said about abortion is true.
Doesn't matter how women with multiple baby daddies get on welfare, when they do.
Both are primarily women's issues... supported by the Democrat Party.

I've humored this little red herring of yours long enough. Remember, you brought this up when the actual topic of discussion was illegal indecent exposure.
I've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the laws you try to cite.

Do you? As far as I know, neither of us are lawyers, and the sources I'm citing from are either the official ones, or ones transcribed by lawyers. You seem to be trying to find some sort of loophole in them to account for what you say. 

You've repeatedly proven that your reading comprehension is suspect, at nest. 9_9
Just because you can't understand that simple same-sex exposure in same-sex spaces is not illegal, even when you cite people not liking it, is on you. Being intellectually dishonest and claiming arrests for other crimes somehow make simple same-sex/same-sex space exposure a crime is just ignorant. Remember, you're the one who made a big deal out of people not liking same-sex/same-sex space nudity... but without them having any criminal recourse to stop it.

Yes, you found one that reported she said to stop. If true, that doctor violated her consent and should be sued.
But again, only one anecdote, where I've explained why men are not treated like this. If more women were assertive, the pattern of treatment would likely change.

It's one anecdote, but that happens often:

"Nearly one in five women say that a provider didn’t believe they were telling the truth, and one in seven (13%) say their provider suggested they were personally to blame for a health problem they were experiencing. One in 10 women say their provider has refused to prescribe them pain medication they thought they needed."

Like, if the person doesn't believe you there's not much more assertiveness is going to do for you. If up to 100% of women report pain during these procedures, and some are even struggling to stand and function after the procedure, they should stop. It's the Hippocratic oath - do no harm. 

Again, for something like the fourth or fifth time, assertiveness mean you are either listened to or the procedure does not happen. Obviously that is not happening with most women. There isn't much assertiveness if you protest but then always give in. I agree, doctors should do better. But, like it or not, most people treat you how you teach them to treat you. If women typically protest but then give in, it teaches that the protest is weak.

So, assuming treatment could be fair both ways and not just more pain for women, most women wouldn't mind specific tests testing their mass or density. Some might even welcome it if it leads to better care on the female biology side of things.

Again, fertility risk and HIPAA law.

Please learn to read... like the entire context (e.g. "in terms of competitive advantage").

Yeah, I'm saying even there it's not always an advantage. There are different intersex conditions that are being caught in the Olympics but not all would give an athlete an advantage on the field: "Women with severe AIS are resistant to androgens such as testosterone. Thus, it cannot confer any athletic “advantage”" They really cannot be equated to trans people. 

Again, if trans weren't in women's sports, we would have never needed to start strict testosterone tests. Again, trans harming women.

No, 65 is after menopause. Hence irrelevant.
Requiring pregnancy test results would violate their HIPAA rights.

No. You often have to get a pregnancy test before any important medical procedures if you're a woman. In fact, it seems underused - doctors recommend more women get pregnancy tests before doing anything at the hospital:

"It is crucial to assess pregnancy risk when caring for reproductive-aged women and prescribing potentially teratogenic medications. This is especially important for women seeking care in the emergency department (ED), who are at high risk for unintended pregnancies, and may be unaware of their pregnancy status. Given that sexual histories are not always reliable and may be time-consuming in a busy ED, one of the most reliable and efficient ways to evaluate for pregnancy is with pregnancy testing."

Also HIPPA prevents medical professionals from leaking your personal info - it doesn't prevent them from giving you pregnancy tests. 

HIPAA prevents sports leagues from knowing the results of a pregnancy test, completely defeating the purpose. If they cannot know the results, they cannot know if they can safely administer radiation. You also run afoul equal protection law (like Title IX), by requiring women to subject themselves to things not required for men.

Again, you don't accommodate disorders, and that's literally what gender dysphoria is.

I've just shown you that's not true. If you're arguing gender dysphoria is a mental disorder (or a mental illness, as they're synonymous), then it must receive accommodations, like other mental disorders:

"The words “psychiatric disability” and “mental illness” are often used interchangeably. The term mental illness is typically used in a medical context to refer to a wide range of conditions related to emotional and mental health. The term psychiatric disability is typically used in a legal or policy context to refer to impairments covered under the ADA."

"Examples of psychiatric diagnoses include anxiety disorder, depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder and schizophrenia."

"Rights under the ADA. Applicants and employees with psychiatric disabilities have two main rights under the ADA. First, they have a right to privacy. Except when asking for an accommodation, they can choose whether to tell the employer about their disability. Second, they have a right to a job accommodation unless this causes undue hardship for the employer."

All mental disorders, illnesses and disabilities can receive accommodations. If gender dysphoria is causing "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," as the APA diagnostic criteria says, it could reasonably apply. You don't get to pick and choose what disorders receive accommodations and treatment. 

See below.

No, treatment is treating the objective delusion that a person is a gender other than their biological sex. Placating delusion is called enabling, which is the opposite of treatment.
Only the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender dysphoria falls under the ADA, so this is not settled law.

Gender dysphoria is not a delusion, as people with gender dysphoria acknowledge they're not physically the sex they identify as. That's the reason why they're transitioning - to bring their body into some sense of alignment with what they feel. Delusions are false beliefs which are held contrary to factual evidence and are easily disproven; unless anyone can conclusively prove a trans person doesn't identify as the gender they feel they are it is not a delusion. 

Even then, if it were a delusion doctors don't respond to delusions by telling the person they're wrong - they allow the delusional person to speak about the delusion and get reassurance, support, and care. You don't keep on telling them they're wrong, because it wouldn't make a difference if they're actually delusional, and could exacerbate the condition:

• "Do not reason, argue, or challenge the delusion. Attempting to disprove the delusion is not helpful and will create mistrust.
  
• Assure the person that they are safe and no harm will come.
  
• Always use openness and honesty.
  
• Encourage the person to verbalize feelings of anxiety, fear, and insecurity – offer concern and protection to prevent injury to themselves or others.
  
• Convey acceptance of the need for the false belief.
  
• Focus on building a trusting relationship with the person rather than the need to control their symptoms – remain calm.
  

If you or anybody else actually believed it was a delusion, you wouldn't be reacting like this to trans people, but showing compassion or concern. And if being trans were a delusion, trans people would not need surgery or support to be the gender they identified as - they'd just say they were as if it were a fact, the same way schizophrenics say the government is after them or that they have medical implants like it's a fact.

And if it doesn't fall under the ADA, it would be considered an endocrine/medical disorder that still requires treatment, so while not a disorder in the truest sense, it's still something that would require some sort of care: "The ultimate goal would be to categorize TGNC treatment under an endocrine/medical diagnosis."

The false belief is that their identity, brain, etc. are not that of their objective physical body.. the only "factual evidence." Objective facts are how we judge delusion. Feelings are not facts.
Doctors don't tell the delusional that they are correct. Notice "Convey acceptance of the need" not accept the false belief itself.
I don't believe in socially enabling or coddling any delusions, but I'm also not a doctor attempting to treat the disorder. The fact that they insist on harming their own healthy body is just evidence that it is a delusion. Self-harm is not mentally stable.

If it were a "endocrine/medical disorder" it wouldn't be a mental disorder. You don't get to reclassify things just to get your way. 

Again, different weight class. 9_9

My bad, I corrected lower down.

Again, in terms of fair competition, intersex are equivalent to transgender. Both disadvantage and disenfranchise actual women.
Which mixed-sex sports did they count? U14 Irish dance is divided into men's, women's, boy's, and girl's classes. And is the "Ladies Champion of Champions national pool tournament" or "US Women’s Snooker Open" mixed-sex?
Even leaving those out, the number of medals lost to trans/intersex is still very high.
Yes, you can count every following athlete as displaced. If the tranny didn't take second, the women who placed third would have... meaning she was robbed of a second place medal and the next woman up robbed of the third place medal. You can absolutely predict that the next best would place. There is no other option.

No, because if you're trying to count typical biological males with advantages, you would not bring in someone with a disorder of sex development. Their body is physiologically different, may not function exactly like a biological males (and doesn't, considering the person didn't develop as one) so they shouldn't be considered.

Again, if it weren't for trans in women's sports, intersex traits that didn't confer advantage wouldn't likely be caught. So not only are trans harming women, they are also harming the intersex.

Dancing and snooker can be done with men and women, in mixed groups (and with dancing, by oneself). While those tournaments may not have been, if you're trying to show the harms of transwomen entering women's sports, including physical harm, you should exclude sports where mixed groups play without issue. 

"Can be" is not a rebuttal. Losing titles, medals, and opportunities is still harm.

And you can't, because it's not guaranteed how an athlete will do with or without the presence of a trans woman. If transwoman A displaces cis woman A and cis woman B and ciswoman C take home silver and bronze, that doesn't mean they would have won if the transwoman weren't there. If cis woman A took the place of transwoman A, ciswoman B and ciswoman C may have still taken home silver and bronze. You can't guarantee how the rest of the runners would have done (as we know racers can have varying performances even against the same competitors) and it's dishonest to try.

Even if different women would win the medals, it would still be women. Doesn't matter if it would be the exact same women. Still disenfranchising women for trans to win medals.

Not for the total weight and league you cited. Try again.

Whoops, you're right! Though even in the 185+ weight class she's still doing pretty well with scores like 1553.1lbs and 1539.9lbs. She's not too far off from her best.

While there have been women who've beat his record since 2023, beating the closest by over 400 pounds is obviously a huge discrepancy, worth investigating, and depriving actual women. He still seems to hold the records in British Columbia and Alberta.

No, you're not getting away with equivocating words. I clearly showed that social transition is a step in the transition process.
Again, go try and tell a socially transitioned trans women that he's not a woman yet. See how that works out for you. 9_9

Yes, social gender transition is a form of gender change that involves aligning one's outward expression of gender with their internal gender identity, rather than a change in their gender identity itself. This non-medical process can include changing one's name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyles, and mannerisms to reflect their true gender, but does not involve any physical or hormonal intervention.
- Google AI
Social transitioning is a nonmedical, reversible form of gender transition. For some people, it is the only type they want. For others, social transitioning is the first step toward legal recognition or medical gender affirming care.
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...nsitioning
Many folks also choose to affirm their gender identity through medical means, such as the use of hormones or surgery. Others wish to only socially transition but not medically transition. Both types of gender identity and expression affirmation are valid. Social transition is your own journey and something you can initiate without a provider.
- https://library.nshealth.ca/TransGenderD...%20surgery.

But maybe you are trying to defend people you have no understanding of. @_@

Yeah, but they're not changing their gender. Their gender is what they identify as, the way they see themselves. Transitioning is to bring their physical body in line with how they see themselves, but they're not suddenly a woman because they put on a dress. 

Then offender rates prior to transition still count toward trans women, right? @_@
You can't have it both ways.

Black safe spaces only exist at colleges because they overtly exclude whites. This is discrimination because colleges are places of public accommodation.
Private clubs/groups have zero need to call themselves "safe spaces," as they are already isolated by their own membership guidelines.
IOW, you're conflating entirely different things again.

Colleges are but as I pointed out, the clubs may or may not be. Most clubs don't call themselves a safe space because they're not about a sensitive topic, but in the case of race and other identities some people may need that reassurance that the club isn't going to feature people that may fight them, that may not understand their struggles, etc. Also unlike other clubs there are people who may actually want to harm black people, so reassurance and a safe space is understandable. 

And like I said, equivocating the two is irrelevant.

That's called an appeal to authority, and it's a fallacy.

Nope. Where's the authority figure? Also, I'd hope we'd go for even vaguely scientific sources here, seeing as it's a science forum.

Citing unscientific data in a scientific study doesn't magically make the data scientific... aside from an appeal to the authority of the study itself.
IOW, it's a weak study, with weak data.

Because it is... if you don't live in a Democrat-run shithole, where crime is so prevalent that people become numb and prone to the bystander effect.

There's no correlation between politics and crime rate: "The data and long-term research do not support the claim that Democrat-led cities are inherently more dangerous. Crime rates are influenced by a complex mix of socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural factors — not by a mayor’s political affiliation."

You can see for yourself that this list (sorted by total overall crime rate) is overwhelmingly Democrat-run at the highest crime rates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un...crime_rate
Leftists trying to make excuses ain't gonna cut it.

So you really thought I also meant gay men would protect women? @_@
Are you really that dense? @_@

This is what I'm talking about. Nobody said anything about gay men, you're just inserting them in and hand-wringing over something I never said. Gay people are living in your head rent free.

You claimed I implied "all men" would protect women, gay men are a subset of "all men." That literally means you think I claimed gay men would protect women.
I didn't, because I never meant "all men." That's your straw man.

The missing data is on trans women offenders, but I've given some data on that above.
You can't be so dumb that you honestly think date rape stats apply to stranger assault, can you? @_@

My data also applies to stranger assault: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/..._women.pdf

As mentioned above, the citations can't be verified.

If only you could read. 9_9
In crayon: there could be no author selection-bias, but still be self-selection bias and non-representative samples.
Sample size alone does not ensure a representative sample.
From your link"

This advice is NOT for:
    Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.

Duh.

They have the methodology listed for both studies I quoted. One did it online via Amazon Turks, the other went on forums, universities and Tinder itself:

And those sources ensure a self-selection bias.

Not my problem if you're completely ignorant about dating apps also having online websites.
Again, the profiles are the same on both. It wouldn't make sense for a company to segregate it's users by platform, as that would artificially limit the number of potential matches users could see.

No, I'm saying why did you differentiate, because if you're using (ex.) Tinder on the website, it would still count as using the app, for all intents and purposes? Especially if it's the same experiences.

You're cited study is the one that differentiated the two. Take it up with them.

I'm expecting you to beg off, regardless of what I say. You're obviously intellectually dishonest, no matter how many times I've corrected you.
I speak like I listen to women, in my personal life and otherwise. Can't help it if you're so ignorant of any women who disagree with you. Seems to indicate narcissism.
Objective reality clearly shows that what many women say, and even think, they want does not align with what they actually go for.

While there is no universal study proving "women don't know what they want," various sources suggest that women's stated desires may differ from their actual preferences, and that factors like societal expectations, fear of conflict, and limited self-awareness can influence what women say they want versus what they truly desire in a partner or relationship.
- Google AI

That you don't know this might be evidence that you're not lesbian or bisexual. That would make you, if a biological women, frustrated with foppish leftist men.
Did I miss where you told me why women favor Democrats? @_@

I'm not "intellectually dishonest", you just don't like the sources provided. Plus, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith, I disagree heavily with your claims, so it'd make sense to cut things off, right? Unless you wanna keep going at it lol

So you listen to women, yet think they don't know what they want... what an oxymoron.

Women generally know what they want when it comes to basic stuff, like rights or physical needs, but beyond that it varies because women are not a monolith. Even your Google AI overview says there's no universal study proving "women don't know what they want", and that's because women are individuals and every person has a different need.

No, I've repeatedly proven that you're either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. Doesn't really matter to me which it is, so intellectually dishonest sounds more charitable.
Really? You think women have to know what they want in order to understand their own safety, privacy, and consent? LOL! What a joke.

[Railko]

That's not the school admitting fault... if only you read beyond confirming your bias.
That's the school saying the transgender did not follow school policies.

At the same time, the district admitted something wrong happened: "The simple truth is that this incident should not have happened. But it did, and the District addressed it long before the recent publicity."
...
"Sun Prairie Area School District does not condone any student of one sex being present in a state of undress in the presence of students of another sex. What happened in this incident was not in line with our District’s practices."

IOW, what the transgender did was "not in line" with existing school district policy.
A student's parent questioning the clarity of the policy doesn't, itself, mean the policy was unclear.

Nope, it's the school. The teen was using the girl's facilities without incident up to that point: 

"Then, WILL said the girls spotted a senior student inside the locker room. "It is our understanding this male was 18 years old at the time of the incident. According to the girls, this student was not in the first-hour PE class they were participating in. While the girls were surprised to see him in the locker room, they had a general idea that this student identifies as transgender and has used girls’ bathrooms before. While they were uncomfortable, they proceeded to the shower area without interacting with the student," WILL reported in a letter to the school board."

So it seems somewhere along the way things got muddled and nobody knew what they were doing:

"In an email from the principal to a parent, which was shared with FOX6 News, the principal said the district has guidance on locker rooms. That policy stated a transgender student may be allowed to use the bathroom in line with how they identify, but it will be reviewed on a "case-by-case basis" – including considering the "degree of undress required.""

Not my problem if your reading comprehension cannot keep up with exhaustively defining terms to show that simple same-sex exposure, in a same-sex space, is not, in itself, illegal.
I've not only shown that all of your examples that led to arrests included more than simple same-sex exposure in a same-sex space, I've also shown that the all the laws pertaining to lewd or lascivious behavior do not specify simple same-sex exposure.

If simple same-sex exposure were illegal and, as you've pointed out, it does make people uncomfortable, why aren't more people reporting it? Because it's an expected possibility in a same-sex space. So all your citations about discomfort with same-sex nudity have only served to prove my point.

If you're talking about basic nudity (like assuming nobody else is trying to arouse or sexually titillate someone) then that by itself isn't illegal for the same sex, but it's also not illegal for the opposite sex. Both can be naked around each other as long as they're not trying to arouse, and it's not indecent exposure. In places where there are no bathroom bans it wouldn't be illegal for either sex to be naked (without intent to be lewd or indecent) in a bathroom. It'd be an extremely rare and unlikely situation, but if it happened it wouldn't be illegal. 

And something being illegal doesn't mean that a person will always report it. Plenty of illegal things happen that don't get reported either because people don't know it's a reportable offense, or they're scared to.

And you can't prove intent from simple same-sex exposure in a restroom or locker room.
This says nothing about opposite-sex exposure.

Indeed, proving intent is hard, but it's also not guaranteed in opposite sex exposure. 

