Thread by @MForstater

A lot of evidence was published by @Commonswomequ

Its worth reading the additional evidence of @Docstockk Rosa Freedman and @ProfAliceS side by side with @alexsharpe64

They both talk about the Swedish Study.....

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…

The gender critical academics had made some measured claims in their oral evidence

Kathleen Stock said there is no reason to think that once a male person self IDs as a woman they are no longer subject to the statistical generalisations that apply to the male sex

Angela Crawley MP suggested they were saying that all males who identify as women are potentially dangerous.

Alice Sullivan said no, thats not what they were saying. Women not wanting to undress in front of males does not mean you think they are all violent abusers.

Rosa Freedman said that while not all males are predatory some are.

She stressed the precautionary principle

Towards the end the MPs asked for evidence to support these very mild claims: that males who self identify as women cannot be assumed not to display male statistical patterns.

The questioning was quite aggressive.

Rosa Freedman cited the Swedish Study

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/df…

Here is what Alex Sharpe says in additional evidence about the Swedish Study-calling it 'infamous' and saying it is 'widely circulated in gender critical circles'

Scary words designed to cast doubt, but nothing of substance here

Here is what Stock, Freedman and Sullivan say about the study.

It is a peer reviewed study in a recognised journal.

They explain its methodology and its purpose

As Sharpe rightly says the study is interpreted to have found that males who identify as women have similar crime rates to other males.

Sharpe says the study does not support these conclusions.

After this Sharpe doesn't say anything else about the paper itself

As Stock, Freedman and Sullivan point out what the study shows is precisely this

"Moreover" says Sharp (what do you mean moreover? you have not given any evidence or analysis...) something something something about a magazine interview given by one of the authors (why not look at the study itself?)

"What the author actually says..." says Sharp, before saying something that the author did not actually say.

Djene did say she was frustrated by ridiculous claims, but these are not the claims made by Stock, Freedman & Sullivan, which reflect the actual findings of the study

What the study shows with the two cohorts was that in the first cohort there were *higher* rates of criminality than the control group of men, while in the second cohort with more mental health support they tapered to being *the same* as the non transitioning male control group

The gender critical academics go through the 'debunking' claims from the interview in quite some detail

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…

Will the MPs see through the misdirection?

They have been given all the help possible.