# Someone with more maths than I will explain this better

“I have to be clear that I’m not saying that transgender people are predators, but there are more people who are predators than there are people who are trans.”

P error, n error? Summat like that?

We have trans, 0.1% of popuilation. We have predators, 1% of population (both numbers inventions). So, Bayes? (more maths guidance needed). The bloke trying to use the women’s changing room is more likely to be a predator than trans, right?

And therefore the rules need to be written to reflect that – they need to be about predators, not trans?

## 22 thoughts on “Someone with more maths than I will explain this better”

1. Well yes. If we take your figures and ASSUME that
1. A biological male wanting to use the women’s changing rooms only does so either because they are trans or because they are a predator,
2. That there are NO individuals who are both trans and a predator),
then, when meeting a biological male wanting to use the women’s changing rooms, in the absence of any other evidence, there is a 10 in 11 chance that they are a predator.

2. Given that biological males, whether trans or not, must surely be aware that one of the many gripes from women is the queues in womens’ toilets, why would they want to use the womens’ facilities anyway. Unless they wanted to access them for nefarious purposes.

3. Idk, something something fake Con bullshit.

Kemi is a grifter, so she’s grifting. That’s all this is. If they weren’t compulsive liars, they wouldn’t be Con ministers. Decent people don’t work for Rishi Sunak.

Talking Tories: all talk.

4. Boganboy – I think you’re on to something there. Perhaps there should be a urinal test for admission to the gents.

5. I don’t really like that argument. If 10% of people can indulge in an activity lawfully and without causing harm, but 90% of people cause harm when engaged in the same activity, the solution is not to ban the activity, but to find a way that the 10% can go about their lawful business while preventing the 90% from causing harm.

The issue is not about predators, it is about men and women. Female toilets are for women, trans women with full male tackle are not women.

6. What if one is just a perv and likes dressing up as ladies ? Neither a predator nor alien.

7. There are more trainspotters than trans people. There are more radio hams than trans people. Why isn’t the media and the social sphere swamped with screaming spotters and hams?

8. The problem of maths like that is that you can also conclude the remaining predators are also women, so the only ‘logical’ solution is to ban everyone from all toilets…. we’re swiftly into “just think of the children” territory.

That some people in category A (ok) are also in category B (bad) does not lead to the conclusion that all the A’s should just suck it up because B (bad!) (i.e. think of the children).

9. @AndyT
The problem does not lie with the Maths but with what you do with it.
I do not professionally prescribe what you should do with it.

10. “The bloke trying to use the women’s changing room is more likely to be a predator than trans, right?“

Only if (with those numbers) more than 10% of predators will use the women’s changing rooms.

So what is the actual prevalence of predators pretending to be trans and using the women’s changing rooms? How do the absolute numbers compare to the number of trans women just trying to go about their lives and using the bathroom they feel comfortable using, doing no harm to anyone ever?

11. How do the absolute numbers compare to the number of trans women just trying to go about their lives and using the bathroom they feel comfortable using, doing no harm to anyone ever?

I would feel more comfortable if my daughter didn’t encounter men in the toilets.

12. I don’t really like that argument. If 10% of people can indulge in an activity lawfully and without causing harm, but 90% of people cause harm when engaged in the same activity, the solution is not to ban the activity, but to find a way that the 10% can go about their lawful business while preventing the 90% from causing harm.

There’s an idea.
How about licensing, like with firearms or shotguns as a model?
To use the ladies facilities, you need a pass, signed off by a doctor that you haven’t got a penis, or a lady penis and aren’t a threat to womens.
No pass? Off to the gents you go.
Double benefit as the running of this scheme would need administration which means lots of lovely public sector jobs and diversity monitors.
People with lady penises or gentleman vaginas need a pass. Renewable every five years and, like firearms licences, if behaviour indicates they may no longer be suitable, it’s flagged automatically and revoked.

Found in a ladies without a pass? Five years in the clink for you automatically.

13. How do the absolute numbers compare to the number of trans women just trying to go about their lives and using the bathroom they feel comfortable using, doing no harm to anyone ever?

The number of “trans women” zero. It is a nonsense term made up to dishonestly describe men who are either mentally ill or perverts.

14. I suspect that somebody using the nom de post of Gertie Mouthfeel may not be entirely dispassionate, or indeed, unaroused. But what do I know?

15. Perhaps there should be a urinal test for admission to the gents

Some women would pass that. c.f. a scene in ‘The Full Monty’. I wonder if women peeing standing up would have a better aim than the men, judging by the mess on the floor in most urinals I have used.

16. I think the point is to make us despair.

To see ourselves as… animal and ugly.

To make us reject the possibility that God could love us.

17. We’re dealing with a harmless if unconvincing troll.

Real autogynephiles call themselves Natasha or Barbie, not Gertie.

18. Discussions like this are just wonderful! While the majority of real world washroom cases will lie in the middle it is those outliers which test our philosophy and our morality.

How about this variation: ‘the belief that one is trans starts in the mind, is it therefore necessary that there be any outward physical manifestation of the belief? (other than wanting to use womens’ washrooms). Does a single earing suffice to outwardly designate a trans person?

Then there is the temporal aspect. Today I feel trans and will use the wonens’ loo, tomorrow I will feel otherwise.

Remember, once upon a time the citizens of London sat on open air toilet benches surrounded with bustling foot traffic. Privacy is also something that starts in the mind.

19. Thing is – if the bloke trying to use the ladies room just isn’t allowed to, well, problem solved whether the issue is predators or trans.

I don’t understand why I get to use the ladies just because I put on a dress today.

20. It’s got very little to do with Math..

Depending on your definition of “predator” this ranges from 100% of males according to RadFem and HyperWoke, to a more conservative 4-5% “moderate Woke” number including all skirt-chasers etc., but excluding hamfisted attempts at seduction.

So yeah.. #”predators” >> #M->F Trans. By several orders of magnitude.

Of course, even of that 4-5% only the most deranged and/or psychopathic individuals would even consider invading the classic (public) female-only spaces to do Predatory Things.
That’s a very elaborate and ineffective method of courting suicide… ( A-M definition.)

So actually the number of “Predators” using that method is far smaller than the number of actual Trans, and by UK Law actually included in the number of “Trans”..
Because those Inclusivity Rainbow laws actually enable those …persons… to “Identify” as female, don the Camouflage, and be protected by law while doing so.

Talk about a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences….