Also in the News - Part 2

[Alf Bentley]

I know I've posted it before, but the Daniel Khalife story makes it a deeply appropriate moment for us to hear again from The Dodgems....

 

 

Maybe Sting could get The Police back together to do a "Daniel Khalife is missing" cover version?

[dsr-burnley]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If this were accurate... then why the difference between public services now and c.2000-2005 in terms of quality?

You think public services are better now than twenty years ago when taxes and funding were lower?  I don't.  I think they have got worse.

[Zear0]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66747891

 

Not sure I'd fancy serving on the SS Kim Jong Un.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

It wasn't an absurd take.

It is an issue people have opinions on but was largely a side issue with a respectful debate. Yes there are small numbers of trans activists, as there are small numbers of activists about any subject, but it's no coincidence that it's been heavily pushed as a significant issue by right wing papers, as another 'culture war' topic. 

In reality is an issue that requires careful thought and affects a very small minority of people. But you wouldn't know that for the frothing headlines and frankly disgraceful language used by the right wing media.

J.K.Rowling, GermaIne Greer, and Martrina Navratilova are among the people who have been ostracised and abused for their comments about the trans issue.  They aren't all true blue Tories, and they weren't abused by means of respectful debate.

 

This has to be a "culture war" topic.  A significantly large group of people is telling teenagers and younger that they are responsible enough to make severe chemical and physical changes to their bodies, at an age far below where they are allowed to smoke or get tattoos.  Men are playing women's sports and therefore ruining the game for women.  Women's refuges are being made open to men as well.  It's a big, vital issue, and it is inaccurate to say it affects only a few people, and it is inappropriate to say these activists should be allowed to get all their own way without opposition.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You think public services are better now than twenty years ago when taxes and funding were lower?  I don't.  I think they have got worse.

Nope, I think that funding for public services is lower (proportionately) than it was twenty years ago and that is why they are worse. I'm sure the raw numbers are higher now, but I'm also reasonably sure ones adjusted for inflation and other factors are not.

 

I would kindly ask for categorical proof that public services are being funded to a greater degree now than either twenty years ago or at other points in history.

 

NB. If it does turn out to be true, well then that's another strike against chronic mismanagement of funds by central government compared to the one twenty years ago.

 

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

J.K.Rowling, GermaIne Greer, and Martrina Navratilova are among the people who have been ostracised and abused for their comments about the trans issue.  They aren't all true blue Tories, and they weren't abused by means of respectful debate.

 

This has to be a "culture war" topic.  A significantly large group of people is telling teenagers and younger that they are responsible enough to make severe chemical and physical changes to their bodies, at an age far below where they are allowed to smoke or get tattoos.  Men are playing women's sports and therefore ruining the game for women.  Women's refuges are being made open to men as well.  It's a big, vital issue, and it is inaccurate to say it affects only a few people, and it is inappropriate to say these activists should be allowed to get all their own way without opposition.

Right.

 

....just let folks know when any one of the people on that side of the debate are murdered because of their "straightness", or purely and solely because some other aspect of their identity is considered abominable.

[Tommy G]

Can we have a trans/government bashing/no company should ever make a profit separate thread please

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Can we have a trans/government bashing/no company should ever make a profit separate thread please

...OK if we record Trump's forthcoming trial, conviction and prison sentence here though, right?

[The Doctor]

On 06/09/2023 at 15:47, FoxesDeb said:

Like I intimated to earlier, emotionally invalidating anyone's fears is pretty poor imo, whether you or I believe the fear to be irrational or not doesn't matter. And again, given that the vast majority of sexual assaults and rape go unreported,  how do we know that sexual violence hasn't increased?

 

The stats the source quoted said they were taken from the Ministry of Justice, and I did caveat that they would need to be looked in to further, I'd be interested to read them from a better source.

 

Thankfully it doesn't affect me, but I'm not sure that calling women who have faced sexual violence and abuse as paranoid genitally obsessed weirdos is a particularly good argument for promoting inclusively either, unless I've misunderstood who you are referring to? 