No, making a point. Since your example didn't lead to any arrest, I found similar UCLA examples that did. In each case, it was more that simple same-sex exposure in a same-sex space.
But if you can find info on an arrest and charges brought against the man in your example, go ahead. Otherwise, you're making an irrelevant argument, as no specific law was brought into play.

In those other cases, but not in the one I brought up. That specific case I mentioned doesn't follow up. Another similar case however did, and the person was charged with indecent exposure:

"At just before noon, police were sent to SNHU on Pelham Road for a report of a naked man reportedly exposing himself to students. The caller alleged that the man had been in the bathroom for more than two hours and exposed himself to numerous students.
“A witness reported he walked into the restroom when another male, who was in a bathroom stall, asked him for a paper towel,” according to Capt. Joel Dolan of the Salem Police Department. “When the witness looked at the male asking for the paper towel he noticed the male had his pants down by his ankles and he was not wearing a shirt.”

And he was convicted of indecent exposure, for that same case (Feb 15th):

"The defendant, Jonathan Nzali, appeals his conviction, following a jury trial in Superior Court (Delker, J.), on a charge of felony indecent exposure and lewdness. See RSA 645:1, II(d) (2016). He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior similar act. See N.H. R. Ev. 404(b)."

I'm not the one here being dodgy and repeatedly intellectually dishonest.
If you want to keep personal details private, don't try to use your supposed identity as authoritative or somehow excluding other opinions.

I'm not. I'm saying my view but I'm also backing it up with information. As you have been, you can speak and say your own opinions too, I'm not stopping you. 

"Again, the rich and famous are prime targets."

Yes, but if it were only for rich and famous people, you'd be hearing more accusations across the board. Why Weinstein instead of Tom Hanks? Why Cosby instead of Keanu Reeves? There are plenty of rich and famous people, why these rich and famous people specifically? And women don't synchronize to accuse one man of wrongdoing, if separate women all have similar stories it's likely that he's done something. 

Either women are adults, and equal to men, or they are not, and we should, to some extent, continue to treat them as children... assuming they don't understand what they are consenting to, assuming they are easily manipulated, etc..
Personally, I think it's hypocritical to demand women are equal while infantilizing them.
If not understood in the past, it should now be clear that reporting a sexual assault when it happens has the best chance of a conviction. But that assumes a criminal conviction is the goal, instead of a civil suit payday. If anything, the lack of convictions, that contribute to the lack of faith in the CJS, is a self-fulfilling result of the lack of reporting.

This applies to both men and women - both can be manipulated by power dynamics. Plus, while consent may apply you have to admit it's dodgy if say, a 30 or 40+ man goes for a fresh 18 year old, or a 20+ year old therapist falls in love with her 18+ year old client. It's fully consensual, just a bit sketchy. 

I'll agree with the first half of the latter part of your statement, but disagree with the second - there's still a lot of stigma and barriers to reporting that can dissuade some women. 

Again, your seeming ignorance of consent and you repeatedly dodging very simple questions: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17333-...l#pid74935

Because you keep on framing consent as if it's something you wield or do to people. Which doesn't make sense. 

Again, you're acting like you speak for all women.

Not all, but the majority. 

What you think that counts for has nothing to do with how laws are made. The objective ethical violation of enslaving other humans, and the impetus to remedy that, has nothing to do with men wanting to use women's spaces. The latter can actually be seen as a patriarchal intrusion into women's domains, and as I've shown, to the harm of women.

Maybe it could be seen as a patriarchal intrusion to some women, but trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women. 

You can only speak for "most women" by completely ignoring a, still, large percentage of women. Leftist "live experience," of being a particular minority, is exactly how you are trying to discount my opinion (e.g. "don't have a horse in this race"). Even though I've repeatedly told you that I'm responding to the actual concerns of women and from my own natural inclination to protect women. You seem to think it's wrong to protect women who literally say that want to be protected, but I guess that's a result of your leftist bubble.

I'm not going by lived experience, but by the polls and surveys I've seen. I walked into this thread thinking my opinion was a minority (before I found the polls showing otherwise) and that you were a woman responding from personal experiences, but your opinions not reflecting the majority and your personal views appearing to be dismissive of women makes me feel as if I'm speaking for most women. At least the surveys I've seen support that, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

You're responding to the concerns of a smaller percentage of women; concerns which (at least for the bathrooms, sports could go either way) don't have much merit:

"Opponents of gender identity nondiscrimination laws and policies have cited fears of attacks and privacy violations against women and children in restrooms as one of their main reasons for resistance to them, while proponents have asserted that such laws are necessary to protect transgender people and cause no increase in these kinds of crimes. However, no study, to our knowledge, has examined crime report data to assess changes in rates of crime before and after the introduction of GIPANDOs. This is the first study to do so. While this analysis initially chose Massachusetts as a case study because of its unique legal paradigm, it has taken on more direct importance in that state, because over the course of the data collection and analysis, Massachusetts passed a statewide public accommodations law that includes gender identity and that law is now up for repeal on the November 2018 ballot. By using public records and statistical modeling, we found no evidence that privacy and safety in public restrooms change as a result of the passage of GIPANDOs."

Straw man, as I've only brought up genitalia in specific cases of exposure... arguments you've freely and repeatedly engaged with.
Nowhere have I argued that genitalia alone is any determining factor.
Here, you're making this straw man into an ad hom to boot... compounding fallacies.

I wasn't talking about you bringing up genitalia, I'm talking about men approaching this topic in general. If most men cannot engage with the topic without getting weird about it, it does come across as perverted, and as if maybe they're not arguing because they're concerned about the topic, but because they have ulterior motives behind denying transwomen the chance to use their identified gender's bathroom.

You only seemed to discount it in a tit-for-tat.
You didn't seem to understand that anecdotes are not good, representative evidence... as you repeatedly presented it as such.
I didn't represent any anecdotes as representative.

Then you wouldn't have brought up incidences of transwomen acting inappropriate as evidence that they are a danger.

If they were born transgender (born in the wrong body), it doesn't matter if the offenses occurred before or after transition.
If they weren't born transgender then there's social/environmental causes for the disorder. Again, try telling a transgender that.

You're lying about the first study. As usual, what you paraphrase (instead of quote) never accurately reflects what you purport to be citing.
This is the only mention for your "only a third" claim:

One-third (33%) of the offences committed had multiple
victims.

Hell, even the part you quote debunks your mischaracterization.

Not all trans people have the same view on their gender, so some likely are "made" instead of born. It does matter if the offenses occurred before or after transition, as if they're only occurring before transition, then untransitioned transwomen would be a risk. If it's occurring after, then transitioned transwomen would be a risk. It does matter if you're letting them into a women's bathroom. 

And nope. Follow the citation:

"Thirty-three gender diverse offenders had a history of sexual offending. 1"

Where the 1 is:

"1 Ninety-nine gender diverse offenders while in-custody between December 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020." Thirty three of those had a history, meaning one third of the ninety nine, and meaning two thirds didn't have a history. 

The MOJ Offender Management Statistics cited links to a PDF. 9_9
Simple math. If "females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males," can you tell who accounts for 87% of female abuse and 76% of male abuse?
That literally means that men do commit the vast majority of sexual assaults. Hence "male type patterns of criminality."

Not that, FairPlayforWomen's hyperlink, the "81 out of 163 prisoners". It's just an excel spreadsheet. Fairplay says this: 
"Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison)."

If you were to add either of those numbers (13% or 24%, take your pick) to the women's prison population, it's about even with the men. They're just not getting tracked, so the percentages seem much less. 

Your math skills are as horrid as your reading skills.
UK male population is 29,200,000. If 13,234 are sexual offenders, that's 0.05% of the entire male population.
UK trans woman population is 48,000. If 81 are sexual offenders, that 0.17% of the entire trans woman population.

How you're supposedly "extrapolating it" is anyone's guess. 9_9

I'm using percentages, not raw numbers, and using those percentages to estimate how much of the average transwomen population is offending. I'm not directly using the current numbers of imprisoned transwomen because those are people already in prison, whereas most would want to know the likelihood of non-convicted transwomen committing crimes, right? And I'm assuming ratios of (sex) offending to non-offending are the same even among the non-convicted population. 

Again, are they "born in the wrong body" or not. @_@

Them being born in the wrong body or not has nothing to do with how they offend. 

You seem to be conflating things again. Banning all women from participation in sports in general (or particular sports) has nothing to do with unfair competitive advantage. It can only be unfair advantage when it's compared to the performance of women. Unless I've missed it, you haven't shown any examples of women being banned for unfair competitive advantage without comparing the performance of other women.

Maybe you go lost in the weeds.

They couldn't have had any record of women's performance because they were banned (therefore preventing a record) because men didn't think women could do it. 1894: the French baron Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) refounded the Olympic Games during a congress at the Sorbonne as a hymn to virility, a union of “brawn and brains” of which only men were supposed to be capable." Because of this, there were no records: "Early in the 20th century, women's sports were hardly recorded, and occasionally their achievements were discounted in favour of appearance rather than performance." Suspicion is primarily aimed at masculine-looking athletes, not ones that do too well, and this is supported by athletes like Mary Lou Retton not being viewed with suspicion despite winning multiple medals: "Recording perfect 10s on the floor and vault, she pipped her rival to the title by 0.05 points, becoming the first American in history to win an Olympic individual all-round gold. Not satisfied with this historic triumph, she went on to secure silver in the vault, bronze in the uneven bars and the floor, and another silver in the team event. Having won more medals than any other participant at the 1984 Games, she was named Sportswoman of the Year and Amateur Athlete of the Year by the American press." 

On the struggle female athletes face: "These women cannot develop “oversized muscles” (Krane et al., 2004), because exhibiting this feature violates gender norms and contributes to the connection between athleticism and lesbianism (Halbert, 1997). Associating female athletes with lesbianism has been a common theme in the United States and “follows a belief in the myth of the masculinization and mannishness of athletic women”

The PDF I cited already covered that in the Has it been discredited? section.

The ‘debunking’ of this study appears to be based solely on brief statements made by the lead
author in an interview some years later about how the data had been interpreted.

Doesn't change the fact that they compared a male pattern of criminality in general.

MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female
comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had
no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.

And straight from the actual study:

Results

The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.
Conclusions

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0016885

This means that MtF are as likely to offend as men, only now they have ready access to women's spaces. FtM having higher criminality just shows that it's even more detrimental for women to transition. There's zero reason to think all other offending rates between trans women and men match but somehow sexual assault wouldn't.

But they didn't specify what they were doing. As said, violent offending included anything from homicide to harassment, and without that data we can't know for sure. You can't assume what went up and what didn't. 

No, one author, out of six, making claims doesn't disprove a whole study. Not "researchers" plural.
And comparing the numbers, the second study does bear out the similarity in trans woman versus man criminality.

Yeah, researchers was a typo (I hit character limit and had to rework the post). Co-author was what I meant to say. And similarity, but not a proven threat to women, especially not in the bathrooms. 

Because the ones I've cited do.
Even anecdotally, seeing how many trans women still behave in ways similar to men, like making physical threats a women could never hope to achieve.
if you're a woman, maybe you've never noticed how many trans women are a parody of women.

You've never been around women, it seems. Plenty of cis women make threats and can get physically violent. I wouldn't put that solely in the domain of transwomen.

Still not reading so well, huh?

Seems like you're not understanding basic phrases in speech. What do you think "sticking out" means? 

Feeling the need to "establish their ideal image of masculinity" means such masculinity doesn't exist. Else why try to "establish" it? Any lack of masculinity would obviously be exacerbated after transitioning. But being feminist theory is enough to discount this citation.
If your citation is behind a paywall, I can't accept it sight unseen. 

Well yes, that's why those men are causing harm in their attempts to establish their masculinity. Transwomen don't want to be masculine generally though, so they wouldn't be trying to establish their masculinity, they'd be trying to lose it. 

And agreed. I was using the abstract as support, but I gave you another source we both could access. 

Isn't that genetic fallacy? It coming from feminists doesn't make it invalid, especially if it shows support in research. 

I can't find the source studies cited: 31. Rozee and Koss (2001); Abbey et al. (2007).
Unless you can, this is not an acceptable source.

I've found the first one: https://scholar9.com/publication/30061de...2f4633.pdf

and a version of the second one: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/J_Whit...g_2007.pdf

An unfair advantage is still unfair.

Which hasn't been conclusively proven yet. 

The point, you seem to have completely missed, is that they are not getting troops. Zelenskyy even pissed off Biden, by asking for more aid after already getting a lot. Israel knows the reality where Zelenskyy obviously does not.

Because they're not in NATO yet, as your statement suggested Zelenskyy plans to ask if he gets through. Which means that it is a possibility, however slim, for any country to ask for troops and receive them. 

Again, similar, if not higher, rate, and are they "born in the wrong body" or not? @_@

Like I said earlier, depends on the trans person, and being born in the wrong body would not affect the stigma society holds towards them. 

Doesn't matter how it sounds to you, what I said about abortion is true.
Doesn't matter how women with multiple baby daddies get on welfare, when they do.
Both are primarily women's issues... supported by the Democrat Party.

Yes, and since women are the ones taking care and raising these kids (if they have) they'd choose the party that supports them the most. It's not pandering to take care of children. 

You've repeatedly proven that your reading comprehension is suspect, at nest. 9_9
Just because you can't understand that simple same-sex exposure in same-sex spaces is not illegal, even when you cite people not liking it, is on you. Being intellectually dishonest and claiming arrests for other crimes somehow make simple same-sex/same-sex space exposure a crime is just ignorant. Remember, you're the one who made a big deal out of people not liking same-sex/same-sex space nudity... but without them having any criminal recourse to stop it.

It is, as I've proven now. People not reporting it doesn't automatically make it okay, or not potentially criminal depending on the circumstance. 

From that earlier case with the indecent exposure: 

"The defendant’s prior act occurred in the same bathroom approximately two months before the charged act, and the defendant’s counsel acknowledged that the prior act was “identical” to the charged act. The witness to the prior act testified at the motion in limine hearing that he was “shocked” when the defendant exposed his genitals, and at trial testified that he was “surprised,” “taken aback,” and “disturbed” by the defendant’s actions, that there was “emotional manipulation involved,” and that he left the bathroom “[t]o get away from the situation.” He explained that, although he did not initially report the prior event, when he heard about the charged event he came forward because he realized that “if it’s a repeating incident, then there’s got to be more to it. There’s got to be some meaning behind it.”"

Some people may downplay it or not realize they can report it, but when they can they do report it. 

Again, fertility risk and HIPAA law.

Which isn't much, as the scans have been proven to be safe, and HIPPA doesn't prevent you from having medical procedures:

"Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule permit a doctor, laboratory, or other health care provider to share patient health information for treatment purposes by fax, e-mail, or over the phone?
Answer:
Yes. The Privacy Rule allows covered health care providers to share protected health information for treatment purposes without patient authorization, as long as they use reasonable safeguards when doing so. These treatment communications may occur orally or in writing, by phone, fax, e-mail, or otherwise.

For example:

• A laboratory may fax, or communicate over the phone, a patient’s medical test results to a physician.
  
• A physician may mail or fax a copy of a patient’s medical record to a specialist who intends to treat the patient.
  
• A hospital may fax a patient’s health care instructions to a nursing home to which the patient is to be transferred.
  
• A doctor may discuss a patient’s condition over the phone with an emergency room physician who is providing the patient with emergency care.
  
• A doctor may orally discuss a patient’s treatment regimen with a nurse who will be involved in the patient’s care.
  
• A physician may consult with another physician by e-mail about a patient’s condition.
  
• A hospital may share an organ donor’s medical information with another hospital treating the organ recipient."
  

It's completely fine under HIPPA, and in some cases doctors may ask for your consent before doing so. But they can do it without your consent too.

Again, if trans weren't in women's sports, we would have never needed to start strict testosterone tests. Again, trans harming women.

You keep on saying this, but transwomen are never really caught by these tests, it's only intersex and cis women. Transwomen aren't sneaking into the Olympics to play as women, and testosterone tests can't catch transwomen who are already known to be playing on the team. It's only harming cis women.

HIPAA prevents sports leagues from knowing the results of a pregnancy test, completely defeating the purpose. If they cannot know the results, they cannot know if they can safely administer radiation. You also run afoul equal protection law (like Title IX), by requiring women to subject themselves to things not required for men.

Maybe the sports leagues, but a doctor would be performing the scans and reading the pregnancy test, no? The coach doesn't do it, medical professionals do. It wouldn't be anything different than a typical sports check-up. Again, HIPPA doesn't prevent doctors from sharing relevant information nor does it stop a player from reporting to their coach and just saying something like "doctor approved me to play". It doesn't have to be graphic detail, and women already have to be subject to different tests than men due to biology.

The false belief is that their identity, brain, etc. are not that of their objective physical body.. the only "factual evidence." Objective facts are how we judge delusion. Feelings are not facts.
Doctors don't tell the delusional that they are correct. Notice "Convey acceptance of the need" not accept the false belief itself.
I don't believe in socially enabling or coddling any delusions, but I'm also not a doctor attempting to treat the disorder. The fact that they insist on harming their own healthy body is just evidence that it is a delusion. Self-harm is not mentally stable.

If it were a "endocrine/medical disorder" it wouldn't be a mental disorder. You don't get to reclassify things just to get your way. 

How is it false? We can neither prove nor disprove someone's identity (as identities are subjective things) and you nor anybody else can say what a person thinks and feels themselves to be. Objectively we can, but trans people already acknowledge they're born their birth sex, so there's nothing more you can disprove.

Doctors don't tell the delusional that they're correct, which is why gender dysphoria is distinguished from delusion. It fits into the category of mental pathology if they're harming themselves over it, but not delusion, as you can self-harm without delusions. (After all, suicidal people self harm but they're not delusional, they're just trying to kill themselves.) 

