Woman

From your own link trisher
A back-of-envelope calculation based on this data would suggest that the average trans person has a one-in-200,000 to one-in-500,000 chance of being murdered in the UK over the course of a year.

How does that compare to the wider population?

Figures from the ONS for 2008 to 2017 show that the average adult in England and Wales has a one-in-100,000 chance of being murdered in a given year.

As for hate crimes, that is subjective, if the victim or any other party "perceives" a hate crime it is recorded as such. Even the notorious non-crime hate crimes. Notable that there is no such category for hate crimes against natal women unless the hate is because they are of colour or disabled. Sexual orientation should also count but I'm guessing that won't apply to heterosexual women. So you can be as hateful as you like to women, nobody is interested including it would seem, a proportion of other women.
And GagaJo please can we stop with the highly offensive term cis, it's totally unnecessary and considered offensive to many.

Rosie51, given your level of hate towards trans women that you've never met, never will meet, and who bear NO threat to you, I think my using a term you disapprove of is minor in comparison.

As I have said to you before, are you a MOD on the board? If not, don't tell others what they can/can't do, unless of course it's a personal attack, in which case by all means report me.

Some very angry individuals on here. This is theoretical argument. Chill out.

Great idea GJ. You’re right, no one can tell you what to say and if you know you’re offending someone, you could get extra enjoyment from using the term.
On the other hand could you give a quantifiable example of Rosie51’s level of hatred against transwomen? I seem to have missed that figure.

Double standards agogo as usual.

Wanting curbs on the rights of untransitioned transwomen to enter female spaces does not equate to hatred of transwomen. Nor should it leave someone open to being on the receiving end of deliberately offensive behaviour as a supposed quid pro quo.

Thanks Mollygo . GagaJo I don't believe you have ever accused me of being a MOD before. I didn't tell you to do anything I asked, maybe you need to up your comprehension? I don't hate transwomen at all, why would I? I have only personally known one. I do object to male bodied transwomen ousting natal women in sport, taking women only shortlist places and compromising female only spaces. It's a great pity that you cannot spare one iota of understanding or kindness for those women who for reasons, be it cultural, religious or other, have their lives restricted by transwomen who refuse to respect single sex spaces. Do you hate these women?

Rosie51 I thought we were comparing violence against women and transwomen.
Of course the eoverall figures which include all people are higher. The largest group of people subjected to violence and killed is men in the 16-25 age group. The idea that women are more at risk than men is completely false.

From the ONS report 2020

The homicide rate was 11.7 per million population, with the rate for males (17 per million population) almost three times that for females (6 per million population); this is a higher difference than previous years because of a 20% increase in the number of male victims, from 422 to 506, and a 16% decrease in the number of female victims, from 225 to 188.

For transgender people there is also of course the fact that in death they may be mis-gendered anyway.

The confusion is always that ‘woman’ is a sex class not a gender identity. It always used to be with us women who have always fought against gender stereotypes that ‘feminine’ and masculine were gender characteristics. Not women and men.
Queer theory (a la Judith butler) would have it that not only gender but biological sex itself is a social construct, which is nonsense. We are not assigned at birth by another human, note the language, not noted or observed by assigned a weasel word that implies you can be reassigned and it would be equally true. There is so much bad information out there doing such harm. Making people believe they can change sex. Gender is performative but it does not give one the right to go into sex protected spaces. 97% of sex crimes against women are committed by men. Most men are kind but because of the risk all men are kept away from very vulnerable women in hospitals hostels and prison. It is only humane. No male has that right however he identifies.
It is also interesting how bastions of male privilege like Eton and the Garrick club the Catholic Church priesthood and primogeniture are not open to trans men yet they are not called transphobic and threatened and cancelled. Why do you think that is?

Good post grannygranby.