 

Disabled toilets aren't just needed by people who need special adaptations, many of them also just need a loo and a sink, they also exist for the sake of inclusion, privacy and comfort for everyone.

 

I'm interested in a source for the tiny minority of women who want to see separate safe spaces, too, I couldn't really find anything when I looked.

The fear of trans women is irrational, and pretending it's in any way fine makes zero sense. If Someone said they were afraid of black people we wouldn't say "maybe we should do segregation again" or suggest they have legitimate concerns, we'd tell them to get therapy.

 

The number comes purely from those imprisoned for "sexual offences". Now, that includes anything under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which, yes, includes rape and sexual assault, but also includes offences relating to brothels and, following the Policing and Crime Act 2009, solicitation. People imprisoned under the act are imprisoned for sexual offences but that runs the gamut from rape to being a sex worker. FPFW intimate that trans women are being imprisoned for the former and use that to argue against "self-id" (which they also lie about, changing your birth certificate by statutory declaration rather than panel assessment is what Self-ID is), however trans women have been in womens spaces for decades without any rise in rape or sexual assault associated with legal changes to protect that use, and are disproportionately in survival sex work because of the sheer level of employment discrimination faced (1 in 3 employers wouldn't hire a trans person).

The question of how do we know it's not increased when the reporting rate is so low would appear a fair question but, just to be clear, for the official offence rate to remain the same and for trans women to be causing an increase by being in womens spaces, the reporting rate would have to drop despite movements like #MeToo, which is very unlikely.

 

That's not who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos. The anti-trans movement claims to speak for victims of sexual violence and abuse, but then the public faces of it will write columns for the telegraph implying that women who get raped just aren't being careful enough, and the foot soliders on twitter will scream abuse at literally any victim of sexual abuse who says that they are afraid of cis men, not trans women. The anti-trans movement is who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos, because ultimately they are - they're the people who will spend their days tweeting "penis" at a trans woman for posting about her garden and shout "womanface" at any man wearing make up (because their problem is ultimately with any gender non-conformity).

 

Disabled toilets are made with special adaptations in mind, from the alarms, to railings, to sink height... every single aspect of them is intended to improve accessibility. Not all disabilities need those adaptations, but the point is that trans people, unless they are also disabled, do not need a separate space or any adaptations, all they need is for people to stop being massively weird about them needing a piss.

 

I'm talking about trans acceptance in general. The opposition to trans people is not led by women, it's overwhelmingly a male thing and also very much a right wing divide and conquer strategy, which the right are very open about saying and have been since 2017 (because this entire thing is about american conservatives being outraged that Obergefell happened, and pouring a shit ton of money into anti-trans groups worldwide to test strategies for a divide and conquer approach to attack LGBT rights as a whole).

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

The fear of trans women is irrational, and pretending it's in any way fine makes zero sense. If Someone said they were afraid of black people we wouldn't say "maybe we should do segregation again" or suggest they have legitimate concerns, we'd tell them to get therapy.

 

The number comes purely from those imprisoned for "sexual offences". Now, that includes anything under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which, yes, includes rape and sexual assault, but also includes offences relating to brothels and, following the Policing and Crime Act 2009, solicitation. People imprisoned under the act are imprisoned for sexual offences but that runs the gamut from rape to being a sex worker. FPFW intimate that trans women are being imprisoned for the former and use that to argue against "self-id" (which they also lie about, changing your birth certificate by statutory declaration rather than panel assessment is what Self-ID is), however trans women have been in womens spaces for decades without any rise in rape or sexual assault associated with legal changes to protect that use, and are disproportionately in survival sex work because of the sheer level of employment discrimination faced (1 in 3 employers wouldn't hire a trans person).

The question of how do we know it's not increased when the reporting rate is so low would appear a fair question but, just to be clear, for the official offence rate to remain the same and for trans women to be causing an increase by being in womens spaces, the reporting rate would have to drop despite movements like #MeToo, which is very unlikely.

 

That's not who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos. The anti-trans movement claims to speak for victims of sexual violence and abuse, but then the public faces of it will write columns for the telegraph implying that women who get raped just aren't being careful enough, and the foot soliders on twitter will scream abuse at literally any victim of sexual abuse who says that they are afraid of cis men, not trans women. The anti-trans movement is who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos, because ultimately they are - they're the people who will spend their days tweeting "penis" at a trans woman for posting about her garden and shout "womanface" at any man wearing make up (because their problem is ultimately with any gender non-conformity).

 

Disabled toilets are made with special adaptations in mind, from the alarms, to railings, to sink height... every single aspect of them is intended to improve accessibility. Not all disabilities need those adaptations, but the point is that trans people, unless they are also disabled, do not need a separate space or any adaptations, all they need is for people to stop being massively weird about them needing a piss.

 

I'm talking about trans acceptance in general. The opposition to trans people is not led by women, it's overwhelmingly a male thing and also very much a right wing divide and conquer strategy, which the right are very open about saying and have been since 2017 (because this entire thing is about american conservatives being outraged that Obergefell happened, and pouring a shit ton of money into anti-trans groups worldwide to test strategies for a divide and conquer approach to attack LGBT rights as a whole).

I'm amazed more people cannot figure this out tbh. As you say, the proponents of it have been loud and obvious enough about their stated aims - and they have a body count already.

[The Doctor]

34 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

J.K.Rowling, GermaIne Greer, and Martrina Navratilova are among the people who have been ostracised and abused for their comments about the trans issue.  They aren't all true blue Tories, and they weren't abused by means of respectful debate.

 

This has to be a "culture war" topic.  A significantly large group of people is telling teenagers and younger that they are responsible enough to make severe chemical and physical changes to their bodies, at an age far below where they are allowed to smoke or get tattoos.  Men are playing women's sports and therefore ruining the game for women.  Women's refuges are being made open to men as well.  It's a big, vital issue, and it is inaccurate to say it affects only a few people, and it is inappropriate to say these activists should be allowed to get all their own way without opposition.

Its really fun to lie on the internet isn't it.

 

No severe chemical or physical changes are done before 18. Transition for trans kids is a different haircut and wardrobe, maybe a different name and pronouns. For post-pubscent, puberty blockers if you're one of the tiny number who can actually access them, but lets be very very clear about this - they are temporary and reversible. We have decades worth of use for them for the treatment of precocious puberty in cis people, with no significant ill-effects seen in the long term (the initial patients for Lupron were treated back in the end of the 80s/early 90s and would be into their 40s now). The posology of the medication remains effectively the same from treating precocious puberty to treating gender dsyphoria, the only thing that changes is the length of treatment (reason for prescribing does not effect the pharmacology of it when the posology remains the same) so precocious puberty outcomes are a perfectly valid comparator - the push against them is fearmongering over the condition, not legitimate medical concerns.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the length of treatment should be considered a concern, then it's time to remember that puberty blockers are a compromise, rather than initiating a cross sex puberty at the typical onset of puberty and allowing trans youth to undergo puberty at the same time as their cis peers. That is the alternative since forcing trans people through an unwanted puberty is not a neutral act, it is actively harmful, and, rather impressively, we know have RCTs supporting that transition improves mental health outcomes in trans people (it's very hard to do RCTs on existing treatments with strong bases of evidence behind them, because it typically means withholding care from people and hits ethical issues, but this was done immediate vs delayed intervention to the typical wait time, so no participants were actuallly withheld care: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809058?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0 )

[iniesta]

The gaslighting in here is strong. Some of you are genuinely wicked.

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm amazed more people cannot figure this out tbh. As you say, the proponents of it have been loud and obvious enough about their stated aims - and they have a body count already.

It's going to get worse as well. The republican policy establishments latest draft (Mandate for Leadership, 2025 Presidential Transition Project) has leaked: https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

 

and includes:

Complete ban on trans people serving in the military

Bans on trans healthcare

Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics

Classify trans existence as pornography (which would then mean that a trans person being in public and an u18 seeing them would be a child sex offence)

 

This all put together would ban transition, create an effective ban on trans people being outside (combined with americas death penalty laws for child sex offences, in many states a trans person going for a walk would be an offence that carries the death penalty) and allow rampant discrimination against women and LGB folk as well (because the anti-trans movement is completely inseparable from patriarchal thought).