Hey, I'm not deciding where trans people go medically, that's the APA's doing. But it is a condition of some sort that needs treatment, hence why it's bouncing around the medical books right now. You argued it was a mental disorder, then argued it wasn't, but regardless gender dysphoria is a dysfunctional or distressing condition of some sort, that usually requires treatment. 

Again, if it weren't for trans in women's sports, intersex traits that didn't confer advantage wouldn't likely be caught. So not only are trans harming women, they are also harming the intersex.

Proof? I've shown evidence that these tests were done to discourage cis women from playing, because there was contention over athletes being too manly. Trans people weren't being advocated for until later, and there's never been an epidemic of transwomen sneaking into the Olympics (or any other sports) to play, especially seeing as how they'd need to show other ID to even play and it'd have to match with prior records of their sex. You've shown no evidence that trans people are the cause of these tests, and even the one controversial case of a "male" entering the Olympics I found was really about an intersex person, and was 20 years before their time:

"Ratjen's story wasn't known to the governing bodies of sports until 1957 at the earliest. But the first sex-testing policy was passed in 1936 — 20 years before anybody in the wider world of sports even knew Ratjen was perhaps not a girl at all. 
And yet, even today, Ratjen's story is cited over and over again as either inspiration or justification for policies in sports that subject athletes to "sex tests" — exams and tests to confirm whether their bodies conform to specific ideas of female-ness. 
Ratjen's story does not offer evidence for the need for sex tests, nor was it the cause for their implementation (as is commonly claimed). But it can be seen as a microcosm of the false narratives and misconceptions still floating around when it comes to talking about gender and sports."

Again, we'll need proof that transwomen were entering in sports to gain an advantage, and that that's why sex testing was needed. 

"Lindsay Parks Pieper, a sports historian at the University of Lynchburg and the author of the book Sex Testing: Gender policing in women's sports, agrees. These modern policies are, she says, "a return to suspicion-based testing, which then ties back to physical appearances. So, we come full circle.
"There's no recorded incident of a man masquerading as a woman," Pieper said.
Every case that has been floated has turned out to be unverified or more complicated, such as the case of Ratjen. And yet, sports governing bodies have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years enacting sex-testing policies ostensibly to weed out a form of cheating that has never happened."

"Can be" is not a rebuttal. Losing titles, medals, and opportunities is still harm.

It is when the people trying to argue that trans women are harmful are using sports that usually carry very little risk of harm. 

Even if different women would win the medals, it would still be women. Doesn't matter if it would be the exact same women. Still disenfranchising women for trans to win medals.

Alright, but in that case there's no need to inflate the numbers. If it's so bad, and so many trans women are taking over the medals and hurting women, then there's no need to make the data look worse than it objectively is.

While there have been women who've beat his record since 2023, beating the closest by over 400 pounds is obviously a huge discrepancy, worth investigating, and depriving actual women. He still seems to hold the records in British Columbia and Alberta.

But some of the women I showed could have done that. If it's possible for regular women, it is just as possible that another woman could have come and surpassed them, and it makes the records a bit less remarkable. Harder to beat, yes, but not impossible.

Then offender rates prior to transition still count toward trans women, right? @_@
You can't have it both ways.

Yes, but most of them wouldn't be in the bathrooms (as we don't have an epidemic of regular looking men entering the women's bathroom and causing harm), which is what a large portion of this debate was about. 

And like I said, equivocating the two is irrelevant.

Not when they're included in the definition of club.

Citing unscientific data in a scientific study doesn't magically make the data scientific... aside from an appeal to the authority of the study itself.
IOW, it's a weak study, with weak data.

Fine, there are better ones anyway. 

You can see for yourself that this list (sorted by total overall crime rate) is overwhelmingly Democrat-run at the highest crime rates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un...crime_rate
Leftists trying to make excuses ain't gonna cut it.

I mean, even the FBI lower down says that it shouldn't be used to make judgements about how safe or how dangerous a city is, or anything else other than what it's bluntly saying:

"The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking because these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.[7] The FBI web site also recommends against using its data to judge how effective law enforcement agencies are, since there are many factors other than law enforcement that influence crime rates.[8]

In November 2007, the executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) went further than the FBI itself, and approved a resolution opposing not only the use of the ratings to judge police departments, but also any development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) at all. The resolution opposed these rankings on the grounds that they "fail to account for the many conditions affecting crime rates" and "divert attention from the individual and community characteristics that elevate crime in all cities", though it did not provide sources or further elaborate on these claims. The resolution states the rankings "represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities" and "work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public".[9] "

You can't isolate it down to politics, and if it were I think the FBI as well as the ASC would have caught on. Also then there'd be an easy fix. 

You claimed I implied "all men" would protect women, gay men are a subset of "all men." That literally means you think I claimed gay men would protect women.
I didn't, because I never meant "all men." That's your straw man.

I wasn't thinking about gay men. I was thinking the average man, like a reasonable amount of average men would come to protect women - like not every single man on the planet, but enough to where a man not coming to help would be an anomaly. It's weird that you went to gay men o.O

No, I've repeatedly proven that you're either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. Doesn't really matter to me which it is, so intellectually dishonest sounds more charitable.
Really? You think women have to know what they want in order to understand their own safety, privacy, and consent? LOL! What a joke.

Not necessarily for safety, privacy, and consent, but even then you do have to know what you want and where the boundaries lay in order to determine what is privacy to you, what is safety to you, and what is consent to you. Or else you end up with "false rape allegations" (as you've brought up), inconsistencies in what women want men to do vs what they don't want men to do, and more.

[Syne]

Nope, it's the school. The teen was using the girl's facilities without incident up to that point: 

"Then, WILL said the girls spotted a senior student inside the locker room. "It is our understanding this male was 18 years old at the time of the incident. According to the girls, this student was not in the first-hour PE class they were participating in. While the girls were surprised to see him in the locker room, they had a general idea that this student identifies as transgender and has used girls’ bathrooms before. While they were uncomfortable, they proceeded to the shower area without interacting with the student," WILL reported in a letter to the school board."

So it seems somewhere along the way things got muddled and nobody knew what they were doing:

"In an email from the principal to a parent, which was shared with FOX6 News, the principal said the district has guidance on locker rooms. That policy stated a transgender student may be allowed to use the bathroom in line with how they identify, but it will be reviewed on a "case-by-case basis" – including considering the "degree of undress required.""

"has used girls’ bathrooms before," where there are cubicles, hence "the girls were surprised to see him in the locker room."
You do understand the difference between a bathroom and a locker room/shower, right? @_@
Obviously specifying "allowed to use the bathroom" and "considering the "degree of undress required"," means the policy did not cover stripping in the locker room/shower.
You know, if you could read simple English.

If you're talking about basic nudity (like assuming nobody else is trying to arouse or sexually titillate someone) then that by itself isn't illegal for the same sex, but it's also not illegal for the opposite sex. Both can be naked around each other as long as they're not trying to arouse, and it's not indecent exposure. In places where there are no bathroom bans it wouldn't be illegal for either sex to be naked (without intent to be lewd or indecent) in a bathroom. It'd be an extremely rare and unlikely situation, but if it happened it wouldn't be illegal. 

And something being illegal doesn't mean that a person will always report it. Plenty of illegal things happen that don't get reported either because people don't know it's a reportable offense, or they're scared to.

The fuck is wrong with you? We're talking about adult men exposing themselves to children and young girls.
You probably make excuses for pedos too.
Most states include "intent to offend," which would certainly apply for men exposing themselves to most people's children.
I get it. You're apparently a "free the nipple"/nudist/hoe and live in a degenerate hellhole.
Touting laws that help sex offenders gain access to women and girls doesn't help your argument.

Fairfax County police body worn camera video has been released displaying an encounter with a registered sex offender accused of lurking in a woman's locker room at a recreation center in Fairfax, Virginia.

Richard Cox remains behind bars, facing nearly two dozen charges, accused of exposing themselves to women and children in various women’s locker rooms.
...
Cox is a registered sex offender, who reportedly self-identifies as a transgender woman, claiming their civil rights are being violated by being asked to leave the women’s locker room at this recreation center in Fairfax.
- https://www.fox5dc.com/news/suspect-accu...nder-woman

In those other cases, but not in the one I brought up. That specific case I mentioned doesn't follow up. Another similar case however did, and the person was charged with indecent exposure:

"At just before noon, police were sent to SNHU on Pelham Road for a report of a naked man reportedly exposing himself to students. The caller alleged that the man had been in the bathroom for more than two hours and exposed himself to numerous students.
“A witness reported he walked into the restroom when another male, who was in a bathroom stall, asked him for a paper towel,” according to Capt. Joel Dolan of the Salem Police Department. “When the witness looked at the male asking for the paper towel he noticed the male had his pants down by his ankles and he was not wearing a shirt.”

And he was convicted of indecent exposure, for that same case (Feb 15th):

"The defendant, Jonathan Nzali, appeals his conviction, following a jury trial in Superior Court (Delker, J.), on a charge of felony indecent exposure and lewdness. See RSA 645:1, II(d) (2016). He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior similar act. See N.H. R. Ev. 404(b)."

And you don't think loitering in a bathroom for "more than two hours" says anything about intent? @_@
Remember, we're talking about simple exposure, not prolonged and repeated exposure that speaks to intent.

If you want to keep personal details private, don't try to use your supposed identity as authoritative or somehow excluding other opinions.

I'm not. I'm saying my view but I'm also backing it up with information. As you have been, you can speak and say your own opinions too, I'm not stopping you. 

Ahem:

This decision primarily affects women, men should largely not be a part of it especially since they're not voicing women's actual concerns (which objectively you can't, being a man) and women are able to talk about it without sounding like a pervert in the process.

^This is trying to use your minority status to make your opinion seem more authoritative or worthy than others.

Yes, but if it were only for rich and famous people, you'd be hearing more accusations across the board. Why Weinstein instead of Tom Hanks? Why Cosby instead of Keanu Reeves? There are plenty of rich and famous people, why these rich and famous people specifically? And women don't synchronize to accuse one man of wrongdoing, if separate women all have similar stories it's likely that he's done something. 

Keanu Reeves famously does the hand hover, so he doesn't risk any accusations from even touching a woman innocently on the shoulder or back. Hanks is very often with his wife. That's how much precaution rich and famous men often need to take. But Weinstein was a sleaze and Cosby gave women drugs. Even if neither did anything actually illegal, their behavior made them especially vulnerable to such accusations. This is why people like Mike Pence have a "won't be alone with a women other than my wife" rule. Any time spent alone is an opportunity for a women to make up an accusation.

This applies to both men and women - both can be manipulated by power dynamics. Plus, while consent may apply you have to admit it's dodgy if say, a 30 or 40+ man goes for a fresh 18 year old, or a 20+ year old therapist falls in love with her 18+ year old client. It's fully consensual, just a bit sketchy. 

I'll agree with the first half of the latter part of your statement, but disagree with the second - there's still a lot of stigma and barriers to reporting that can dissuade some women. 

"Sketchy" is not a legal definition.
There would be fewer barriers to reporting is there were fewer fake allegations.

Because you keep on framing consent as if it's something you wield or do to people. Which doesn't make sense. 

I guess you're too naive to understand how sex, and even consent, can be weaponized.

Not all, but the majority. 

Again, the US is a Republic to protect people from the tyranny of the majority.

Maybe it could be seen as a patriarchal intrusion to some women, but trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women. 

Contradicted by all the cases I've cited.

I wasn't talking about you bringing up genitalia, I'm talking about men approaching this topic in general. If most men cannot engage with the topic without getting weird about it, it does come across as perverted, and as if maybe they're not arguing because they're concerned about the topic, but because they have ulterior motives behind denying transwomen the chance to use their identified gender's bathroom.

I don't know what "most men" you're referring to. I haven't seen any of the examples you gave.
Sounds like a straw man.

Then you wouldn't have brought up incidences of transwomen acting inappropriate as evidence that they are a danger.

No, those examples were to counter your claim that "trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women."
They don't need to be representative to counter such a broad claim.

Not all trans people have the same view on their gender, so some likely are "made" instead of born. It does matter if the offenses occurred before or after transition, as if they're only occurring before transition, then untransitioned transwomen would be a risk. If it's occurring after, then transitioned transwomen would be a risk. It does matter if you're letting them into a women's bathroom. 

You'd have to support the claim that some trans women believe they are "made" instead of born.
"Realizing it later in life" or believing "gender is a social construct" doesn't mean that they believe they are transgender because their innate identity changed or society influenced them. Most transgenders refute the idea of social contagion of transgenderism.

And nope. Follow the citation:

"Thirty-three gender diverse offenders had a history of sexual offending. 1"

Where the 1 is:

"1 Ninety-nine gender diverse offenders while in-custody between December 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020." Thirty three of those had a history, meaning one third of the ninety nine, and meaning two thirds didn't have a history. 

Fair enough. But that's still 27% of trans women in prison are sexual offenders.
That larger that the 0.05% of men or the 0.17% or trans women in the general populace.

The MOJ Offender Management Statistics cited links to a PDF. 9_9
Simple math. If "females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males," can you tell who accounts for 87% of female abuse and 76% of male abuse?
That literally means that men do commit the vast majority of sexual assaults. Hence "male type patterns of criminality."

Not that, FairPlayforWomen's hyperlink, the "81 out of 163 prisoners". It's just an excel spreadsheet.

You mean the spread sheet that came with and is referred to in the linked FOIA response from the UK MOJ?

A new Freedom of Information request submitted by Fair Play For Women now reveals the same pattern is observed in data from 2019. This time 81 out of the 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales had at least one conviction for a sexual offence.

Fairplay says this: 
"Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison)."

If you were to add either of those numbers (13% or 24%, take your pick) to the women's prison population, it's about even with the men. They're just not getting tracked, so the percentages seem much less. 

You're conflating two completely separate sets of data. The UK MOJ says:

"Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison)."

And your Correctional Service of Canada case studies say:

"females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males,"

Canada and UK data cannot be conflated like that. At least not with any intellectual honesty.
9_9

Your math skills are as horrid as your reading skills.
UK male population is 29,200,000. If 13,234 are sexual offenders, that's 0.05% of the entire male population.
UK trans woman population is 48,000. If 81 are sexual offenders, that 0.17% of the entire trans woman population.

How you're supposedly "extrapolating it" is anyone's guess. 9_9

I'm using percentages, not raw numbers, and using those percentages to estimate how much of the average transwomen population is offending. I'm not directly using the current numbers of imprisoned transwomen because those are people already in prison, whereas most would want to know the likelihood of non-convicted transwomen committing crimes, right? And I'm assuming ratios of (sex) offending to non-offending are the same even among the non-convicted population. 

Not a sound assumption that you can support.
You cannot assume the percentage of sex offenders among criminals is the same for the general populace. That obviously introduces a sampling bias.

Them being born in the wrong body or not has nothing to do with how they offend. 

They're either always trans or not. It absolutely matters with how they offend.
You can't claim we can ignore the offending rates prior to transition unless you can show that they don't believe they were born in the wrong body (weren't always a "woman" on the inside).

They couldn't have had any record of women's performance because they were banned (therefore preventing a record) because men didn't think women could do it. 1894: the French baron Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) refounded the Olympic Games during a congress at the Sorbonne as a hymn to virility, a union of “brawn and brains” of which only men were supposed to be capable." Because of this, there were no records: "Early in the 20th century, women's sports were hardly recorded, and occasionally their achievements were discounted in favour of appearance rather than performance." Suspicion is primarily aimed at masculine-looking athletes, not ones that do too well, and this is supported by athletes like Mary Lou Retton not being viewed with suspicion despite winning multiple medals: "Recording perfect 10s on the floor and vault, she pipped her rival to the title by 0.05 points, becoming the first American in history to win an Olympic individual all-round gold. Not satisfied with this historic triumph, she went on to secure silver in the vault, bronze in the uneven bars and the floor, and another silver in the team event. Having won more medals than any other participant at the 1984 Games, she was named Sportswoman of the Year and Amateur Athlete of the Year by the American press." 

On the struggle female athletes face: "These women cannot develop “oversized muscles” (Krane et al., 2004), because exhibiting this feature violates gender norms and contributes to the connection between athleticism and lesbianism (Halbert, 1997). Associating female athletes with lesbianism has been a common theme in the United States and “follows a belief in the myth of the masculinization and mannishness of athletic women”

Still lost in the weeds I see.
You still don't seem to understand the simple distinction between women being banned for unfair advantage (which is the point we're actually discussing) and women being banned or ignored in general (your irrelevant tangent). So far, all or most of your examples of suspicion proved to be well-founded.

But they didn't specify what they were doing. As said, violent offending included anything from homicide to harassment, and without that data we can't know for sure. You can't assume what went up and what didn't. 

It literally shows that offending rates between men and trans women were the same. If you want to make a special pleading for sexual assault, you'd have to show data to support that being the one type of crime that deviates from this data. And even if you could, the fact that trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as men, alone, is reason enough to keep them out of women's spaces.

Yeah, researchers was a typo (I hit character limit and had to rework the post). Co-author was what I meant to say. And similarity, but not a proven threat to women, especially not in the bathrooms. 

Again:
If you want to make a special pleading for sexual assault, you'd have to show data to support that being the one type of crime that deviates from this data. And even if you could, the fact that trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as men, alone, is reason enough to keep them out of women's spaces.

You've never been around women, it seems. Plenty of cis women make threats and can get physically violent. I wouldn't put that solely in the domain of transwomen.

Please, learn how to read.
Especially "making physical threats a women could never hope to achieve."

Seems like you're not understanding basic phrases in speech. What do you think "sticking out" means? 

You didn't just claim "sticking out," you claimed "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."
Unsupported claim.

Well yes, that's why those men are causing harm in their attempts to establish their masculinity. Transwomen don't want to be masculine generally though, so they wouldn't be trying to establish their masculinity, they'd be trying to lose it. 

