UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The rapes and sexual assaults committed by trans women people in women's jail's would clearly not have happened if the trans women people were not in said jails.

Are you secretly agitating for the closing of all jails? How very leftie of you Rich. Unless you only care about certain genotypes getting raped. Or maybe you don't care at all and are using this datapicking as a cynical way to score points against the evil people who believe that trans folk have a right to the same considerations as everyone else.

Or maybe you do directly support a policy (that of viciously underfunded incarceration) that ensures people of all genotypes get brutalised and traumatised whilst inside - look at general assault (of all types) and suicide rates in prisons.

Rich seems to be. 
I do notice Rich doesn't answer awkward questions. Just bullies on through hoping no one notices. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The rapes and sexual assaults committed by trans women people in women's jail's would clearly not have happened if the trans women people were not in said jails.

Are you secretly agitating for the closing of all jails? How very leftie of you Rich. Unless you only care about certain genotypes getting raped. Or maybe you don't care at all and are using this datapicking as a cynical way to score points against the evil people who believe that trans folk have a right to the same considerations as everyone else.

Or maybe you do directly support a policy (that of viciously underfunded incarceration) that ensures people of all genotypes get brutalised and traumatised whilst inside - look at general assault (of all types) and suicide rates in prisons.

Rich seems to be. 
I do notice Rich doesn't answer awkward questions. Just bullies on through hoping no one notices. 

They rarely respond to me at all. Now you put it like that I'll take it as a compliment....

Yeah, I'd say it's a compliment 😊 

They do tend to ignore anything inconvenient. Must be useful having such impenetrable blinkers...

So, no comment on yiur what about fallacy? Or will you just ignore that like you keep ignoring the hokum you spout and get called on? 

You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.

Is that correct?

A simple yes or no is all that's required.

So you've finally admitted you're arguing in bad faith?

good to see

Yet another fallacy - that of the false dichotomy - simply proves you're not capable of presenting an argument without resorting to more contemptible behaviioir. 

im in favour of a society where those most at risk of violence are treated better.  If that means other elements of society have to shift to allow for that in a way that is safer for all, then yes  

for example, sorting out the root cause rather than the symptom. Addressing WHY and HOW Women are getting assaulted in single gender spaces, most often by cis men, would be an obvious start.

much like "wear a bike helmet" is a moronic answer to the issue of cyclist deaths caused by inattentive motorists, making trans peoples lives worse just because you're too lazy to address the cause isn't a good answer. 

You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.

Is that correct?

A simple yes or no is all that's required.

Rich_cb wrote:

You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society. Is that correct? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

You're all for collective punishment of trans people simply wishing to live their lives as full members of society?

a simple yes or no is required 

Answer my question.

Yes or no.

I don't believe I've called for collective punishment.

Is it collective punishment to exclude men from women's jails?

If not, why not?

I won't answer a false dichotomy, as I explained but I'm guessing you didn't understand. I reject the premise of your question 

You stated you are for the exclusion of some women from womens sports, collectively punishing them because SOME of them MAY have an advantage that you consider unfair. That you don't understand this is collective punishment isn't really my issue to deal with. 
 

and finally there we have your bigotry exposed for all to see. You do not think that trans-women are women.  
 

Pretty sure you're done here. 

Well let's break your argument down.

You think trans women prisoners should be housed in women's jail's and that such a policy will benefit trans women prisoners.
Correct?

We know that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults in women's jails.
That is a non negotiable fact.

So, by definition, you support a policy that will lead to more cis women being raped/assaulted in order to create a more trans inclusive environment.

You can try and wriggle out of it all you like but that is your position.

Rich_cb wrote:

Well let's break your argument down.

So you're just going to ignore that you're in favour of collective punishment, by excluding all  trans women from participating in all womens segregated sports,  because you believe that trans women aren't actually women but are men, and believe some may have a competitive advantage? 
 

yes or no.

come on...you keep making demands, but don't actually manage to answer yourself. However I'm not the only one I don't think who has noticed your flagrant bigotry...

Rich_cb wrote:

You think trans women prisoners should be housed in women's jail's and that such a policy will benefit trans women prisoners. Correct?

I think that trans women are women, and that means in all ways, unlike you who has stated that trans women are actually men. Which is abhorrent. 
 

Rich_cb wrote:

We know that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults in women's jails. That is a non negotiable fact. So, by definition, you support a policy that will lead to more cis women being raped/assaulted in order to create a more trans inclusive environment. You can try and wriggle out of it all you like but that is your position.

Wrong.  I already explained how I would look,to addrsss assault by ALL genders, but you ignored it. Again 

it's amazing. You break down "my" argument by instead writing something else that I didn't say... impressive. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I think that trans women are women, and that means in all ways, unlike you who has stated that trans women are actually men. Which is abhorrent.

Please point to where I have said that or apologise and withdraw the comment.

You've accepted that you support housing trans women in women's jail's. Good, we're finally getting somewhere.