[Zear0]

25 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Can we have a trans/government bashing/no company should ever make a profit separate thread please

Couldn't agree more.  At least the female posters are now sufficiently educated on what they are and are not allowed to be anxious about now .

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66747891

 

Not sure I'd fancy serving on the SS Kim Jong Un.

We'll all be in trouble when they figure out that submarines go in water.

 

 

 

"Just give it a push lads"

[leicsmac]

From what I can tell here The Doc is the only one making statements based on any kind of fact and without much emotionalism which IMO should be the basis for all good policymaking (whether that extends to inidividual decision-making is clearly a matter between the individual and their conscience). I know I veer away from logic on this one and I freely admit that.

 

 

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

We'll all be in trouble when they figure out that submarines go in water.

 

 

 

"Just give it a push lads"

Made even better by Kim's Del Monte chic.

[ClaphamFox]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nope, I think that funding for public services is lower (proportionately) than it was twenty years ago and that is why they are worse. I'm sure the raw numbers are higher now, but I'm also reasonably sure ones adjusted for inflation and other factors are not.

 

I would kindly ask for categorical proof that public services are being funded to a greater degree now than either twenty years ago or at other points in history.

 

NB. If it does turn out to be true, well then that's another strike against chronic mismanagement of funds by central government compared to the one twenty years ago.

 

Right.

 

....just let folks know when any one of the people on that side of the debate are murdered because of their "straightness", or purely and solely because some other aspect of their identity is considered abominable.

When you refer to the murders of transgender people, what sources are you using? I ask because you seem to believe that transgender people are being murdered because they are transgender and are therefore more vulnerable than other groups. The impression you give, intentionally or not, is that transgender people are frequently attacked and murdered by strangers simply because they are trans. Apologies if I've misconstrued your comments and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

The thing is, I can't find any evidence for this. It is true that reliable data in this area is thin on the ground, but that which does exist seems to show that when transgender people are murdered, it is usually by somebody known to them, often intimately (either as a partner or a client). There are huge variations between countries (certain south American countries seem to be particularly bad places to be transgender, for example) and between ethnic groups (black transgender people are far more vulnerable than white transgender people, for example). It is clearly a complex area in need of much more detailed study, but I can't find any reliable evidence that transgender people are more vulnerable to being murdered by strangers than non-transgender people.

 

The article below is one of the more recent studies I can find in this area. It is published by insider.com, a left-leaning website with a record of strong support for transgender people. It studied 175 killings of transgender people from 2017-2021. It found that: "Intimate violence was far deadlier than random crimes or acts of hatred. Of all the suspects who were arrested or charged, more than half knew their victims."

 

The report goes into detail about the lives of some of these victims and it is a very tough read. It argues that transgender people are more vulnerable to violence from people they know because they are less protected by law enforcement and other services. These are serious issues that clearly need addressing. However, if trans people are more vulnerable in certain situations because they are less protected than other groups, that is not the same as being murdered because they are trans. 

 

I completely agree with you that this discussion needs more facts and less emotion. It's just that you often seem to suggest that trans people are being murdered by strangers in huge numbers, and imply that this outweighs any other consideration. I'm just not sure there is much evidence to back you up on this.

 

https://www.insider.com/transgender-women-are-killed-by-those-they-know-2022-12

[Dunge]

53 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Its really fun to lie on the internet isn't it.

 