And agreed. I was using the abstract as support, but I gave you another source we both could access. 

Isn't that genetic fallacy? It coming from feminists doesn't make it invalid, especially if it shows support in research. 

Feminist theory is its own indictment. It's ideological ultracrepidarianism and question begging, at best, and vile sexist misandry, at worst.
Then you'd have to show how "a sense of powerlessness" ceases to exist in trans women. Otherwise the same impetus still exists, even if not directed toward "establish[ing] their ideal image of masculinity."

I've found the first one: https://scholar9.com/publication/30061de...2f4633.pdf

and a version of the second one: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/J_Whit...g_2007.pdf

Chasing down the citations in the first one, there are studies on "men's conflict with women" and "misinterpretation of social cues and subsequent sexual aggression." Neither supports their assumption, and the first study even admits:

Although they do not guarantee that a man is dangerous,
these signs, especially when in combination, may be early
danger signals and precautions should be taken. However,
an attempted rape can occur even if these signs are absent.

IOW, inconclusive.
Abbey et al. (2007) is just discussion of improving a sexual experience survey... not a study.

Because they're not in NATO yet, as your statement suggested Zelenskyy plans to ask if he gets through. Which means that it is a possibility, however slim, for any country to ask for troops and receive them. 

Ukraine becoming a NATO member is a Zelenskyy pipe dream. It's not going to happen.
Israel isn't even a member, nor asking to be. So by your reasoning, that would make them even less likely to receive foreign troops.
IOW, you have no idea how geopolitics works.

Like I said earlier, depends on the trans person, and being born in the wrong body would not affect the stigma society holds towards them. 

Doesn't change offending rate.

Yes, and since women are the ones taking care and raising these kids (if they have) they'd choose the party that supports them the most. It's not pandering to take care of children. 

Notice how you avoid abortion, which is contrary to taking care of children. If Democrats really wanted to take care of children, why wouldn't they want more children?
You know, unless they're really just pandering to women by absolving them of accountability.

It is, as I've proven now. People not reporting it doesn't automatically make it okay, or not potentially criminal depending on the circumstance. 

From that earlier case with the indecent exposure: 

"The defendant’s prior act occurred in the same bathroom approximately two months before the charged act, and the defendant’s counsel acknowledged that the prior act was “identical” to the charged act. The witness to the prior act testified at the motion in limine hearing that he was “shocked” when the defendant exposed his genitals, and at trial testified that he was “surprised,” “taken aback,” and “disturbed” by the defendant’s actions, that there was “emotional manipulation involved,” and that he left the bathroom “[t]o get away from the situation.” He explained that, although he did not initially report the prior event, when he heard about the charged event he came forward because he realized that “if it’s a repeating incident, then there’s got to be more to it. There’s got to be some meaning behind it.”"

Some people may downplay it or not realize they can report it, but when they can they do report it. 

You mean the guy loitering in the bathroom for over two hours, showing intent?
What about all the school and gym locker rooms you cited earlier? Are all those also unreported crimes? @_@
You're ridiculous. 9_9

Again, fertility risk and HIPAA law.

Which isn't much, as the scans have been proven to be safe, and HIPPA doesn't prevent you from having medical procedures:

"Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule permit a doctor, laboratory, or other health care provider to share patient health information for treatment purposes by fax, e-mail, or over the phone?
Answer:
Yes. The Privacy Rule allows covered health care providers to share protected health information for treatment purposes without patient authorization, as long as they use reasonable safeguards when doing so. These treatment communications may occur orally or in writing, by phone, fax, e-mail, or otherwise.

It's still a risk.
Bone/muscle density test for sports is not a "treatment."

For example:

• A laboratory may fax, or communicate over the phone, a patient’s medical test results to a physician.
  
• A physician may mail or fax a copy of a patient’s medical record to a specialist who intends to treat the patient.
  
• A hospital may fax a patient’s health care instructions to a nursing home to which the patient is to be transferred.
  
• A doctor may discuss a patient’s condition over the phone with an emergency room physician who is providing the patient with emergency care.
  
• A doctor may orally discuss a patient’s treatment regimen with a nurse who will be involved in the patient’s care.
  
• A physician may consult with another physician by e-mail about a patient’s condition.
  
• A hospital may share an organ donor’s medical information with another hospital treating the organ recipient."
  

It's completely fine under HIPPA, and in some cases doctors may ask for your consent before doing so. But they can do it without your consent too.

None of your examples include a sports league. 9_9

You keep on saying this, but transwomen are never really caught by these tests, it's only intersex and cis women. Transwomen aren't sneaking into the Olympics to play as women, and testosterone tests can't catch transwomen who are already known to be playing on the team. It's only harming cis women.

Only 25% of trans women can reduce testosterone to a female range. Meaning 75% could still be detected by strict testosterone testing.
Doesn't really matter who it catches when strict testosterone testing only exists due to trans women.
Again, harming those intersex and women due to transgenders.

Maybe the sports leagues, but a doctor would be performing the scans and reading the pregnancy test, no? The coach doesn't do it, medical professionals do. It wouldn't be anything different than a typical sports check-up. Again, HIPPA doesn't prevent doctors from sharing relevant information nor does it stop a player from reporting to their coach and just saying something like "doctor approved me to play". It doesn't have to be graphic detail, and women already have to be subject to different tests than men due to biology.

If the density test could not be performed, due to pregnancy, the sports league would have to know why or ban the women. Hence requiring a HIPAA violation.

How is it false? We can neither prove nor disprove someone's identity (as identities are subjective things) and you nor anybody else can say what a person thinks and feels themselves to be. Objectively we can, but trans people already acknowledge they're born their birth sex, so there's nothing more you can disprove.

Doctors don't tell the delusional that they're correct, which is why gender dysphoria is distinguished from delusion. It fits into the category of mental pathology if they're harming themselves over it, but not delusion, as you can self-harm without delusions. (After all, suicidal people self harm but they're not delusional, they're just trying to kill themselves.) 

Hey, I'm not deciding where trans people go medically, that's the APA's doing. But it is a condition of some sort that needs treatment, hence why it's bouncing around the medical books right now. You argued it was a mental disorder, then argued it wasn't, but regardless gender dysphoria is a dysfunctional or distressing condition of some sort, that usually requires treatment. 

"subjective feelings" do not override objective facts. Subjective thoughts and feelings that are contrary to objective facts are called delusions.

A delusion is a firm, fixed belief that is untrue and not based in reality, held despite evidence to the contrary.

No one has claimed that anyone denies the fact of their birth sex. That's an irrelevant straw man.
No part of their physiology, including their brain, is the opposite sex, unless they are intersex. That is delusion.
Again, it's a mental disorder, and those are not treated by affirming them as true. As in your self-harm example, doctors don't affirm the suicidal ideations. So affirming trans identity is an anomaly in mental health treatment.
Where did I supposedly argue that transgenderism wasn't a mental disorder?

Again, if it weren't for trans in women's sports, intersex traits that didn't confer advantage wouldn't likely be caught. So not only are trans harming women, they are also harming the intersex.

Proof? I've shown evidence that these tests were done to discourage cis women from playing, because there was contention over athletes being too manly. Trans people weren't being advocated for until later, and...

And completely irrelevant to "strict testosterone testing" started as a direct result of transgenders in women's sports.
Repeating this tangent is pointless.

It is when the people trying to argue that trans women are harmful are using sports that usually carry very little risk of harm. 

Harm includes lost scholarship, titles, medals, and opportunities. Disenfranchisement is harm.

Alright, but in that case there's no need to inflate the numbers. If it's so bad, and so many trans women are taking over the medals and hurting women, then there's no need to make the data look worse than it objectively is.

That methodology is valid, as it is literally accounting for all the displaced records, which reflect on the women's entire sports careers.

But some of the women I showed could have done that. If it's possible for regular women, it is just as possible that another woman could have come and surpassed them, and it makes the records a bit less remarkable. Harder to beat, yes, but not impossible.

The "possibility" doesn't change the fact that he robbed women of wins and has yet to be beat in two provinces.
And this is just in one sport where trans women have set records.

Yes, but most of them wouldn't be in the bathrooms (as we don't have an epidemic of regular looking men entering the women's bathroom and causing harm), which is what a large portion of this debate was about. 

Which just makes access to women's spaces all the more dangerous.

And like I said, equivocating the two is irrelevant.

Not when they're included in the definition of club.

Yeah, that's what equivocating means.

I mean, even the FBI lower down says that it shouldn't be used to make judgements about how safe or how dangerous a city is, or anything else other than what it's bluntly saying:

"The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking because these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.[7] The FBI web site also recommends against using its data to judge how effective law enforcement agencies are, since there are many factors other than law enforcement that influence crime rates.[8]

In November 2007, the executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) went further than the FBI itself, and approved a resolution opposing not only the use of the ratings to judge police departments, but also any development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) at all. The resolution opposed these rankings on the grounds that they "fail to account for the many conditions affecting crime rates" and "divert attention from the individual and community characteristics that elevate crime in all cities", though it did not provide sources or further elaborate on these claims. The resolution states the rankings "represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities" and "work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public".[9] "

You can't isolate it down to politics, and if it were I think the FBI as well as the ASC would have caught on. Also then there'd be an easy fix. 

More leftists excuses.
Notice how the FBI only "discourages data users from ranking agencies and using the data as a measurement of law enforcement effectiveness." No mention of political policy effectiveness, except here:

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
...
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/201...st-ranking

Hence Democrat-run shitholes.
There is no "easy fix" for dumb people repeatedly electing crap politicians in free elections. At least none the FBI, or any law enforcement, could hope to address.

I wasn't thinking about gay men. I was thinking the average man, like a reasonable amount of average men would come to protect women - like not every single man on the planet, but enough to where a man not coming to help would be an anomaly. It's weird that you went to gay men o.O

No, that's just the clearest example that not "all men."

Not necessarily for safety, privacy, and consent, but even then you do have to know what you want and where the boundaries lay in order to determine what is privacy to you, what is safety to you, and what is consent to you. Or else you end up with "false rape allegations" (as you've brought up), inconsistencies in what women want men to do vs what they don't want men to do, and more.

That's exactly what we have today. "Men should approach women more" but "men should never approach women." "Men shouldn't text back too fast" but "men should text back immediately." "Men shouldn't look at women" but "why don't men notice me." Etc., etc., etc...
9_9

[Railko]

You do understand the difference between a bathroom and a locker room/shower, right? @_@
Obviously specifying "allowed to use the bathroom" and "considering the "degree of undress required"," means the policy did not cover stripping in the locker room/shower.
You know, if you could read simple English.

Wow, it's almost like the district's policies were unclear... something the district acknowledges...

Again, it doesn't matter what you think. The school acknowledged they were in the wrong, and you trying to say otherwise isn't going to negate the information they put out.

The fuck is wrong with you? We're talking about adult men exposing themselves to children and young girls.
You probably make excuses for pedos too.
Most states include "intent to offend," which would certainly apply for men exposing themselves to most people's children.
I get it. You're apparently a "free the nipple"/nudist/hoe and live in a degenerate hellhole.
Touting laws that help sex offenders gain access to women and girls doesn't help your argument.

Fairfax County police body worn camera video has been released displaying an encounter with a registered sex offender accused of lurking in a woman's locker room at a recreation center in Fairfax, Virginia.

Richard Cox remains behind bars, facing nearly two dozen charges, accused of exposing themselves to women and children in various women’s locker rooms.
...
Cox is a registered sex offender, who reportedly self-identifies as a transgender woman, claiming their civil rights are being violated by being asked to leave the women’s locker room at this recreation center in Fairfax.
- https://www.fox5dc.com/news/suspect-accu...nder-woman

Can you read? 

like assuming nobody else is trying to arouse or sexually titillate someone

It'd be an extremely rare and unlikely situation, but if it happened it wouldn't be illegal. 

We're talking same vs opposite sex exposure, not exposure with a minor - once again your mind is going to inappropriate places. Maybe you should see a therapist about that, it can't be healthy for you to be thinking about gays and minors all day. It seems like you're using transwomen, gay people and minors to psychologically distract from your own misgivings.

They were both students, and so the school's policies apply here - the trans woman is not a random man, but a student, and intent to offend was not proven.

(Your anecdotal news report you linked is irrelevant to the one we're currently talking about as these are two different people, but regardless that person doesn't have a valid argument to use the facilities there as they are a registered sex offender, exposing themselves and is creating alarm there. A ban on them would be no different than a ban on any other person misusing the facilities. Their trans identity is not the determining factor here.)

And you don't think loitering in a bathroom for "more than two hours" says anything about intent? @_@
Remember, we're talking about simple exposure, not prolonged and repeated exposure that speaks to intent.

I mean, someone can be in a bathroom for more than two hours for legitimate reasons. Throwing up, avoiding someone, just trying to kill time... many reasons.

Ahem:

This decision primarily affects women, men should largely not be a part of it especially since they're not voicing women's actual concerns (which objectively you can't, being a man) and women are able to talk about it without sounding like a pervert in the process.

^This is trying to use your minority status to make your opinion seem more authoritative or worthy than others.

Nope, it's just a fact that you can't voice an actual woman's concerns, just like I can't voice an actual man's concerns. I can't say something like "most men are suffering in the loneliness epidemic" and advocate for men having friends and expect my word to hold more than other men, because even if that's true and all the men around me want friends, at a certain point I can't say what they need, and they can speak for themselves. 

Keanu Reeves famously does the hand hover, so he doesn't risk any accusations from even touching a woman innocently on the shoulder or back. Hanks is very often with his wife. That's how much precaution rich and famous men often need to take. But Weinstein was a sleaze and Cosby gave women drugs. Even if neither did anything actually illegal, their behavior made them especially vulnerable to such accusations. This is why people like Mike Pence have a "won't be alone with a women other than my wife" rule. Any time spent alone is an opportunity for a women to make up an accusation.

There are more men in Hollywood than those two though, and they're also not getting false accusations. Having a wife doesn't prevent someone from getting allegations either, Harvey Weinstein did have a wife after all. Giving drugs is illegal, depending on the drug, and if you even acknowledge Weinstein is sleazy, it makes the accusations more likely to be credible. There is a difference between one woman making a false accusation and many women accusing the same guy, and you haven't shown any proof that women will all accuse the same guy.

"Sketchy" is not a legal definition.
There would be fewer barriers to reporting is there were fewer fake allegations.

There's no evidence to support this as being a cause of the barriers.

I guess you're too naive to understand how sex, and even consent, can be weaponized.

No, I know it can, but you're trying to imply everyone would naturally weaponize it. I don't care about doing that, and I don't think most normal people would.

Again, the US is a Republic to protect people from the tyranny of the majority.

The US is a republic and a democracy, actually: "The United States is accurately described as both a republic and a democracy, as these terms are not mutually exclusive but rather describe complementary aspects of its governance. The nation operates as a republican form of government that incorporates democratic principles. This means the U.S. is a constitutional republic, where elected representatives govern according to a supreme law, the Constitution, which protects individual rights and limits governmental authority."

And this would be a democratic action, as everyone put their input and majority are okay with it. Tyranny of the majority refers to non-democratic actions.

Contradicted by all the cases I've cited.

Anecdotal evidence, you mean. And I've cited evidence that allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice doesn't lead to an increase in assaults:

"By using public records and statistical modeling, we found no evidence that privacy and safety in public restrooms change as a result of the passage of GIPANDOs." (pg 9).

I don't know what "most men" you're referring to. I haven't seen any of the examples you gave.
Sounds like a straw man.

I see you're the one who has poor reading comprehension because I literally just quoted one a few posts before. 

Do you think it's normal to bring up graphic discussion of another man's genitalia during a discussion into whether transwomen should use the bathroom? 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...016-9181-6

"Consistent with Westbrook and Schilt, we also observe a strong fixation on penises (regardless of gender, transgender status, or stance on bathroom usage), e.g.:

‘Wait until 12-year-old Susie comes face-to-face with Mr. Happy.’; ‘We are talking about big penises in the ladies’ room; children and those with the correct chromosomes should come first!’; ‘If a penis is allowed to wander freely around a women’s bathroom, do you really think that penis wants to stay tucked away, regardless of who it’s attached to?’; ‘The right thing to do is let trannys with penises share girl’s bathrooms? BS!’; ‘Don’t let the penis or beard fool you; I’m 100% woman in my brain’; ‘I couldn’t care less if the woman next to me has a penis or not’; ‘Is it okay for him to flip out his penis in the girl’s bathroom in front of your daughter?’; ‘Some women have a penis, some men have a vagina’; ‘If you have a penis, then it’s fine for a woman to want you out’; ‘It is not a transgender’s right to put their penis in front of women’; ‘Maybe we should put penis and vagina on the bathroom doors, so HE will not be confused.’"

No, those examples were to counter your claim that "trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women."
They don't need to be representative to counter such a broad claim.

They do, since you're claiming that this isn't just a one-off, but the norm.

You'd have to support the claim that some trans women believe they are "made" instead of born.
"Realizing it later in life" or believing "gender is a social construct" doesn't mean that they believe they are transgender because their innate identity changed or society influenced them. Most transgenders refute the idea of social contagion of transgenderism.

"Made" (at least how I'm using it) doesn't mean "social contagion". More that it's not solely due to genetics.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9352732/

"The few twin studies that have examined outcomes related to GD have shown a possible genetic influence, but with varying heritability or concordance rates. Coolidge et al. estimated heritability at 62%10, while Sasaki et al. found a heritability of 41% for adolescent assigned females (aF) and 11% for adult aF, and no genetic effects for assigned males (aM)14. Heylens et al. reported a concordance of 39.1% in MZ twins and 0% in DZ pairs12. Diamond found that the concordance among same-sex DZ pairs was 33% for aM and 23% for aF11."

https://scienceofbiogenetics.com/article...mplexities

"Another misconception is that being transgender is solely determined by genetics. While some studies suggest that there may be genetic factors at play, it is important to understand that being transgender is a complex interplay between biology, genetics, and environment."