It is also interesting how bastions of male privilege like Eton and the Garrick club the Catholic Church priesthood and primogeniture are not open to trans men yet they are not called transphobic and threatened and cancelled. Why do you think that is?
I'd call them transphobic, mysoginistic, patriachal institutions which show the patriachy still dominates. As to why they aren't labelled publicly well it's obvious the trans movement isn't in charge, the patriachy is. They protect their own. How can it posibly benefit transpeople for them to be unchallenged. Only men benefit.
Just as men benefit from the law not being properly applied. From transpeople being held in disrepute, from schisms in feminism and in fact from every instance identified on this thread. The issue is not with trans people but with men. Transwomen and transmen are simply tryig to live a life they find bearable. So stop blaming them for every violent incident, and accept that they have been amongst us for years living their lives and will continue to do.

the trans movement isn't in charge Oh come on trisher what's been the driving force behind "people with a cervix" "vagina owners" "pregnant people" "chestfeeding" "menstruators", rape victims being compelled to refer to their rapist as she etc if not the trans movement. It really isn't the meek powerless movement you try to portray. The same movement could easily be challenging the areas that grannygranby mentions. Same observation and question to you as I put to GagaJo. It's a great pity that you cannot spare one iota of understanding or kindness for those women who for reasons, be it cultural, religious or other, have their lives restricted by transwomen who refuse to respect single sex spaces. Do you hate these women who just want to live their lives?

Forgot to say excellent post grannygranby

If you can post me any evidence of one trans person in a government post, a high level civil service post, a post in the judiciary, or in any other institution which actually possesses or exercises power in the UK I am willing to reconsider Rosie51. But I know you can't.
Most of the language you have posted refers to the requests transmen have made so they are included. It is interesting that some who allege transwomen are not women presumably think transmen are women, but evidently not women worthy of consideration.
Women's organisations have been highlighting and opposing violence for years they just don't accept transpeople are responsible for it all. It's men.
I have stated so many times that the law is clear on single sex spaces but it isn't applied, as it's men with power who really ensures it isn't?
There have been lobbying organisations with much more influence and a bigger membership than any trans ones. Why have they managed to change things (if they actually have)
I do resent the way some posters accuse me and any trans supporter of acting against women's interests. My concerns, my support for and my involvemnt in women's issues is long standing and strong. The fact that I see much worse and more dangerous long term outcomes for women, through supporting policies which discriminate and restrict individual freedoms, shows I care much more, and work for much wider and more radical aims, than most of you on GN.

It is just pandering to a noisy minority.

Trisher, I don’t accuse you of acting against women’s interests. I have no idea how you act in the real world any more than you know about me.
I can and do say you appear to support transwomen’s rights over natal women’s rights. If I’ve got that wrong, and you show me where you have supported natal women’s over the rights of transwomen, (other than your mention a few posts back about the erosion of women’s rights by the patriarchy which allows transwomen to take women’s places in terms of employment) then I’ll apologise.
Your fluff about your long standing and strong involvement in women’s issues may actually be true in real life. I could say exactly the same about myself.
On GN, on this and other threads, you don’t appear to support women in an area of current and increasing concern. Sometimes you introduce a diversionary tactic, worthy of discussion in its own right but not directly related to the concern expressed here.
On other occasions you appear to immediately jump to the defence of all transwomen, when posters on here are not attacking transwomen, merely opposing the wrongs being done to natal women by those transwomen who use their ID in a way that is harmful and detrimental to natal women and girls.

I do resent the way some posters accuse me and any trans supporter of acting against women's interests. My concerns, my support for and my involvemnt in women's issues is long standing and strong. The fact that I see much worse and more dangerous long term outcomes for women, through supporting policies which discriminate and restrict individual freedoms, shows I care much more, and work for much wider and more radical aims, than most of you on GN.

You have no idea what 'most of us on GN' do, so please stop that nonsense.

Your logic is seriously flawed, I'm afraid. The fact that you see what to you are much worse outcomes for women does not 'show' anything, apart from that you see much worse outcomes for women. The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it so.

I could just as easily claim that because I see self-id as having a dangerous outcome for women then it shows that I care more than you do - I won't, as care is irrelevant, really, and in any case it can't be measured in any meaningful way, and even if it could the person who cares most wouldn't necessarily be right.