No severe chemical or physical changes are done before 18. Transition for trans kids is a different haircut and wardrobe, maybe a different name and pronouns. For post-pubscent, puberty blockers if you're one of the tiny number who can actually access them, but lets be very very clear about this - they are temporary and reversible. We have decades worth of use for them for the treatment of precocious puberty in cis people, with no significant ill-effects seen in the long term (the initial patients for Lupron were treated back in the end of the 80s/early 90s and would be into their 40s now). The posology of the medication remains effectively the same from treating precocious puberty to treating gender dsyphoria, the only thing that changes is the length of treatment (reason for prescribing does not effect the pharmacology of it when the posology remains the same) so precocious puberty outcomes are a perfectly valid comparator - the push against them is fearmongering over the condition, not legitimate medical concerns.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the length of treatment should be considered a concern, then it's time to remember that puberty blockers are a compromise, rather than initiating a cross sex puberty at the typical onset of puberty and allowing trans youth to undergo puberty at the same time as their cis peers. That is the alternative since forcing trans people through an unwanted puberty is not a neutral act, it is actively harmful, and, rather impressively, we know have RCTs supporting that transition improves mental health outcomes in trans people (it's very hard to do RCTs on existing treatments with strong bases of evidence behind them, because it typically means withholding care from people and hits ethical issues, but this was done immediate vs delayed intervention to the typical wait time, so no participants were actuallly withheld care: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809058?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0 )

Are you sure you have the right link there? The question of how and whether to treat Under 18s with medication feels to me like a really significant question in this - which I appreciate you’re looking to answer, but the study in that link is for adults, and explicitly mentions preventing two individuals from partaking because they were underage.

 

I’m not even sure what the laws and ethics are on doing this sort of trial for U18s, mind.

 

But one of the pro-trans arguments I’m going to need a lot of convincing on is the suggestion that stopping trans-identifying minors from going through puberty is a good idea.

[ClaphamFox]

47 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Its really fun to lie on the internet isn't it.

 

No severe chemical or physical changes are done before 18. Transition for trans kids is a different haircut and wardrobe, maybe a different name and pronouns. For post-pubscent, puberty blockers if you're one of the tiny number who can actually access them, but lets be very very clear about this - they are temporary and reversible. We have decades worth of use for them for the treatment of precocious puberty in cis people, with no significant ill-effects seen in the long term (the initial patients for Lupron were treated back in the end of the 80s/early 90s and would be into their 40s now). The posology of the medication remains effectively the same from treating precocious puberty to treating gender dsyphoria, the only thing that changes is the length of treatment (reason for prescribing does not effect the pharmacology of it when the posology remains the same) so precocious puberty outcomes are a perfectly valid comparator - the push against them is fearmongering over the condition, not legitimate medical concerns.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the length of treatment should be considered a concern, then it's time to remember that puberty blockers are a compromise, rather than initiating a cross sex puberty at the typical onset of puberty and allowing trans youth to undergo puberty at the same time as their cis peers. That is the alternative since forcing trans people through an unwanted puberty is not a neutral act, it is actively harmful, and, rather impressively, we know have RCTs supporting that transition improves mental health outcomes in trans people (it's very hard to do RCTs on existing treatments with strong bases of evidence behind them, because it typically means withholding care from people and hits ethical issues, but this was done immediate vs delayed intervention to the typical wait time, so no participants were actuallly withheld care: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809058?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0 )

This is your opinion. it is not a fact. The current NHS stance on this is as follows:

 

"Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair. Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria."

 

"Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

 

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones. These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as: breast development (caused by taking oestrogen) breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone). Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility."

 

So it is not even accepted by our own health services that puberty blockers are reversible. What's more, puberty blockers very often lead to teenagers later being given sex hormones, some of the effects of which are definitely not reversible.

 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

The fear of trans women is irrational, and pretending it's in any way fine makes zero sense. If Someone said they were afraid of black people we wouldn't say "maybe we should do segregation again" or suggest they have legitimate concerns, we'd tell them to get therapy.

 

The number comes purely from those imprisoned for "sexual offences". Now, that includes anything under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which, yes, includes rape and sexual assault, but also includes offences relating to brothels and, following the Policing and Crime Act 2009, solicitation. People imprisoned under the act are imprisoned for sexual offences but that runs the gamut from rape to being a sex worker. FPFW intimate that trans women are being imprisoned for the former and use that to argue against "self-id" (which they also lie about, changing your birth certificate by statutory declaration rather than panel assessment is what Self-ID is), however trans women have been in womens spaces for decades without any rise in rape or sexual assault associated with legal changes to protect that use, and are disproportionately in survival sex work because of the sheer level of employment discrimination faced (1 in 3 employers wouldn't hire a trans person).