Fair enough. But that's still 27% of trans women in prison are sexual offenders.
That larger that the 0.05% of men or the 0.17% or trans women in the general populace.

I've shown below there are possible reasons for that, like the police going after transwomen more. And in any case these offenses still aren't proven to be happening in women's spaces, and have mostly occurred as their biological sex.

You mean the spread sheet that came with and is referred to in the linked FOIA response from the UK MOJ?

A new Freedom of Information request submitted by Fair Play For Women now reveals the same pattern is observed in data from 2019.  This time 81 out of the 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales had at least one conviction for a sexual offence.

Yes, but would be nice to have something verifying it's authenticity, as the way it is there's no way to tell if the numbers are genuine or not (as anybody could just edit them.)

You're conflating two completely separate sets of data. The UK MOJ says:

"Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison)."

And your Correctional Service of Canada case studies say:

"females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males,"

Canada and UK data cannot be conflated like that. At least not with any intellectual honesty.
9_9

The rate for the UK is about the same:

"Joe Sullivan has spent 26 years counselling child sex offenders in the United Kingdom and is visiting Australia to attend an international police conference at Bond University on the Gold Coast. 

While experts agree the majority of paedophiles are men, Dr Sullivan says women are responsible for more offences than previously thought. 

"There's some research to suggest it could be as high as 25 per cent.""

Not a sound assumption that you can support.
You cannot assume the percentage of sex offenders among criminals is the same for the general populace. That obviously introduces a sampling bias.

True, but you also cannot assume that the percentage of sex offenders incarcerated transfers over neatly to the non-incarcerated population either.

They're either always trans or not. It absolutely matters with how they offend.
You can't claim we can ignore the offending rates prior to transition unless you can show that they don't believe they were born in the wrong body (weren't always a "woman" on the inside).

I was responding to the "wrong body" part you specifically keep on quoting. Their belief on their transness doesn't affect the offending. 

Still lost in the weeds I see.
You still don't seem to understand the simple distinction between women being banned for unfair advantage (which is the point we're actually discussing) and women being banned or ignored in general (your irrelevant tangent). So far, all or most of your examples of suspicion proved to be well-founded.

How can it be well founded when we've never found an actual case of a trans woman pretending to be a cis woman in the Olympics? Sounds extremely unfounded to me. 

It literally shows that offending rates between men and trans women were the same. If you want to make a special pleading for sexual assault, you'd have to show data to support that being the one type of crime that deviates from this data. And even if you could, the fact that trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as men, alone, is reason enough to keep them out of women's spaces.

You're the one who seems to be special pleading here for me to ignore the lack of evidence. We don't even know what the amount of crimes were; unless we know that we cannot assume anything. And that matters, because if transwomen are mostly committing arson (for example) but rarely sex offending, then that means that arson wouldn't be something to look out for, and the risks for sex offending would be small, and unlikely to happen in a bathroom. If the sex offending is simply prostitution, then there's little to no risk to children, they're just a prostitute. It matters. 

Again:
If you want to make a special pleading for sexual assault, you'd have to show data to support that being the one type of crime that deviates from this data. And even if you could, the fact that trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as men, alone, is reason enough to keep them out of women's spaces.

And you'd need to show how many sex offenders were even in this data set to begin with, as well as the amounts of each crime. Because if you don't have that, you cannot assume anything.

Please, learn how to read.
Especially "making physical threats a women could never hope to achieve."

No, you learn how to read. I said what I said - there's no special threat a trans woman can make that a violent woman can't. (Excluding ones using male anatomy of course.) 

You didn't just claim "sticking out," you claimed "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."
Unsupported claim.

Supported claim: "In their 2013 report on hate violence against transgender communities, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found that TGD people were 7 times more likely to experience physical violence when interacting with police than their cisgender counterparts (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2017). Additional research has found that TGD people experience disproportionately high rates of unjustified police stops and arrests, harassment and assault from police, and discrimination while incarcerated (Stotzer, 2014)." 

Feminist theory is its own indictment. It's ideological ultracrepidarianism and question begging, at best, and vile sexist misandry, at worst.
Then you'd have to show how "a sense of powerlessness" ceases to exist in trans women. Otherwise the same impetus still exists, even if not directed toward "establish[ing] their ideal image of masculinity."

That's not proven in this paper, and it's a genetic fallacy again. Trans women (and transgender people in general) gain a sense of power through transitioning, focusing on positivity and supporting each other. Powerlessness actually stems from being forced into cis notions of gender and being treated as their birth sex.

"Participants characterized power as agency over decisions about their bodies, their identities, and their ability to lead healthy, successful lives. Participants believed power was multisystemic and could be controlled or created at an individual- and macro-level. Power was also described as impermanent and an agent of prejudice that could clash or converge with other meaningful social identities."

Chasing down the citations in the first one, there are studies on "men's conflict with women" and "misinterpretation of social cues and subsequent sexual aggression." Neither supports their assumption, and the first study even admits:

Although they do not guarantee that a man is dangerous,
these signs, especially when in combination, may be early
danger signals and precautions should be taken. However,
an attempted rape can occur even if these signs are absent.

IOW, inconclusive.
Abbey et al. (2007) is just discussion of improving a sexual experience survey... not a study.

What the first study in that paper's quote cites seems supported by experimental evidence: "Overall, the results of this study strongly support the utility of the confluence model as a guide in identifying the variables that may contribute to sexual aggression and to other types of conflict with women." The second one is in a book and cannot be found, but the first one's conclusions support an earlier work's conclusion. And subsequent works seem to validate it.

Ukraine becoming a NATO member is a Zelenskyy pipe dream. It's not going to happen.
Israel isn't even a member, nor asking to be. So by your reasoning, that would make them even less likely to receive foreign troops.
IOW, you have no idea how geopolitics works.

What I'm saying is, it's (however slim) a possibility. If what you were saying about military women were true, they would have found a solution by now. 

Doesn't change offending rate.

It does. If trans people are accepted, offending rate could go down: "Due to a complex web of family rejection, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, bias, and discrimination, LGBTQ+ individuals may turn to criminalized activities like theft, panhandling, and sex work in order to survive. Heightened police surveillance increases the likelihood of LGBTQ+ individuals being arrested and charged for forms of criminalized survival. LGBTQ+ individuals with a history of criminal legal system involvement experience heightened discrimination and exclusion from employment, education, and other opportunities because of their records, leading to continued homelessness, unemployment, and poverty. This creates a revolving door back into the system."

Notice how you avoid abortion, which is contrary to taking care of children. If Democrats really wanted to take care of children, why wouldn't they want more children?
You know, unless they're really just pandering to women by absolving them of accountability.

Because as a society, we're barely able to take care of the ones we have now. It's 100% a responsible choice to not have more children if you can't take care of the ones you have. Or, you know, if something terrible happens to a woman (or teenager) and she needs to abort the pregnancy.

You mean the guy loitering in the bathroom for over two hours, showing intent? 
What about all the school and gym locker rooms you cited earlier? Are all those also unreported crimes? @_@
You're ridiculous. 9_9

Could be. Depends on whether you're being inappropriate there or not, like anything else. 

It's still a risk.
Bone/muscle density test for sports is not a "treatment." 

A risk not supported by any scientific evidence.
It's not a treatment, but it is a medical procedure also covered by HIPPA laws: "The information protected by HIPAA is all health information relating to an individual’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual."

None of your examples include a sports league. 9_9

https://hipaatimes.com/hipaa-coverage-fo...ical-staff

"However, the situation is different for team physicians and trainers employed directly by sports organizations. These medical professionals are not typically subject to HIPAA in their role as team employees, as their relationship with the athlete is primarily an employment context rather than a traditional healthcare provider-patient relationship." Apparently sports teams aren't even beholden to HIPAA, they can just do whatever.

Only 25% of trans women can reduce testosterone to a female range. Meaning 75% could still be detected by strict testosterone testing.
Doesn't really matter who it catches when strict testosterone testing only exists due to trans women.
Again, harming those intersex and women due to transgenders.

They cannot be caught if they're already known. No trans woman is sneaking into the Olympics, and there's never been a recorded case of this.

If the density test could not be performed, due to pregnancy, the sports league would have to know why or ban the women. Hence requiring a HIPAA violation.

They don't have to say, they can just say "test was denied" or "test failed". Or even just reschedule it for a few months in the future. But as I've shown, some sports teams aren't even bound by HIPAA so they can do whatever they'd like.

"subjective feelings" do not override objective facts. Subjective thoughts and feelings that are contrary to objective facts are called delusions.

A delusion is a firm, fixed belief that is untrue and not based in reality, held despite evidence to the contrary.

No one has claimed that anyone denies the fact of their birth sex. That's an irrelevant straw man.
No part of their physiology, including their brain, is the opposite sex, unless they are intersex. That is delusion.
Again, it's a mental disorder, and those are not treated by affirming them as true. As in your self-harm example, doctors don't affirm the suicidal ideations. So affirming trans identity is an anomaly in mental health treatment.
Where did I supposedly argue that transgenderism wasn't a mental disorder? 

Prove that any trans person isn't feeling the way they're feeling. If it's such an objective fact, prove it.

Their identity is that of the other sex or gender. You can't see an identity physically, that's why it's an identity. If you can, then again prove it. 

There are different treatments for different mental disorders, it's not a one size fits all. You wouldn't treat a borderline person the same way you would a depressed person, for example. As psychology has already tried to treat transgender identities by other means and failed, this is a promising and helpful treatment: 
"119 (46.9%) of the patients filled out and returned the questionnaires, at a mean of 5.05 years after surgery (standard deviation 1.61 years, range 1–7 years). 90.2% said their expectations for life as a woman were fulfilled postoperatively. 85.4% saw themselves as women. 61.2% were satisfied, and 26.2% very satisfied, with their outward appearance as a woman; 37.6% were satisfied, and 34.4% very satisfied, with the functional outcome. 65.7% said they were satisfied with their life as it is now."

And you did actually flip flop:

Again, no one has demonstrated that trans have "genuine needs."
Trans "gender" is literally a disorder... gender dysphoria. And you've already proven the worries well-founded, even if only due to the greater potential for males to abuse access.

Only the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender dysphoria falls under the ADA, so this is not settled law.

Most, if not all disorders are liable for coverage and treatment. You can't argue gender dysphoria is a disorder and then argue that none of the accomodations afforded to disorders apply to it. It's either a disorder or it's not.

And completely irrelevant to "strict testosterone testing" started as a direct result of transgenders in women's sports.
Repeating this tangent is pointless.

You only feel the need to repeat it because you fail to show evidence that transwomen were sneaking into sports. 

Harm includes lost scholarship, titles, medals, and opportunities. Disenfranchisement is harm.

Which can only be true if transwomen are proven to have a de-facto physical advantage. Which isn't proven yet, seeing as how results are inconclusive right now. 

That methodology is valid, as it is literally accounting for all the displaced records, which reflect on the women's entire sports careers.

No, it's not. If they can't tell conclusively who would have placed where, it's misleading to act as if they can. 

The "possibility" doesn't change the fact that he robbed women of wins and has yet to be beat in two provinces.
And this is just in one sport where trans women have set records.

But they can still be beaten. They didn't do so well that no woman could beat them, and unfair advantage hasn't been conclusively proven.

Which just makes access to women's spaces all the more dangerous.

No, because as I've shown above even with bathroom laws permitting access, the amount of bathroom offenses don't change.

Yeah, that's what equivocating means. 

Well then it's not irrelevant, then. 

More leftists excuses.
Notice how the FBI only "discourages data users from ranking agencies and using the data as a measurement of law enforcement effectiveness." No mention of political policy effectiveness, except here:

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
...
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/201...st-ranking

Hence Democrat-run shitholes.
There is no "easy fix" for dumb people repeatedly electing crap politicians in free elections. At least none the FBI, or any law enforcement, could hope to address.

"More leftist excuses" is not an argument, and again, genetic fallacy. There's no evidence for what you're claiming. 

No, that's just the clearest example that not "all men."

Not really. Some gay men would still protect women, so again, the fact that you went there is weird. Quite telling of your mental state, actually.

That's exactly what we have today. "Men should approach women more" but "men should never approach women." "Men shouldn't text back too fast" but "men should text back immediately." "Men shouldn't look at women" but "why don't men notice me." Etc., etc., etc...
9_9

Wow, it's almost like women are not a hive mind and what one woman likes, another dislikes! Women aren't a monolith, some may like one thing and some may like another thing. Individual women are generally consistent, but as collectively women aren't all the same, opinions vary even for the most basic of things.

[Syne]

Wow, it's almost like the district's policies were unclear... something the district acknowledges...

Again, it doesn't matter what you think. The school acknowledged they were in the wrong, and you trying to say otherwise isn't going to negate the information they put out.

Too bad you can't understand simple English. Only a parent claimed it was unclear, but the statement/policy from the school was clear as day...if you could only comprehend simple English. The school only acknowledged that the trans student didn't follow school policy.

We're talking same vs opposite sex exposure, not exposure with a minor - once again your mind is going to inappropriate places. Maybe you should see a therapist about that, it can't be healthy for you to be thinking about gays and minors all day. It seems like you're using transwomen, gay people and minors to psychologically distract from your own misgivings.

They were both students, and so the school's policies apply here - the trans woman is not a random man, but a student, and intent to offend was not proven.

Adult student exposing himself to minors. Trying to weasel out of it with "they were both students" doesn't change that fact.
Allowing trans in women's spaces, in general, necessarily includes minors in many such places, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.. You pretending (or worse, not pretending) to be oblivious of this fact... while slinging pathetic ad homs... is not going help your argument.

I mean, someone can be in a bathroom for more than two hours for legitimate reasons. Throwing up, avoiding someone, just trying to kill time... many reasons.

A public bathroom? @_@

Nope, it's just a fact that you can't voice an actual woman's concerns, just like I can't voice an actual man's concerns. I can't say something like "most men are suffering in the loneliness epidemic" and advocate for men having friends and expect my word to hold more than other men, because even if that's true and all the men around me want friends, at a certain point I can't say what they need, and they can speak for themselves. 

Except I am voicing concerns I've heard from actual women. You've admitted that some women do have these concerns.
No one said my words hold more weight than women, but when no such women are on this forum to express their concerns, there's nothing wrong with someone making them known and arguing their merit. Just like you wouldn't be out of line to express what you've heard men say, where there's no such men to express it.

There are more men in Hollywood than those two though, and they're also not getting false accusations. Having a wife doesn't prevent someone from getting allegations either, Harvey Weinstein did have a wife after all. Giving drugs is illegal, depending on the drug, and if you even acknowledge Weinstein is sleazy, it makes the accusations more likely to be credible. There is a difference between one woman making a false accusation and many women accusing the same guy, and you haven't shown any proof that women will all accuse the same guy.

But you picked two squeaky clean celebs. 9_9
I didn't say "has a wife," I said "often with his wife." Please learn to read.
Without evidence of a crime, more accusations do not prove anything... except to 12 morons (which I've said before). Allegations being "more likely" or "more likely to be credible" depends on the actual evidence. There are plenty of false allegations that prove what people may think is "credible" isn't actually.

There's no evidence to support this as being a cause of the barriers.

It just follow logically. If the were fewer false allegations, there would be less resistance to believing new allegations.

No, I know it can, but you're trying to imply everyone would naturally weaponize it. I don't care about doing that, and I don't think most normal people would.

No, that's what you're inferring. I never implied it.

The US is a republic and a democracy, actually: "The United States is accurately described as both a republic and a democracy, as these terms are not mutually exclusive but rather describe complementary aspects of its governance. The nation operates as a republican form of government that incorporates democratic principles. This means the U.S. is a constitutional republic, where elected representatives govern according to a supreme law, the Constitution, which protects individual rights and limits governmental authority."

And this would be a democratic action, as everyone put their input and majority are okay with it. Tyranny of the majority refers to non-democratic actions.

No, the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence. It is also absent from the United States Constitution.
Instead of the term "democracy," the Declaration of Independence states that governments get their authority from "the consent of the governed". This language reflects democratic ideals, but the founders did not use the word itself in this document or the Constitution.
- Google AI

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
- Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution

You seem to be conflating democracy with modern/liberal forms of democracy.

Tyranny of the majority refers to a situation in majority rule where the preferences and interests of the majority dominate the political landscape, potentially sidelining or repressing minority groups and using majority rule to take non-democratic actions.
...
To reduce the risk of majority tyranny, modern democracies frequently have countermajoritarian institutions that restrict the ability of majorities to repress minorities and stymie political competition.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

In political philosophy, the majority rule is one of two major competing notions of democracy.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

Democracies may use many different decision-making methods, but majority rule is the dominant form. Without compensation, like legal protections of individual or group rights, political minorities can be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority".
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Anecdotal evidence, you mean. And I've cited evidence that allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice doesn't lead to an increase in assaults:

"By using public records and statistical modeling, we found no evidence that privacy and safety in public restrooms change as a result of the passage of GIPANDOs." (pg 9).

Anecdotes can refute broad statements like, "trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women." It's the same as a single black swan refuting the claim that "all swans are white."

Massachusetts was selected as a case
study for this analysis, because, for a period of time, Massachusetts had a statewide nondiscrimination law that was inclusive
of gender identity in employment and housing, but not public accommodations. Thus, these conditions created an optimal context
in which to compare rates of public restroom privacy and safety incidents in localities that had passed local GIPANDOs with
matched localities that had not.
- https://escholarship.org/content/qt4rs4n...f?t=qecca2

This is not actually a good methodology, as nondiscrimination law for gender identity in employment and housing implies some acceptance of gender identity in general that could readily affect the rates of reported incidents. It's a selection bias. That Massachusetts later passed a statewide gender identity non-discrimination law for bathrooms shows the public acceptance in that state. Here's a detailed criticism of further methodological problems:

Unfortunately, due to a number of limitations, especially related to the data especially a small sample size (due in large part to non-responses) as well as a vague description of key methodological decisions, evidence from the comparisons is shaky, at best. In my reading, despite several strengths, this study has several serious shortcomings that raise questions about the utility of the study and its findings and for these reasons should not be used to inform public policy.
- https://publons.com/wos-op/review/8261257/

I see you're the one who has poor reading comprehension because I literally just quoted one a few posts before. 