Do you accept that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults against cis women whilst housed in women's jail's?

As for your balance of rights test, please explain how you can carry out such a test without data.

If you're aiming to balance the harm done to one segment of society with the benefit derived by another segment of society surely you need some way to measure said harms and benefits?

Rich_cb wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I think that trans women are women, and that means in all ways, unlike you who has stated that trans women are actually men. Which is abhorrent.

Please point to where I have said that or apologise and withdraw the comment.

done so above, and quoted it. In context, when talking about your desire to remove trans women from womens prisons, you skipped and said the quiet part out loud. 

Rich_cb wrote:

You've accepted that you support housing trans women in women's jail's. Good, we're finally getting somewhere.

So, how's that collective punishment idea of yours going?

Rich_cb wrote:

Do you accept that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults against cis women whilst housed in women's jail's?

Yes. Do you accept that trans women have been assaulted in womens jails? Do you accept that cisxwomen have assaulted cis-women in womens jails? Do you accept that cis-men have assaulted women in womens jails? Do you accept that trans-women were assaulted in mens prisons? 

Do you believe that any amount of harm to one group allows you to collectively punish an entire other group?
 

Rich_cb wrote:

As for your balance of rights test, please explain how you can carry out such a test without data.

becsuse I'm not conducting the test? Additionally the starting point is equal treatment - trans- and cis- women are women, after all, and the extraordinary position ie the one that needs *proving* is that they are not equal  So far you have not given any proof, becsue your only argument is that any amount of harm justifies collective punishment  Luckily for the actual society we live in, that's not how this is decided  

Rich_cb wrote:

If you're aiming to balance the harm done to one segment of society with the benefit derived by another segment of society surely you need some way to measure said harms and benefits?

Yes, I've never said I haven't. I've simply pointed out that your "evidence" is so flawed as to provide no statistical value whatever. Literally none. I've explained, in sufficient detail, exactly what the problems are. You've failed to address one single issue raised.  This means you accept that the issues are real. Meaning you accept you cannot draw a valid conclusion. 
 

to do otherwise would be disingenuous. 

We're finally making some progress.

I addressed your point about collective punishment. You unfortunately misunderstood.

We currently exclude men from women's jails.

Why do we do this?

The data I presented has only a relatively small sample size for trans women but the difference in rates of offending are huge. Small sample sizes can be used when the differences between the two groups are very large.

Has anyone carried out a balance of rights test for housing trans women in women's prisons? You seem to base a lot of your argent on this idea but so far have not linked to a single piece of evidence to support it.

Rich_cb wrote:

We're finally making some progress. I addressed your point about collective punishment. You unfortunately misunderstood.

no, I decided that you couldn't surely be making the argument that, having decided as a matter of course to split along gender lines, you'd argue if doing so was collective punishment,  Because by doing so you would still be saying trans-women aren't women .  Can you just confirm that you believe trans-women are women? An explicit statement is good,  

are you now deciding we should have a seperste but equal prison system for women? Simple answer of yes or no there 

Rich_cb wrote:

We currently exclude men from women's jails. Why do we do this?

Good question! Why do we have a system of jails that singular fail to protect inmates? Even better question! 

Rich_cb wrote:

The data I presented has only a relatively small sample size for trans women but the difference in rates of offending are huge. Small sample sizes can be used when the differences between the two groups are very large.

csn be used with care, and only if you've answered all the other issues.  You know, the ones you keep ignoring, preferring to cling only to numbers as if they're going to somehow save your arguments only hope, that of extrapolation   
so, can you answer all the other issues with this not at all scientifically sound study? K thanks  

Rich_cb wrote:

Has anyone carried out a balance of rights test for housing trans women in women's prisons? You seem to base a lot of your argent on this idea but so far have not linked to a single piece of evidence to support it.

You seem to still not understand 

The *startung point* is equality,  You would only instigate a test to challenge the starting point. As, again, that's how legal matters tend to be constructed - the injured (or claimed injured) brings suit, directly or by the state in their behalf (CPS prosecution).  So has anyone done so? Not to my knowledge. 
 

if you feel this strongly, maybe you can bring a JR to challenge this? Starting cost of mid five figures. You have to be represented, from memory. 

If we take equality as our starting point why are men excluded from women's jails?

Can you answer the question instead of deflecting.

I'm happy to accept that trans women are women. Yes.

Rich_cb wrote:

If we take equality as our starting point why are men excluded from women's jails? Can you answer the question instead of deflecting. I'm happy to accept that trans women are women. Yes.

I answered. Try reading again. 

can you answer the rest of the questions? To my count you've answered one of about two dozen. 

No you didn't. You deflected with an alternative question.

Try again.

Why do we exclude men from women's jails?

Rich_cb wrote:

No you didn't. You deflected with an alternative question. Try again. Why do we exclude men from women's jails?