The question of how do we know it's not increased when the reporting rate is so low would appear a fair question but, just to be clear, for the official offence rate to remain the same and for trans women to be causing an increase by being in womens spaces, the reporting rate would have to drop despite movements like #MeToo, which is very unlikely.

 

That's not who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos. The anti-trans movement claims to speak for victims of sexual violence and abuse, but then the public faces of it will write columns for the telegraph implying that women who get raped just aren't being careful enough, and the foot soliders on twitter will scream abuse at literally any victim of sexual abuse who says that they are afraid of cis men, not trans women. The anti-trans movement is who I'm calling genital obsessed weirdos, because ultimately they are - they're the people who will spend their days tweeting "penis" at a trans woman for posting about her garden and shout "womanface" at any man wearing make up (because their problem is ultimately with any gender non-conformity).

 

Disabled toilets are made with special adaptations in mind, from the alarms, to railings, to sink height... every single aspect of them is intended to improve accessibility. Not all disabilities need those adaptations, but the point is that trans people, unless they are also disabled, do not need a separate space or any adaptations, all they need is for people to stop being massively weird about them needing a piss.

 

I'm talking about trans acceptance in general. The opposition to trans people is not led by women, it's overwhelmingly a male thing and also very much a right wing divide and conquer strategy, which the right are very open about saying and have been since 2017 (because this entire thing is about american conservatives being outraged that Obergefell happened, and pouring a shit ton of money into anti-trans groups worldwide to test strategies for a divide and conquer approach to attack LGBT rights as a whole).

Huge amount of prejudice there.

 

Can you link to the Daily Telegraph articles about raped women please?  I read the Telegraph and I have obviously missed those articles.  

[Dunge]

A couple of months back I asked a couple of friends of mine who are both teachers in secondary schools for their thoughts on the matter.

 

One of them is very left wing and vehemently pro-trans on all matters; maybe not quite to OzLeicester levels but not far off. His thoughts were along the lines of this being a crisis manufactured by the right wing press and similar. Which was a viewpoint but didn’t advance the argument for me.

 

The other I’d describe as more naturally centre left and she gave the example of what life would have been like for people our age when we were of GCSE age (1990s). She said that, back in those days, people experiencing gender dysphoria wouldn’t have had many options available to them and would likely have experimented in dangerous ways, seeking out strangers, seeking out sex, etc. Instead, currently she says that there are about one or two students per year group who are demonstrating clear signs of gender dysphoria and seeking to live as an opposite/different gender. She pointed out that this was a far safer state to explore their identity (albeit without medication) than what similar people would have experienced in the past. She also said that some of the students go on to remain the/an alternative gender while others “revert” to their original gender in a year or two to come. But essentially the idea was that they have the space and time to come to the right conclusion themselves, whatever that right conclusion is for them.

 

I thought that was a great take on the situation.

[leicsmac]

48 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

When you refer to the murders of transgender people, what sources are you using? I ask because you seem to believe that transgender people are being murdered because they are transgender and are therefore more vulnerable than other groups. The impression you give, intentionally or not, is that transgender people are frequently attacked and murdered by strangers simply because they are trans. Apologies if I've misconstrued your comments and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

The thing is, I can't find any evidence for this. It is true that reliable data in this area is thin on the ground, but that which does exist seems to show that when transgender people are murdered, it is usually by somebody known to them, often intimately (either as a partner or a client). There are huge variations between countries (certain south American countries seem to be particularly bad places to be transgender, for example) and between ethnic groups (black transgender people are far more vulnerable than white transgender people, for example). It is clearly a complex area in need of much more detailed study, but I can't find any reliable evidence that transgender people are more vulnerable to being murdered by strangers than non-transgender people.

 

The article below is one of the more recent studies I can find in this area. It is published by insider.com, a left-leaning website with a record of strong support for transgender people. It studied 175 killings of transgender people from 2017-2021. It found that: "Intimate violence was far deadlier than random crimes or acts of hatred. Of all the suspects who were arrested or charged, more than half knew their victims."