No, still your poor reading comprehension.
When I say, "I haven't seen any of the examples you gave," I don't mean I missed your examples.
I mean I haven't seen any actual men say those things.
9_9

They do, since you're claiming that this isn't just a one-off, but the norm.

Where do you imagine I've claimed they are "the norm"? @_@
Just another straw man. 9_9

"Made" (at least how I'm using it) doesn't mean "social contagion". More that it's not solely due to genetics.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9352732/

"The few twin studies that have examined outcomes related to GD have shown a possible genetic influence, but with varying heritability or concordance rates. Coolidge et al. estimated heritability at 62%10, while Sasaki et al. found a heritability of 41% for adolescent assigned females (aF) and 11% for adult aF, and no genetic effects for assigned males (aM)14. Heylens et al. reported a concordance of 39.1% in MZ twins and 0% in DZ pairs12. Diamond found that the concordance among same-sex DZ pairs was 33% for aM and 23% for aF11."

https://scienceofbiogenetics.com/article...mplexities

"Another misconception is that being transgender is solely determined by genetics. While some studies suggest that there may be genetic factors at play, it is important to understand that being transgender is a complex interplay between biology, genetics, and environment."

Then it's completely irrelevant, as I'm talking about what transgenders, themselves, believe and claim.
Again, go and try telling one that they were not born that way. Be sure to come back and let us know how that goes for you. 9_9
Since I've said that before, you'll probably keep deflecting, instead of answering the simple question.

I've shown below there are possible reasons for that, like the police going after transwomen more. And in any case these offenses still aren't proven to be happening in women's spaces, and have mostly occurred as their biological sex.

Again, until you can show that they believe they are not born that way, happening prior to transition is irrelevant.
And unless you can show data on where each crime occurred, we have to work with the available data. The fact that these offense occur at all is evidence of danger.

Yes, but would be nice to have something verifying it's authenticity, as the way it is there's no way to tell if the numbers are genuine or not (as anybody could just edit them.)

I could say that for any study you cite too. Do you really want undermine everything you cite out of hand? @_@
We don't usually have access to all the raw data and sources for a study, so we either accept it all or accept none. Your choice.

The rate for the UK is about the same:

"Joe Sullivan has spent 26 years counselling child sex offenders in the United Kingdom and is visiting Australia to attend an international police conference at Bond University on the Gold Coast. 

While experts agree the majority of paedophiles are men, Dr Sullivan says women are responsible for more offences than previously thought. 

"There's some research to suggest it could be as high as 25 per cent.""

The rate for what is "about the same"? @_@
Female sexual offenders being more prevalent than some thought does not make it equal to men, as your quote plainly states [bolded]. If that's not your claim, you seem to be lost in the weeds again. 9_9

But the real problem seems to be your reading comprehension. "females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males," does not mean the rate of women offending is 17% or 24%. It means that, of all sexual abuse victims, women only account for "13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males." Again... that literally means that men account for 87% of the abuse of females and 76% of the abuse of males. Huge disparity.

True, but you also cannot assume that the percentage of sex offenders incarcerated transfers over neatly to the non-incarcerated population either.

Actually, it is a far superior metric than the sampling bias of criminals, as it is compared directly to the population. And in lieu of better data, it is the only intellectually honest data to go on.

I was responding to the "wrong body" part you specifically keep on quoting. Their belief on their transness doesn't affect the offending. 

So you agree their offenses committed prior to transition equally apply to transgenders? @_@

How can it be well founded when we've never found an actual case of a trans woman pretending to be a cis woman in the Olympics? Sounds extremely unfounded to me. 

Where do you imagine anyone said anything about a "trans woman pretending to be a cis woman"? @_@
I said, "being banned for unfair advantage."

You're the one who seems to be special pleading here for me to ignore the lack of evidence. We don't even know what the amount of crimes were; unless we know that we cannot assume anything. And that matters, because if transwomen are mostly committing arson (for example) but rarely sex offending, then that means that arson wouldn't be something to look out for, and the risks for sex offending would be small, and unlikely to happen in a bathroom. If the sex offending is simply prostitution, then there's little to no risk to children, they're just a prostitute. It matters. 

Wow, I even linked to what special pleading means, and you still got it wrong. 9_9
Again, unless you have better data, we have to work with what we have... that clearly shows that trans women continue to have a male-type pattern of criminality.
The available evidence says that there is no difference in criminality between men and trans women. That means the onus is on you to evince your positive claim that sexual offenses differ from this trend. Otherwise, you're just making an argument from ignorance (e.g. your "lack of evidence").

No, you learn how to read. I said what I said - there's no special threat a trans woman can make that a violent woman can't. (Excluding ones using male anatomy of course.) 

Threats that require male strength are ones "women could never hope to achieve."

Supported claim: "In their 2013 report on hate violence against transgender communities, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found that TGD people were 7 times more likely to experience physical violence when interacting with police than their cisgender counterparts (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2017). Additional research has found that TGD people experience disproportionately high rates of unjustified police stops and arrests, harassment and assault from police, and discrimination while incarcerated (Stotzer, 2014)." 

Again, you claimed "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."
You have not supported that claim about "sexual assault perpetrators."

Do you see how it's hypocritical for you to not accept general rates of criminality but then to demand that general stats on police interactions somehow speak to sexual assault perpetrators? @_@

That's not proven in this paper, and it's a genetic fallacy again. Trans women (and transgender people in general) gain a sense of power through transitioning, focusing on positivity and supporting each other. Powerlessness actually stems from being forced into cis notions of gender and being treated as their birth sex.

"Participants characterized power as agency over decisions about their bodies, their identities, and their ability to lead healthy, successful lives. Participants believed power was multisystemic and could be controlled or created at an individual- and macro-level. Power was also described as impermanent and an agent of prejudice that could clash or converge with other meaningful social identities."

Different and irrelevant definition of power.
Feminism is literally an ideology, which is contrary to science.

While mainstream research traditions generally attempt to eliminate bias,
many feminist researchers and theorists deliberately reject this goal as impossible and undesirable, and instead embrace a transparently acknowledged bias. Rather than accepting the notion of a neutral, value-free objective reality, feminist methodologies embrace subjectivity as an essential part of the knowledge-building process.
- Google AI

It is an extension of postmodernism, which denies objective reality... the basis of science.
If you can't understand this, you're scientifically illiterate.

What the first study in that paper's quote cites seems supported by experimental evidence: "Overall, the results of this study strongly support the utility of the confluence model as a guide in identifying the variables that may contribute to sexual aggression and to other types of conflict with women." The second one is in a book and cannot be found, but the first one's conclusions support an earlier work's conclusion. And subsequent works seem to validate it.

Only 1 group, of 9 men, scored high on all five variables, and only 8 reported some sexual aggression.
If you think 8 men is a strong sample size, you're just ridiculous.

What I'm saying is, it's (however slim) a possibility. If what you were saying about military women were true, they would have found a solution by now. 

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

It does. If trans people are accepted, offending rate could go down: "Due to a complex web of family rejection, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, bias, and discrimination, LGBTQ+ individuals may turn to criminalized activities like theft, panhandling, and sex work in order to survive. Heightened police surveillance increases the likelihood of LGBTQ+ individuals being arrested and charged for forms of criminalized survival. LGBTQ+ individuals with a history of criminal legal system involvement experience heightened discrimination and exclusion from employment, education, and other opportunities because of their records, leading to continued homelessness, unemployment, and poverty. This creates a revolving door back into the system."

"Could go down" is not an argument. Citing a blog about general LGBTQ+ self-reported stats doesn't help either.

Because as a society, we're barely able to take care of the ones we have now. It's 100% a responsible choice to not have more children if you can't take care of the ones you have. Or, you know, if something terrible happens to a woman (or teenager) and she needs to abort the pregnancy.

Really? Even though the only solutions presented for the declining workforce due to low birthrates is the importation of immigrant labor?
So you can keep pandering to unaccountable women while importing a new underclass, specifically into Democrat sanctuary cities, serving the purpose of artificially inflating their own census data and Congressional seats. So killing babies is just as self-serving for the Democrat party as is their pandering to women.

Could be. Depends on whether you're being inappropriate there or not, like anything else. 

So now you admit that simple exposure isn't enough, and it takes "being inappropriate" to be a crime?

A risk not supported by any scientific evidence.
It's not a treatment, but it is a medical procedure also covered by HIPPA laws: "The information protected by HIPAA is all health information relating to an individual’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual."

There have literally been women physically harmed, including permanent brain injury, and the loss of opportunities harm their sports and college careers.
Again, the reason why a women couldn't have a bone/muscle density test (pregnancy) couldn't be reported to the sports league, due to HIPAA law. And nondiscrimination law, like Title IX, doesn't allow unequal treatment of men and women in sports.

https://hipaatimes.com/hipaa-coverage-fo...ical-staff

"However, the situation is different for team physicians and trainers employed directly by sports organizations. These medical professionals are not typically subject to HIPAA in their role as team employees, as their relationship with the athlete is primarily an employment context rather than a traditional healthcare provider-patient relationship." Apparently sports teams aren't even beholden to HIPAA, they can just do whatever.

Team physicians and trainers do not administer radiological tests.

They don't have to say, they can just say "test was denied" or "test failed". Or even just reschedule it for a few months in the future. But as I've shown, some sports teams aren't even bound by HIPAA so they can do whatever they'd like.

Yep, and a woman gets banned unfairly... due to transgenders in women's sports.
No, you haven't shown they're unbound by HIPAA. Team physicians and trainers don't do radiological tests. Team physicians may order x-rays, but they do not perform them.

Prove that any trans person isn't feeling the way they're feeling. If it's such an objective fact, prove it.

Their identity is that of the other sex or gender. You can't see an identity physically, that's why it's an identity. If you can, then again prove it. 

There are different treatments for different mental disorders, it's not a one size fits all. You wouldn't treat a borderline person the same way you would a depressed person, for example. As psychology has already tried to treat transgender identities by other means and failed, this is a promising and helpful treatment: 
"119 (46.9%) of the patients filled out and returned the questionnaires, at a mean of 5.05 years after surgery (standard deviation 1.61 years, range 1–7 years). 90.2% said their expectations for life as a woman were fulfilled postoperatively. 85.4% saw themselves as women. 61.2% were satisfied, and 26.2% very satisfied, with their outward appearance as a woman; 37.6% were satisfied, and 34.4% very satisfied, with the functional outcome. 65.7% said they were satisfied with their life as it is now."

LOL! "Feelings" are subjective, not objective facts. The person's physiology is an objective fact. You asking for anyone to "prove" a feeling is just scientifically illiterate.
As long as they are affirming the delusions, of course any other treatment will fail. You cannot hope to treat a delusion you're constantly affirming as true.

The response rate of less than 50% must be mentioned
as a shortcoming of this study. This may have led to a
bias in the results. If all patients who did not take part in
the survey were dissatisfied, up to 50.1% and 54.6%
would be dissatisfied with aesthetic or functional out-
come respectively.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nt_Surgery

Might not be so promising or helpful after all. 9_9

And you did actually flip flop:

Again, no one has demonstrated that trans have "genuine needs."
Trans "gender" is literally a disorder... gender dysphoria. And you've already proven the worries well-founded, even if only due to the greater potential for males to abuse access.

Only the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender dysphoria falls under the ADA, so this is not settled law.

Most, if not all disorders are liable for coverage and treatment. You can't argue gender dysphoria is a disorder and then argue that none of the accomodations afforded to disorders apply to it. It's either a disorder or it's not.

Again, it's not settled law that gender dysphoria is a disability under the ADA. Not only is a disorder not the same as a disability, but "coverage and treatment" are not accommodations either. Man, you really like to conflate terms. 9_9
And it's just sad that you think this is me flip flopping.
Again, no other disorder is treated by simply affirming the belief associated with the disorder. Why is transgenderism the only disorder treated this way?

You only feel the need to repeat it because you fail to show evidence that transwomen were sneaking into sports. 

Never claimed they have. This is just another of your useless straw men.

Which can only be true if transwomen are proven to have a de-facto physical advantage. Which isn't proven yet, seeing as how results are inconclusive right now. 

I've already shown the 75% of trans women cannot reduce their testosterone and that they retain higher bone/muscle density due to gestational and developmental exposure to testosterone. Any amount of harm is harm.

No, it's not. If they can't tell conclusively who would have placed where, it's misleading to act as if they can. 

No, you obviously just don't understand the very simple methodology. 9_9

But they can still be beaten. They didn't do so well that no woman could beat them, and unfair advantage hasn't been conclusively proven.

In those two provinces they did.

No, because as I've shown above even with bathroom laws permitting access, the amount of bathroom offenses don't change.

Now you're just lying. You haven't shown any studies giving data specifically on bathroom sexual assaults.

Well then it's not irrelevant, then. 

Aw, still don't understand, huh?
Figures.

"More leftist excuses" is not an argument, and again, genetic fallacy. There's no evidence for what you're claiming. 

No, the data I've clearly shown is the evidence. You're leftist arm waving is just desperate.
The data comes from the FBI. No genetic fallacy there.

No, that's just the clearest example that not "all men."

Not really. Some gay men would still protect women, so again, the fact that you went there is weird. Quite telling of your mental state, actually.

Yeah, yeah, keep trying your useless ad homs.
"Some gay men" still means not "all men," hence not your stupid straw man.

Wow, it's almost like women are not a hive mind and what one woman likes, another dislikes! Women aren't a monolith, some may like one thing and some may like another thing. Individual women are generally consistent, but as collectively women aren't all the same, opinions vary even for the most basic of things.

Again, why I believe you're a straight women, because you have zero experience with dating women.
My examples come from women, thinking they are speaking for all women... much like you're doing.
9_9

[Railko]

Too bad you can't understand simple English. Only a parent claimed it was unclear, but the statement/policy from the school was clear as day...if you could only comprehend simple English. The school only acknowledged that the trans student didn't follow school policy.

And yet the district takes responsibility....

https://www.sunprairieschools.org/distri...l-students

"With recent media coverage elevating an incident that occurred at EHS in early March, we’ve created a webpage to help our families and community members better understand how the SPASD’s vision and mission, the School Board’s Equity Statement, and Constitutional law and federal case law have played into this situation. 
Due to laws protecting student privacy, we cannot comment on the details of the incident. However, we can share:

• All individuals involved in this incident were students enrolled in the District.
  
• The District immediately addressed this incident after it was brought to the District’s attention and started an investigation. 
  
• The District took steps to ensure a similar incident does not recur. 
  
• The District talked with the students and families who were involved who came forward. 
  
• The District offered and provided support to the involved students and their families.
  
• The School Board has been fully informed of the incident during a Closed Session on May 1st, has been briefed by the school district’s attorney, and is aware of the school district’s community response.
  

We want to be clear:

• The Sun Prairie Area School District does not condone any student of one sex being present in a state of undress in the presence of students of another sex. 
  
• The District does not condone a student of one sex showering in the presence of students of another sex. 
  
• What happened in this incident was not in line with our District’s practices."
  

Additionally, the school is LGBTQ+ supportive, so it's not a case of a transwoman deciding to use the facilities by herself. She clearly had some level of support:

"The Sun Prairie Area School District Board of Education proudly adopted and continues to stand behind the Board's Equity Statement (below) for the school district. We firmly support the District mission and to ensure ALL children are safe and loved in our schools. Every Child, Every Day. In June, we will reaffirm our Equity Statement by approving a resolution in support of our LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and community members in honor of Pride Month. 
We are honored to be joined by other community leaders in supporting our LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and community members and the school district."

You trying to blame a transwoman when the school has accepted blame and has not said the student is at fault, is at odds with all of the facts on the matter.

And then, let's say the transgender teen was the one in the wrong. Why did they not administer disciplinary measures on them? They don't say anything about that, only that they have talked to the families, and offered support. Most teens doing something similar would have faced disciplinary measures, maybe a suspension or expulsion, especially if the school wasn't at fault. Instead, the school admitted fault and offered support. Why is that, if the teen is at fault?

Adult student exposing himself to minors. Trying to weasel out of it with "they were both students" doesn't change that fact.
Allowing trans in women's spaces, in general, necessarily includes minors in many such places, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.. You pretending (or worse, not pretending) to be oblivious of this fact... while slinging pathetic ad homs... is not going help your argument.

Well them being students does matter, because if they belong in the school, then it's a matter of school policy. They're not a stranger, they are allowed access to some facilities - it only matters which ones. Intent to alarm, arouse, or offend has to be proven, and that wasn't shown here. Some trans are minors too, as that student must have been a few months back. It's not a calculated predator we're dealing with. 

You are the one slinging the ad hominins first. I didn't start until you did. And it is true, you are awfully fixated on the gays, seeing as how you're spontaneously bringing them up (out of all the insults you could use, why those? it is curious) so I feel inclined to probe.

A public bathroom? @_@

Yes. Haven't you ever been at a school, or procrastinating an event? In school there are often kids just lurking in the bathroom, hanging out (sometimes cheating on tests tbh) and sometimes just killing time. In non-school public restrooms I don't know the amount of people lurking because I don't lurk there myself, but I'd presume similar reasons for most people (killing time, talking to people on the phone). It's not an indication of intent. 