I know that you involve yourself with women's issues - you keep bringing it up. That doesn't mean that you have more insight than anyone else, though. It just means that you involve yourself with other women's issues.
It gets wearing when you keep positioning yourself as the fount of all knowledge on these threads. You talk down to people and make huge assumptions about what we do, what we know and how we know it.
The questions people have been putting to you remain unanswered, or you claim to have answered them by asking other questions, or making observations that divert the conversation to other areas.
Rosie has asked you whether you have any sympathy with women who do not want to share spaces with untransitioned transmen. Without swerving into the realms of 1970s gay affairs in women's prisons, or Nazis persecuting those perceived to be different, can you please answer?

Do you understand the fears of women who do not want to be in vulnerable situations with untransitioned transmen, and if so, do you have any sympathy with them?

Do you accept that people are telling the truth when we say that it is not transmen in general that are our concern, and that it is only when they insist on using female single-sex spaces that we object?

Do you understand why we think that the hijacking of the language to exclude 'natal women' (that term in itself would have been unthinkable even ten years ago) is a cause for concern?

Finally, why do you think that it is 'in women's interests' to allow untransitioned transmen into their safe spaces, and to allow the language to shift so that we no longer have words that describe us as a sex?

Sorry, Mollygo - we crossposted.

If you can post me any evidence of one trans person in a government post, a high level civil service post, a post in the judiciary www.thetimes.co.uk/article/victoria-mccloud-a-transgender-judge-wants-a-more-diverse-judiciary-jc7rqhbc9
there you go trisher first result on a quick google.

Trisher it is hardly surprising that no transperson has made it into government. However present they are in the media and some small areas of big cities, the proportion of transpersons in the country as a whole must be a fraction of a per cent. Were every tiny fractional minority were all to be present in high circles all the time, the government and civil service, would have to be much bigger than it is now

That’s fine Doodlebug. Your posts are always well put and you ask some good questions your last post. It would be good to get answers to them.

@Doodedog * Do you understand the fears of women who do not want to be in vulnerable situations with untransitioned transmen, and if so, do you have any sympathy with them?

Do you accept that people are telling the truth when we say that it is not transmen in general that are our concern, and that it is only when they insist on using female single-sex spaces that we object?

Do you understand why we think that the hijacking of the language to exclude 'natal women' (that term in itself would have been unthinkable even ten years ago) is a cause for concern?

Finally, why do you think that it is 'in women's interests' to allow untransitioned transmen into their safe spaces, and to allow the language to shift so that we no longer have words that describe us as a sex?*

I’ve been struggling to find the words to express what you have said so succinctly. We seem to be sleepwalking in to this situation - scared to object for fear of offending, what is a minority who seem to be dictating their demands with no regard to anything but their own needs.

trisher if you can show me another lobby group that has as many members from businesses to government departments to health trusts paying it to be a member and displaying the logo then I'll believe that the trans movement is as weak and impotent as you suggest.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-diversity-champions-programme

And before you come back with gay representation, the lesbians I know say Stonewall doesn't care about them at all.

Thanks, Molly and Pammie.

Before I'm pulled up on it, I've just caught up with the past few posts on here and see that my phone has changed transwomen to transmen again. Sorry.

I wish we had an edit facility. . .

I make no assumptions about anyone. I simply state my own involvement and beliefs and purely because the only way some posters seem to have of coping with the arguments I post is to make personal and even entirely false accusatios about me.

Thanks for the post about the transwoman judge Rosie51 It was interesting to read about all the work she has done on historical abuse. If only there were more like her.

I have posted about transwomen having been present in women's spaces for years. I am sorry if some women feel threatened by them. I wouldn't imagine that constantly highlighting a few cases of serious abuse would make them feel any safer. I also have posted that the law is clear and it cannot possibly be the fault of transpeople if it isn't applied properly. I also don't consider it is a trans issue. As I have said before most transpeople are not involved. So why insist they are the danger?

I want to see a language that is more not less inclusive. The usual words will remain but if there are circumstances which are not covered by certain words or if there are people who would feel damaged or excluded by the use of certain words I see no reason why other terms cannot be used. Personally you can choose to use the words you prefer but you cannot insist on another person using the same words if they find them unacceptable. So the terms mother and father in official documents becomes parents so all are included, and husband and wife may become partner. It is surely best to use inclusive language and not language which causes others distress.

Pammie1 what an excellent post. I agree with every word you have said. ?