 

The report goes into detail about the lives of some of these victims and it is a very tough read. It argues that transgender people are more vulnerable to violence from people they know because they are less protected by law enforcement and other services. These are serious issues that clearly need addressing. However, if trans people are more vulnerable in certain situations because they are less protected than other groups, that is not the same as being murdered because they are trans. 

 

I completely agree with you that this discussion needs more facts and less emotion. It's just that you often seem to suggest that trans people are being murdered by strangers in huge numbers, and imply that this outweighs any other consideration. I'm just not sure there is much evidence to back you up on this.

 

https://www.insider.com/transgender-women-are-killed-by-those-they-know-2022-12

I appreciate the response, thank you.

 

- Firstly, I have said nothing regarding the nature of the murderers themselves beyond them carrying out their acts because of the identity of the person they murdered. I have no reason to doubt the evidence cited saying these murders were chiefly by people known the to the victim. That doesn't change anything regarding their motive for killing, IMO and I hope that adds clarity.

 

- Secondly, I do agree that there is a massive difference between countries in this regard and the statistics on that are obvious. Gauthier et al (https://jhs.press.gonzaga.edu/articles/10.33972/jhs.158 ) supplies some details about hate crimes involving this demographic (including murders) in the US. I also agree that there is variation between ethnic groups, as well. Reliable data is difficult to find, though.

 

Just to completely clarify my point, it is that it is a rather rare thing for a person of any other demographic to be killed outside of warfare in a developed country and the motivation for the killing be solely the identity of the victim. And when it does happen, it is treated with the seriousness it deserves (for example, explicitly racist murders are roundly condemned). Whereas, when a trans person loses their life, it is more often (but not necessarily frequently) the case that the person who took it was motivated to do so specifically because of their identity, and there is nearly not so much attention given to it and to address the issue that caused the violence in the first place. That they are more often the victim of violent crime than other demographics (will provide proof for this upon request) says that it is something else about trans folks that causes violent crime to be visited upon them more than those demographics - their identity is the obvious answer, unless it is some kind of monumental coincidence. And I simply don't think this vulnerable demographic get anywhere near the protection, respect and empathy they deserve either from most authorities or from the general public, which contributes to that increased level of violence.

 

So yeah, I have my own priority on this matter, but of course (as I've said before) helping both vulnerable demographics and also neutralising the predatory men, whether they are actually carrying out direct hate crimes or simply trying to drive a wedge between women and the trans community so both vulnerable demographics can be targetted more easily, should be the way forward. 

 

Edited 8 September 2023 by leicsmac

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

We'll all be in trouble when they figure out that submarines go in water.

 

 

 

"Just give it a push lads"

Who ate all the pies

[ClaphamFox]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I know I've posted it before, but the Daniel Khalife story makes it a deeply appropriate moment for us to hear again from The Dodgems....

 

 

Maybe Sting could get The Police back together to do a "Daniel Khalife is missing" cover version?

I suspect Khalife is currently in a van somewhere on the A1, happily bursting his lungs out singing 'Dancing on the Moonlight' by Toploader along with the radio...

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Nope, I think that funding for public services is lower (proportionately) than it was twenty years ago and that is why they are worse. I'm sure the raw numbers are higher now, but I'm also reasonably sure ones adjusted for inflation and other factors are not.

 

I would kindly ask for categorical proof that public services are being funded to a greater degree now than either twenty years ago or at other points in history.

 

NB. If it does turn out to be true, well then that's another strike against chronic mismanagement of funds by central government compared to the one twenty years ago.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

 

Various stats based on inflation-adjusted figures.  General public spending significantly up, even allowing for the 11% increase in population since 2005.

 

I agree that the government is entirely unable to manage funds properly, but remember there are only 25 or so in the cabinet, and there is a lot of work involved.  If the powers that be are spending more and achieving less, the primary reason is because the civil Service aren't able to do the job as efficiently as they used to, and the secondary reason is that the ministers are (for whatever reason) unable to sack those among the useless civil service leaders who aren't doing a good job.  It has never been government policy, on either side of the divide, to spend more for less.  Unfortunately, that has frequently been government practice.