Except I am voicing concerns I've heard from actual women. You've admitted that some women do have these concerns.
No one said my words hold more weight than women, but when no such women are on this forum to express their concerns, there's nothing wrong with someone making them known and arguing their merit. Just like you wouldn't be out of line to express what you've heard men say, where there's no such men to express it.

But at some point I would be overstepping, especially if evidence proved me wrong. If men said they were lonely solely because women wouldn't date them, and evidence showed that they could make friends with each other, after a certain point I'd be in the wrong if I tried to argue that they need women based on experiences that weren't even mine, and against the evidence. If I started acting as if I had ulterior motives (like graphically focusing on how barren the men's bed is) then other people would be right to not trust me based on how I was behaving, or think that there's something more to my pleading. As it shows here with some of these men.

But you picked two squeaky clean celebs. 9_9
I didn't say "has a wife," I said "often with his wife." Please learn to read.
Without evidence of a crime, more accusations do not prove anything... except to 12 morons (which I've said before). Allegations being "more likely" or "more likely to be credible" depends on the actual evidence. There are plenty of false allegations that prove what people may think is "credible" isn't actually.

Do false allegations require a man to have a skeevy, sketchy or otherwise unsavory history? If someone's making stuff up, I'm sure the type of person who's going to be accused doesn't matter much, as long as the story sounds plausible. And if false allegations often occur with someone who has an unsavory history, why is it that the allegations are false, and not that the person with a unsavory history is actually doing something unsavory? Legally, it might not prove anything, but it is an indication that something's going on.

If a restaurant gets one or two bad reviews, maybe they just pissed off a few people. If almost everyone that goes there claims that the food is bad and there's shit on the floor... maybe there's some truth to it. 

It just follow logically. If the were fewer false allegations, there would be less resistance to believing new allegations.

"Follows logically" isn't evidence, and the evidence is not in favor of your claims: 

"Rape Culture Places Blame On The Victim: Historically, even in ancient civilizations, rape wasn’t seen as a crime against the victim, if the victim was female. Instead, unless the woman could prove she screamed for help or fought her attacker, both the attacker and victim would be put to death. In some cases, if she could prove she had been a virgin at the time of the rape, she was allowed to live and the case was seen as a property crime against her father.  While this certainly isn’t the case today, victim blaming regularly occurs and is one of the most common issues a victim faces. This usually comes in the form of questions like “Well, what were you wearing?” or “Did you do something to make him think it was ok?”

"In response, Denhollander provided numerous studies which show that time and time again, predators go unstopped because the victim isn’t believed, mostly because even with evidence, adults and those in charge don’t want to believe."

The resistance has always been there.

No, that's what you're inferring. I never implied it.

You're right, you never implied it. You directly said it:

But after #MeToo, consent is the most powerful weapon a woman can wield. That any woman would be so completely ignorant of that seriously strains credibility. 

No, the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence. It is also absent from the United States Constitution.
Instead of the term "democracy," the Declaration of Independence states that governments get their authority from "the consent of the governed". This language reflects democratic ideals, but the founders did not use the word itself in this document or the Constitution.
- Google AI
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
- Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution

You seem to be conflating democracy with modern/liberal forms of democracy.

Tyranny of the majority refers to a situation in majority rule where the preferences and interests of the majority dominate the political landscape, potentially sidelining or repressing minority groups and using majority rule to take non-democratic actions.
...
To reduce the risk of majority tyranny, modern democracies frequently have countermajoritarian institutions that restrict the ability of majorities to repress minorities and stymie political competition.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
In political philosophy, the majority rule is one of two major competing notions of democracy.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule
Democracies may use many different decision-making methods, but majority rule is the dominant form. Without compensation, like legal protections of individual or group rights, political minorities can be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority".
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Yet even the AI admits that what's written "reflects democratic ideals". And we have stuff to protect against tyranny of the majority in the US, like the supreme court. Which is why people look to it with regard for determining the rights of minority groups beyond the presidency and votes. Which is why the Supreme Court rules in favor of things like gay marriage and protections for gender identity. 

Anecdotes can refute broad statements like, "trans women aren't posing any harm to cis women." It's the same as a single black swan refuting the claim that "all swans are white."

Massachusetts was selected as a case
study for this analysis, because, for a period of time, Massachusetts had a statewide nondiscrimination law that was inclusive
of gender identity in employment and housing, but not public accommodations. Thus, these conditions created an optimal context
in which to compare rates of public restroom privacy and safety incidents in localities that had passed local GIPANDOs with
matched localities that had not.
- https://escholarship.org/content/qt4rs4n...f?t=qecca2

This is not actually a good methodology, as nondiscrimination law for gender identity in employment and housing implies some acceptance of gender identity in general that could readily affect the rates of reported incidents. It's a selection bias. That Massachusetts later passed a statewide gender identity non-discrimination law for bathrooms shows the public acceptance in that state. Here's a detailed criticism of further methodological problems:

Unfortunately, due to a number of limitations, especially related to the data especially a small sample size (due in large part to non-responses) as well as a vague description of key methodological decisions, evidence from the comparisons is shaky, at best. In my reading, despite several strengths, this study has several serious shortcomings that raise questions about the utility of the study and its findings and for these reasons should not be used to inform public policy.
- https://publons.com/wos-op/review/8261257/

As I also clarified in "so you thought I meant all gay men" portion of the reply, I'm using "all" in the same colloquial way someone would say "all children are playful" - not literally every single child, but enough to where a child not doing that would be an anomaly. 

Your article offering critique is coming at the paper from what is essentially a strawman:
"The presence of male people (regardless of gender identity) can make female people feel uneasy not because of transphobia, but because gender identity is not observable. Thus, women have no way of ascertaining whether a male person is safe or a sincere transwoman just going on with their lives." 

However, the transwomen in the study had gender markers changed or some consistent evidence they were transitioning, as the person critiquing even acknowledged: 

"Massachusetts did not define or protect a gender identity based on in the moment self-declaration, but instead extended right-of-access to sex-based provisions to those who had a gender identity that “may be shown” and included an “improper purpose clause” that explicitly prohibits the use of gender identity right-of-access for improper purposes. Specifically, the statute states:
“Gender identity” shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose”"

You couldn't just say it, you'd need evidence that you were a transwoman to use the bathroom. So in this case the trans identity would be visible in some fashion, allowing a woman (as well as anybody else, like police) to ascertain whether their gender identity claims were genuine or not, and any improper use would get them removed. This improper use did not happen, as the author of the critique agreed (although they disagree with generalizing the findings to other areas, which is fine): 

"As for their results, the authors found no differences between the GIPANDO localities and the matched localities in the rate of reported incidents in public restrooms and locker rooms over the time span, which was not made clear. The authors concluded: “we found no evidence that privacy and safety in public restrooms change as a result of the passage of GIPANDOs” (p.78). While that appears to be a true statement, I do not think it is one that is robust enough to be useful for policy implications. For the reasons noted above, I believe the study’s methodology vitiates the utility of its findings, especially their generalizability to areas that are not adjacent to a large, progressive city that has had a GIPANDO rule for a decade (Boston)."

And accepting gender identity shouldn't affect reporting of crimes nor offending rate (as transpeople are more likely to be reported for crimes than cis people: "This disproportionate contact with the justice system is equally pervasive for youth and adults—16 percent of trans-identified adults have been incarcerated, compared to 2.7 percent of cisgender adults") - but if that's the case and accepting gender identity does, then that simply means that as acceptance goes up, trans people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice without issue, without affecting the assault offender rate. The study results may or may not apply to non-progressive cities (especially as the law itself wasn't clear on who could use the bathrooms besides those with gender markings), but the results could apply to other cities as acceptance goes up. It's promising, and indicates that assaults aren't a given.

No, still your poor reading comprehension.
When I say, "I haven't seen any of the examples you gave," I don't mean I missed your examples.
I mean I haven't seen any actual men say those things.
9_9

It's not poor reading comprehension if you don't clarify what you mean. "I haven't seen any of the examples you gave" doesn't clarify where or when you haven't seen it, only that you haven't seen any of it. And that could also include my prior example, especially as you tried to claim it was a straw man despite proof being given earlier in the thread. 

You:

I don't know what "most men" you're referring to. I haven't seen any of the examples you gave.
Sounds like a straw man.

Even if you hadn't seen it in real life, you would know what "most men" I'm referring to and it wouldn't be a straw man, because examples of men being fixated with penises were given, and I clarified I wasn't talking about you being perverted.

Where do you imagine I've claimed they are "the norm"? @_@
Just another straw man. 9_9

Considering your entire argument is that transwomen in women's bathrooms will naturally diminish the "safety, privacy, and consent" of cis women and possibly lead to sexual assault, you're arguing that this risk is significant enough to take action against transwomen. If you believed it were a one-off (and statistically irrelevant) you wouldn't have an argument.

Then it's completely irrelevant, as I'm talking about what transgenders, themselves, believe and claim.
Again, go and try telling one that they were not born that way. Be sure to come back and let us know how that goes for you. 9_9
Since I've said that before, you'll probably keep deflecting, instead of answering the simple question.

Do you think all trans people think and feel the same thing? Like, it's not a majority view by any means but some do believe it about themselves. It's not a choice, but not all trans people believe they were born trans. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...dice-brain

"For my own part, I am often surprised and infuriated by accusations that because I am a trans woman I am the proponent of an ideology or agenda that believes in “pink and blue brains”, or in an innate gender identity that stands independent of society and culture. I believe no such thing, and share with fellow feminists a refusal to entertain the dangerous idea that the oppression of women and queer people has a natural basis rather than being a socially engineered phenomenon."

And from some other trans people, again anecdotally from reddit but relevant here:

1: "The short answer is that there is no perfect scientific consensus on the issue. It is generally accepted that if you are trans, that can't be changed really, and there are a ton of studies backing that up, but as for the actual cause of being trans, there are a couple of different theories that might hold water ranging from a difference in brain development, to genetic predispositions, to the hormone washes received in the womb.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me why we're trans.
2: "Ill just add to the chorus. You can be either. For me I was born a boy, I lived a cursed life as a boy, became a man, and now Im a woman. I didnt know I was trans, but there have always been signs in retrospect. Doesn't change that I was socialized as a boy, believed I was a boy, acted like a boy (poorly), and everyone believed I was a boy. An extremely gay coded boy despite me having zero attraction to men, but a boy."
3: "I don't think I was born trans. My depression started around age 15, and I started acting more feminine at that time. At age 22, I finally admitted it to myself but ended up shoving those thoughts down. Now, at 32, I'm finally giving them a chance. But looking back, I don't think I would have seen myself as a girl until I was around 15."

But even then, their beliefs about whether or not their born their way has nothing to do with the actual effect transitioning could have on the rates. A transwoman who hasn't transitioned is a biological male, but after transitioning (assuming a full physical transition) she lacks male genitalia, at least the testes if nothing else. In animals castration reduces aggression, in sex offenders chemical castration lowers the rate of offending ("Surgical castration reportedly produces definitive results, even in repeat pedophilic offenders, by reducing recidivism rates to 2% to 5% compared with expected rates of 50%."), and so it's plausible that transwomen who are transitioned would be less of a risk (assuming the sexual offenses are pedophilia and assault and not like, prostitution). But also, we don't know as those studies  haven't gone into that, or transwomen criminal behavior in the bathrooms. 

Again, until you can show that they believe they are not born that way, happening prior to transition is irrelevant.
And unless you can show data on where each crime occurred, we have to work with the available data. The fact that these offense occur at all is evidence of danger.

Happening prior to transition is still very relevant regardless of origin. If transitioning reduces sexual offenses, then that means only non-transitioned transwomen are a risk. If social transitioning reduces the risk, then that means letting transwomen be themselves reduces their risk to others, and it's not ingrained in their genes/hormones/etc. If physical transitioning reduces the risk, then physically transitioned transwomen may not be a danger to cis women, and can use the women's bathrooms at will. 

No, it's not really evidence of danger, not unless we can see the details of where and why these offenses occurred. You can't assume what the data represents.

I could say that for any study you cite too. Do you really want undermine everything you cite out of hand? @_@
We don't usually have access to all the raw data and sources for a study, so we either accept it all or accept none. Your choice.

With the studies I cite, there's usually citations from the authors, where it was first published, what journals verified it... with the excel spreadsheet there is none. That's the verification I'm looking for, something to show these are the authentic numbers. Like something showing that it's true.

The rate for what is "about the same"? @_@
Female sexual offenders being more prevalent than some thought does not make it equal to men, as your quote plainly states [bolded]. If that's not your claim, you seem to be lost in the weeds again. 9_9
But the real problem seems to be your reading comprehension. "females may account for up to 13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males," does not mean the rate of women offending is 17% or 24%. It means that, of all sexual abuse victims, women only account for "13% of the abuse of females and 24% of the abuse of males." Again... that literally means that men account for 87% of the abuse of females and 76% of the abuse of males. Huge disparity.

The rate for offenders in the UK is estimated to be around 25%, around the same for women in Canada for the males they're abusing.

I'm saying that amount (the females abusing) should be added to the incarcerated prison population. That population. I would like a clearer image of just how many women are offending and to be able to compare it to the transwoman population. But that might be difficult to do, and given most would be estimates, not particularly useful.

Actually, it is a far superior metric than the sampling bias of criminals, as it is compared directly to the population. And in lieu of better data, it is the only intellectually honest data to go on.

Highly skeptical of that, but in lieu of anything else I'll accept it for now.

So you agree their offenses committed prior to transition equally apply to transgenders? @_@

While the Swedish study adds additional information that the prior studies didn't and says the rates of offending stays the same for MTFs, but FTMs increase to a male rate, we still don't have the amount of trans women doing which crime (as all violent offenses are being taken together). Additionally, they say criminality was only significant in the group before 1989: "Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989." Quite possibly, as stigma goes down the risk of violent crime goes down, and if that study I shared about bathroom laws holds true here, in places with little stigma there wouldn't be many, if any offenses from transpeople. And none of this has addressed whether these crimes would occur in the bathrooms, the main issue in all of this. If a transwoman is beating up men in an alleyway or something it doesn't hold much relevance to whether they're a danger to women in the bathrooms.

Where do you imagine anyone said anything about a "trans woman pretending to be a cis woman"? @_@
I said, "being banned for unfair advantage."

You have been saying that regulations in sports came about because of transwomen.

Again, if trans weren't in women's sports, we would have never needed to start strict testosterone tests. Again, trans harming women.

A transwoman can only be in the Olympics deceptively (to where you'd need tests) if she pretends to be a cis woman. But there's never been an incident of this happening. So there'd be no reason to even suspect anybody as having an unfair advantage (tied to being a bio male), when they're all women. 

Wow, I even linked to what special pleading means, and you still got it wrong. 9_9
Again, unless you have better data, we have to work with what we have... that clearly shows that trans women continue to have a male-type pattern of criminality.
The available evidence says that there is no difference in criminality between men and trans women. That means the onus is on you to evince your positive claim that sexual offenses differ from this trend. Otherwise, you're just making an argument from ignorance (e.g. your "lack of evidence").

Nope, I got it right. You think I'm arguing for an unjustified exception, but you're the one who's doing that. You have no evidence from that study to conclude what the ratio of sexual offenses were, or even what they were. You're the one trying to make an argument from ignorance - we have no data on what the sexual offenses were or how many (only that there were offenses and they followed a male-type pattern of criminality) and that information is not enough to make a conclusion. You're arguing that they're a danger in the bathrooms (as well as other women's spaces) based off of this, but there's no evidence to suggest that. Whereas multiple sources indicate that bathroom assaults are rare and that most sexual offenses by strangers are done outdoors or in the home:

"S1 rapes conformed most closely to the commonly held belief that stranger rape occurs in secluded outdoor environments (Estrich, 1987) with the majority of S1 encounter and offence settings outdoors in the current study. [...] We did find that there was greater variety in the encounter and offence settings for S2 rapes. The most common encounter locations were outdoors and entertainment venues, and the most common offence location was the suspect’s or victim’s dwelling."

...and the fact that even stranger rapists aren't preying on people in bathrooms indicates that there is a clear difference in bathroom assaults vs other sexual offenses. 

Threats that require male strength are ones "women could never hope to achieve." 

Give some examples. Because a woman could, for example, threaten to beat up a person, threaten to kill them, threaten to throw them around, and there are plenty of female murderers out there... so I don't see any special difference between these threats and a threats a transwoman could do.

Again, you claimed "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."
You have not supported that claim about "sexual assault perpetrators."
Do you see how it's hypocritical for you to not accept general rates of criminality but then to demand that general stats on police interactions somehow speak to sexual assault perpetrators? @_@

Seems like you're struggling to understand a lot...

You've given several sources showing sex offending transwomen, particularly news articles about them. They have been noticed, sometimes being investigated by various authority figures. They are noticeable, and stick out (as you've said that you yourself can pick out transwomen from cis women) from the women around them. So this is evidence, if anecdotal, that transwomen are more noticeable than cis women, ie. they stick out. Police officers are more likely to arrest LGBTQ people all around, and trans people especially, indicating that they stick out to police officers. Your own sources, if true, would indicate transwomen are being incarcerated at high rates. They stick out. A transwoman would be more likely to be heckled by police, to make the news, to be incarcerated. 

Where did I say I never accepted it? I just need more evidence, and we do need to tease out the different factors that could lead to one result over another, to be sure it's related to transwomen. (for example, are transwomen being busted for pedophilia, or prostitution? One is more serious than the other.) After all, if it's such a certain thing, that shouldn't be too hard. 

Different and irrelevant definition of power.
Feminism is literally an ideology, which is contrary to science.

While mainstream research traditions generally attempt to eliminate bias,
many feminist researchers and theorists deliberately reject this goal as impossible and undesirable, and instead embrace a transparently acknowledged bias. Rather than accepting the notion of a neutral, value-free objective reality, feminist methodologies embrace subjectivity as an essential part of the knowledge-building process.
- Google AI

It is an extension of postmodernism, which denies objective reality... the basis of science.
If you can't understand this, you're scientifically illiterate.