"no, I decided that you couldn't surely be making the argument that, having decided as a matter of course to split along gender lines, you'd argue if doing so was collective punishment,"
because that would be a moronic argument. 
is that clear enough? 
 

What is your solution, almost your "final" solution, to the "problem" of trans-women being able to live their lives as the women they are? Are you going to create a third category in sport, maybe called "other"? Given this was originally about sport until you realised yiu couldn't win that argument, then it became about offending rates in prison because you found these - to you - whizz stats that sadly for you turned out to be completely useless , for all the many reasons already given, can you at least answer that? 

try again.  I've asked multiple questions. You've answered one.  
 

As we know, the correct answer is to deal with the chronic issues of violence in all prisons, withiut idiotically trying to deal with a )p(potential) symptom. A little bit like you don't deal with cyclist deaths by mandating helmets, you deal with unsafe roads and how they influence motorist behaviours. 

Now you've done it. The "h" word, we'll be at 500 posts by the end of the day...

So you still haven't answered the question.

Let's try once more.

Why do we exclude men from women's jails?

The answer to both questions is to abandon divisions along binary gender lines and develop new ways to divide the population in order to achieve the purported aims of the original binary gender divisions.

Which is why I asked why we exclude men from women's prisons?

We could also ask why do we divide men and women's sports?

Once we know what we are trying to achieve in each case we can redesign the system in order to achieve those aims in our modern times.

I answered, just not the answer you want. 
I won't play your games any more, Rich. You ignore questions you find inconvenient. It's irritating. I've decided you're not worth the irritation. 

You won't answer the question because you can't answer the question. An honest answer to that question entirely undermines your position. You know this, hence the constant deflection and obfuscation.

If we take inequality as our starting point then we would have no gender division in sport or prison etc.

As a society we decided to divide some areas of our society by gender whilst simultaneously declaring that the genders were equal.

Why?

Does arbitrarily dividing by gender still work in our enlightened gender fluid modern world?

Does it still achieve our goals?

If not, why don't we choose a new arbitrary division?

I always find it amusing that the most ardent supporters of a non binary approach to gender are also the most ardent defenders of a continued binary division of society.

I'm not ardently defending a binary split? 
knowjng many NB and GF friends that would be a weird point of view to have.  
 

imanswered the question, just withiut giving the answer you were looking for. You also didn't answer any questions given to you, ok bar one. 
iI won't continue the dialogue of the deaf you are insisting upon. You've been a good laugh in some ways, but definitely not worth the time invested so far. 

You didn't answer the question.

You consistently deflected and avoided the question.

Rich_cb wrote:

So you still haven't answered the question. Let's try once more. Why do we exclude men from women's jails? ....

The question is posed in a patronising and hectoring manner , without the courtesy referencing Nosferatu's answers. In addition it is a deliberate red herring, expecting that forcing a 2 dimensional strawman will give a nice neat justification for invalidating human rights - yes, trans folk are human.

In addition to being irrelevant, it doesn't even deliver what you believe it will

Our prison system is a hangover from the Victorian era - there has been virtually no net progress with getting the prison system to deliver anything other than indiscriminate brutality to those that enter.

Prisons were split by gender by the Victorians (as far as they understood the concept) for ideologies of moral probity and seemliness - don't fool yourself that it had anything to do with the safety of the inmates, to state the bleeding obvious. 

Whereas an individual (of any gender) might perpetrate an assault, the environment that makes it overwhelmingly likely is a direct outcome of deliberate policy decisions, vindictive funding cuts, inhuman overcrowding, and staff conditions that guarantee a high churn and loss of experienced staff.

The point is that no prisoner's safety can be guaranteed when in this brutal environment, and a high proportion suffer assaults and abuse - yes even in women prisons. 

All inmates require risk assessment of both their vulnerability, their likelihood of risk to others, and in many cases both. Separating people by cultural preconceptions of gender just does not even begin to tick this box.

Against this background of systematic brutality and violence, that occurs daily which the public (that includes you Rich) blithely ignores, or even spitefully revels in, suddenly arrives a bunch of people who cynically use this manufactured situation to pursue a vendetta and persecution against those who happen to be different.

Would you support the removal of gender division in prisons?

How about in sports?

If not, why not?

Rich_cb wrote:

Would you support the removal of gender division in prisons? How about in sports? If not, why not?

Gosh, it's almost as if you haven't bothered to read... well anything.

And really? Comparing sports to prisons? One a voluntary recreational activity enjoyed by the general public?

The other an involuntary and systematically violent and dysfunctional form of politicised revenge on people?

You really think the governance of either are comparable in anything more than the most trivial way?

To sum up you seem to be saying that a marginalised group should be excluded from public participation cos... look over there, prisons!

If you look carefully you'll see the same simple question being avoided once more.

Why could that be?

Two people who are dedicated to binary gender divisions in our society but absolutely refuse to explain why...

Why do we divide sports by gender?

Why do we divide prisons by gender?

What are we hoping to achieve by these divisions?

Tune in next week for some more excuses.