Do you have the source for what Google AI claims? And does it matter if the science proves what the feminists have been saying? Feminism may be an ideology, but science isn't. For example, feminism states that modern society is patriarchal, which is already a known fact. If feminists state that rape is caused by hypermasculinity and feeling entitled to women, if the scientific evidence shows that to be true, then it really doesn't matter who came up with it - it's a fact. 

Only 1 group, of 9 men, scored high on all five variables, and only 8 reported some sexual aggression.
If you think 8 men is a strong sample size, you're just ridiculous.

And yet subsequent studies (as shown previously in this thread) build off of them, and seem to support this conclusion. 8 might not be a strong sample size, but if the experiments are repeated and the same evidence keeps on coming up, there might be a case there: "Research on the confluence model suggests that a number of important tenets of the theory are valid. For example, a relationship between dominance and sexual aggression has been documented empirically. There is also empirical evidence that those who use sexual coercion are more likely to endorse short-term mating strategies, and that hostile masculinity is related to negative attitudes toward women (Dean & Malamuth, 1997; Malamuth et al., 1995)."

[quote pid="76021" dateline="1757905516"]
Syne"Could go down" is not an argument. Citing a blog about general LGBTQ+ self-reported stats doesn't help either.
[/quote]

It's actually from a research report, the blog is talking about the findings. And other scientific articles support this theory:
"This review demonstrates that transgender stigma limits opportunities and access to resources in a number of critical domains (e.g., employment, healthcare), persistently affecting the physical and mental health of transgender people. The applied social ecological model employed here elucidates that transgender stigma operates at multiple levels (i.e., individual, interpersonal, structural) to impact health. Stigma prevention and coping interventions hold promise for reducing stigma and its adverse health-related effects in transgender populations."

Really? Even though the only solutions presented for the declining workforce due to low birthrates is the importation of immigrant labor?
So you can keep pandering to unaccountable women while importing a new underclass, specifically into Democrat sanctuary cities, serving the purpose of artificially inflating their own census data and Congressional seats. So killing babies is just as self-serving for the Democrat party as is their pandering to women.

You can't really keep to one topic, can you?

But anyway, if there were more programs to help take care of the existing children (medicaid to help low-income families, better healthcare in general, free school lunch for poor children, more pay for families, low cost childcare and paid leave for parents, and yes even welfare) and if they were better funded, maybe more women would have children and replenish the workforce. But you don't have to worry about that, more women are opting for sterilization (being accountable, as one might say) so they never have to deal with that. So good luck finding solutions to your economic woes, because if the women can't reproduce that leaves you very few (non-immigrant) options. 

So now you admit that simple exposure isn't enough, and it takes "being inappropriate" to be a crime?

You have to be inappropriate in all cases. That's why they say with intent to alarm, offend or arouse, and that's why I said just standing naked by itself isn't a crime. It's why intent has to be proven. You were arguing that same-sex exposure was okay (not a crime) as long as it was the same sex, when that's not the case. People can and will be uncomfortable, and if they know it's a reportable offense, they will report it, regardless of sex.

There have literally been women physically harmed, including permanent brain injury, and the loss of opportunities harm their sports and college careers.
Again, the reason why a women couldn't have a bone/muscle density test (pregnancy) couldn't be reported to the sports league, due to HIPAA law. And nondiscrimination law, like Title IX, doesn't allow unequal treatment of men and women in sports.

We were talking about harm from scans at this point, no? There's no proven harm from the scans.

It could be reported, it would just have to follow HIPAA and everything would need to be private, and consent laws signed. This isn't a big hurdle to cross. We've been through this already - nondiscrimination laws doesn't refer to medical tests that are biologically necessary. If bone/muscle density is more of a concern in women (as women are more likely to suffer from osteoporosis and muscle sprains) it's not discrimination to scan for an athlete's health. 

Team physicians and trainers do not administer radiological tests. 

But they can order them. They do have to work with radiologists normally (such as when a player breaks a leg): "In the case of NFL physicians, in addition to providing injury treatment, they may also provide direction and support for other team physicians, athletic trainers, x-ray technicians, and paramedics who are also attending the NFL games." They already work with them, I can't imagine bone and muscle scans being much different.

Yep, and a woman gets banned unfairly... due to transgenders in women's sports.
No, you haven't shown they're unbound by HIPAA. Team physicians and trainers don't do radiological tests. Team physicians may order x-rays, but they do not perform them.

Then HIPAA would apply there. They ask for consent and share information through secure channels. It's not that hard. 

LOL!  "Feelings" are subjective, not objective facts. The person's physiology is an objective fact. You asking for anyone to "prove" a feeling is just scientifically illiterate.
As long as they are affirming the delusions, of course any other treatment will fail. You cannot hope to treat a delusion you're constantly affirming as true.

The response rate of less than 50% must be mentioned
as a  shortcoming of this study. This may have led  to a
bias in the results. If all patients who did not take part in
the  survey  were dissatisfied,  up  to 50.1%  and  54.6%
would be dissatisfied  with  aesthetic  or  functional  out-
come respectively.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nt_Surgery

Might not be so promising or helpful after all. 9_9

But they're not making a claim about their physiology, but their identity, an internal, subjective experience. You're making a claim that it's a delusion, something not supported by scientific evidence. Delusions are almost always disprovable, and if you can't disprove it it's not a delusion (the reason why religious faith is not a delusion). You're also not predisposed to one specific delusion from an early age, it's usually part of a mental health disorder like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which happens later on in life.

So prove it (that it's a delusion), if true.

And yet the ones who do report it, report satisfaction. If it wasn't a helpful treatment at all, most would not report any satisfaction, and there'd be a high failure rate with the ones who stuck around to respond. But it seems to be successful and many people vouch for it, showing that it at least does some good. 

Again, it's not settled law that gender dysphoria is a disability under the ADA. Not only is a disorder not the same as a disability, but "coverage and treatment" are not accommodations either. Man, you really like to conflate terms. 9_9
And it's just sad that you think this is me flip flopping. 
Again, no other disorder is treated by simply affirming the belief associated with the disorder. Why is transgenderism the only disorder treated this way?

Yet you say it's a disorder. Disorders generally go hand in hand with disability, since if you're disordered you're likely to be disabled (a person doesn't have severe bipolar disorder and not a disability, for example) so if you're making the claim that it's a disorder, it would likely also be a disability. You can't have one and not the other.

https://rockymountainada.org/resources/g...20distress

"Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, Inc. (2017) is another case in the Third Circuit Federal District Court that concluded the ADA does not rule out gender dysphoria from being a disability.5  The court in this case reasoned that gender dysphoria was a disabling condition related to gender because it can substantially limit daily activities, including interacting with others, reproducing, and social and occupational functioning."

"The judicial system interprets our laws. So far, many courts have concluded that it is possible for gender dysphoria to be considered a disability under the ADA. There have not been a lot of cases where people with gender dysphoria have successfully been able to seek protection from the ADA. However, in most of the unsuccessful cases, the person with gender dysphoria did not clearly link gender dysphoria with physical impairments."

From your link. If your argument is that it is a disorder, it must be disabling, as the American Psychological Association has also defined it as needing to cause "significant distress or dysfunction". If that's the case, then they could get accommodations, as disabilities are entitled to them. I previously showed how disorders also get accommodations at work.

There are actually other disorders like gender dysphoria; body integrity identity disorder is similar, and is treated the same way. Psychotherapy doesn't seem to help much either, the only thing that seems to conclusively help is surgery (but removing functional limbs and leaving you impaired is a touchier subject than modifying genitalia) so that isn't recommended as much/is seen as a last resort. 

"This case report presents an illustration of body integrity identity disorder (BIID), wherein a 20 years old ambidextrous male experiencing profound distress over his left hand's fourth and fifth fingers sought elective amputation after noninvasive treatments proved unsuccessful. Despite ethical concerns and limited literature on BIID, the decision to proceed with elective surgery was based on the patient's sustained desire, potential risks of self-harm, and the distinct presentation involving two fingers rather than a complete limb. Following amputation, the patient experienced immediate relief, with nightmares ceasing, emotional distress subsiding, and improved functionality. This case highlights the potential efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with elective amputation in specific BIID presentations, shedding light on the unique challenges faced by affected individuals and emphasizing the importance of understanding, support, and inclusive healthcare practices."

Never claimed they have. This is just another of your useless straw men.

This you?

False dilemma, as this is only an issue because trans demand to play against women. No trans, no issue.
And as you've proven, sports governing bodies were already catching trans women in sports, without any extra cost to taxpayers.
Added expense to allow trans to play against women is ideologically-driven bullshit.

Not a straw man when you've actually said it. 

I've already shown the 75% of trans women cannot reduce their testosterone and that they retain higher bone/muscle density due to gestational and developmental exposure to testosterone. Any amount of harm is harm.

Not according to the professionals:

"The science is in its infancy and we are not going to have definitive answers for probably 20 years.
There are some, including the IOC, that have said until we know [more] we shouldn't restrict trans athletes.
What I would say is that until we know for sure, sport's governing bodies should do the best they can with the data that exists, with the knowledge that we have today, with the understanding that any policy they create now should be subject to change one we get more data."

This is what the IOC is going by, and some other organizations presumably. At this current time, harm doesn't seem to have been proven.

No, you obviously just don't understand the very simple methodology. 9_9

The methodology is deceptive. It's designed to make it look as if there's an epidemic of transwomen beating cis women at sports, and even includes intersex people (who are distinctly not transwomen) in order to inflate the numbers.  

In those two provinces they did.

But objectively, a woman could beat them, and that's what matters. If a biological woman had done as well, it would still be difficult for the competition to beat her.

Now you're just lying. You haven't shown any studies giving data specifically on bathroom sexual assaults.

I did, actually, the one with the 20 bathroom assaults, remember? And the more recent one about bathroom laws. I have shown studies - maybe not up to your par, but I have shown them. 

Aw, still don't understand, huh?
Figures.

If black-only clubs are considered private clubs, they're as legal as anything else. You may not like it, but private clubs don't have to cater to the majority. And if they're not private clubs, then they should be open to everyone, but so far they seem to be more like private clubs than public ones. 

No, the data I've clearly shown is the evidence. You're leftist arm waving is just desperate.
The data comes from the FBI. No genetic fallacy there.

Nope, because it fails to link it to policies that are Democratic. Yeah, some factors include "prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational" but it's not like Democrats have one way of handling crime (mayors and governors may have different views on how to handle crime even within the same political party), and those are four different judicial branches. How do Democrats affect them?

Yeah, yeah, keep trying your useless ad homs.
"Some gay men" still means not "all men," hence not your stupid straw man.

Hey, you're the one that specifically brought up gay men, not me.

Again, why I believe you're a straight women, because you have zero experience with dating women.
My examples come from women, thinking they are speaking for all women... much like you're doing.
9_9

Well I showed you the stats backing my opinion. I didn't start acting as if I was the majority opinion until I was sure. Whereas women can't really speak for all women on things like approach and technique, and their opinions shouldn't be seen as representative of all women, especially when dealing with individual women. Or do you think a crabby young blond who is purposefully celibate will want the same things as an extroverted brunette who loves men? Do you think the girl wearing furry cat ears will be attracted to the same type of man as a conservative Christian woman?
Hell, even men aren't all the same. Some men like women who look a certain way and believe certain things, others like the complete opposite. You can't expect a collective opinion on something so individualized as dating.

[Syne]

Too bad you can't understand simple English. Only a parent claimed it was unclear, but the statement/policy from the school was clear as day...if you could only comprehend simple English. The school only acknowledged that the trans student didn't follow school policy.

And yet the district takes responsibility....

https://www.sunprairieschools.org/distri...l-students

"With recent media coverage elevating an incident that occurred at EHS in early March, we’ve created a webpage to help our families and community members better understand how the SPASD’s vision and mission, the School Board’s Equity Statement, and Constitutional law and federal case law have played into this situation. 
Due to laws protecting student privacy, we cannot comment on the details of the incident. However, we can share:

• All individuals involved in this incident were students enrolled in the District.
  
• The District immediately addressed this incident after it was brought to the District’s attention and started an investigation. 
  
• The District took steps to ensure a similar incident does not recur. 
  
• The District talked with the students and families who were involved who came forward. 
  
• The District offered and provided support to the involved students and their families.
  
• The School Board has been fully informed of the incident during a Closed Session on May 1st, has been briefed by the school district’s attorney, and is aware of the school district’s community response.
  

We want to be clear:

• The Sun Prairie Area School District does not condone any student of one sex being present in a state of undress in the presence of students of another sex. 
  
• The District does not condone a student of one sex showering in the presence of students of another sex. 
  
• What happened in this incident was not in line with our District’s practices."
  

Additionally, the school is LGBTQ+ supportive, so it's not a case of a transwoman deciding to use the facilities by herself. She clearly had some level of support:

"The Sun Prairie Area School District Board of Education proudly adopted and continues to stand behind the Board's Equity Statement (below) for the school district. We firmly support the District mission and to ensure ALL children are safe and loved in our schools. Every Child, Every Day. In June, we will reaffirm our Equity Statement by approving a resolution in support of our LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and community members in honor of Pride Month. 
We are honored to be joined by other community leaders in supporting our LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and community members and the school district."

You trying to blame a transwoman when the school has accepted blame and has not said the student is at fault, is at odds with all of the facts on the matter.

And then, let's say the transgender teen was the one in the wrong. Why did they not administer disciplinary measures on them? They don't say anything about that, only that they have talked to the families, and offered support. Most teens doing something similar would have faced disciplinary measures, maybe a suspension or expulsion, especially if the school wasn't at fault. Instead, the school admitted fault and offered support. Why is that, if the teen is at fault?

I'm gonna save us both a lot time. If you think that school board statement is an admission of their fault (which would open them up to civil liability... note that they consulted with "the school district’s attorney"), you do not have the reading comprehension worth further discussion on the matter. "...was not in line with our District’s practices" literally means that the district's policies were violated. Offering support is not an admission of fault. They haven't said what "steps to ensure a similar incident does not recur," and "due to laws protecting student privacy" they couldn't divulge if any disciplinary measures were taken. Could they even divulge if the tranny was at fault? Would they, considering their pro-trans policies?

Those are rhetorical questions. No need to answer. I realize you don't mean to be intellectually dishonest... you're just unaware of it. It's okay, just a fruitless discussion.

[Railko]

I'm gonna save us both a lot time. If you think that school board statement is an admission of their fault (which would open them up to civil liability... note that they consulted with "the school district’s attorney"), you do not have the reading comprehension worth further discussion on the matter. "...was not in line with our District’s practices" literally means that the district's policies were violated. Offering support is not an admission of fault. They haven't said what "steps to ensure a similar incident does not recur," and "due to laws protecting student privacy" they couldn't divulge if any disciplinary measures were taken. Could they even divulge if the tranny was at fault? Would they, considering their pro-trans policies?

Those are rhetorical questions. No need to answer. I realize you don't mean to be intellectually dishonest... you're just unaware of it. It's okay, just a fruitless discussion.

Whatever you'd like to do. I'm aware I don't need to answer, but I will anyway, at the very least for anybody else who cares to purview the thread. My final answer to this, likely:

They already were liable for anything that happened to the children on their property. If a child gets hurt or injured, they are potentially liable for that hurt, if not someone else. If a child gets hurt while in shop class or in recess, they're liable for it. If a child is mistreated by a teacher and suffers injuries because of it, they are potentially liable for it. WILL had already been demanding answers, so if it was the teen's fault they have every incentive to place blame on them and clear their name. Yet WILL (the ones who wrote the letter demanding answers) absolved the teen of blame; do you think they'd do that if they knew they were at fault? Teens have been charged elsewhere for damaging school property and doing chaotic school pranks, do you think the district wouldn't have jumped at the chance to absolve themselves of any liability here if it were true? You don't offer support to students who have done wrong.

Their pro-trans policies only make it likelier that it was genuine unclear communication, as you wouldn't be pro-trans, allowing students to use the bathroom of their choosing (but not clarify that you did not intend for them to use the locker room) and then say that the student is the one who misunderstood. Nor did the school say the student didn't follow policies - their wording was the way that it was for a reason. If it's not the case that the District is taking responsibility (because they didn't explicitly say they were), then it's also not the case that the trans teen is at fault (because they didn't explicitly say they were either). 

I don't really care if you think I'm intellectually dishonest or not. I work off of evidence, and the evidence available to me. No evidence that the teen was at fault, no reason to believe the teen was at fault.

[Syne]

See, equivocating between "already liable" and "admitted fault." The exact sort of intellectual dishonesty that proves this is a pointless discussion.
Pro-trans policies show the school was already biased toward covering for any trans student. Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) is considered a conservative organization, hence why they are the ones attacking the school and why the leftist school board is not cooperating. There's zero, honest, reasons to think a leftist school board would scapegoat a transgender to appease conservatives. And you know this, if only you were the least bit honest. WILL did not "absolve" the trans adult, another lie. According to their letter to the school board, "The District only assured parents that the issue had been addressed with the transgender student by emphasizing the guidance referenced above." You seem to be lying, again, that the school offered the trans adult "support." Pro-trans people, like you, don't see any problem with biologically intact males showering with females. It only becomes a problem after you're facing legal challenges.

You've repeatedly proven, even in this short post, that you are either intellectually dishonest or can't comprehend simple English. The former is more charitable, but after refusing to own up so many times, I'm forced to assume the latter is true. The adult (no matter how much you want to minimize it by calling him a "teen") wouldn't have announced he was trans without some idea that what he did would offend. Since you're the genius who conflated subjective and objective (e.g. "Prove that any trans person isn't feeling the way they're feeling. If it's such an objective fact, prove it."), there's zero reason to think you have any clue what constitutes actual evidence.