Thread by @MForstater

Reducing risk of sexual crime (voyeurism, exposure, assault - a risk mainly posed by men) is just one reason we have sex segregated spaces in some situations (privacy & dignity is another).

& Unisex options are often possible so that everyone can be accommodated comfortably

The "Swedish Study" is a peer reviewed long term follow up study of 324 ppl undergoing surgical transition

Included in its findings is that MtF transsexuals retained a male pattern of criminality including violent crime

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

This is an inconvenient finding for people advocating for allowing males to be able to self-identify into previously female-only spaces

They say there is no basis for concerns about the risk for women.

In 2015 the magazine Transadvocate published an interview with with lead author Cecelia Dhjene where it asked her to disavow some interpretations of her study

transadvocate.com/fact-check-stu…

Note, she didn't disavow the published study, but some wilder questions put to her

Stock, Freeman and Sullivan (nor anyone else with any sense) are not claiming that the study shows that trans people 'are likely rapists'

This isn't what the Swedish Study shows

What the study showed is that

*MtF transsexuals retained a male pattern of criminality including violent crime*

This finding has not been challenged or revised in the the peer reviewed journal, whatever a magazine article interview says.

The MPs at the Women and Equality Select Committee asked Rosa Freedman, Alice Sullivan and Kathleen Stock for details of the study and they sent it as supplementary evidence

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…

They also included, and referenced in their briefing an earlier evidence submission to the Scottish Government by @mbmpolicy that addresses the claims covered in the magazine interview

mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/murray…

Professor Alex Sharpe who had also presented in that session thought that a professional and respectful way to acknowledge this evidence was by mocking their names.

Dr Ruth Pearce put in evidence accusing the gender critical professors or "distortions and untruths".

This is really an extraordinary thing to say in evidence to a select committee

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…

A PhD student who previous wrote a character assassination on Kathleen Stock took issue with the way that the Stock, Freedman and Sullivan have referenced MBM's work

https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1355932930875396098

As Lucy Hunter Blackburn (one third of @mbmpolicy ) has said this is ridiculous.

This is not an academic paper - it is an evidence briefing to MPs to help them understand the study and its critics.

The referencing and use of their analysis is fine.

@SimonFRCox serious human rights barrister who thinks that wanting males in female-only spaces makes you a bigot is also deeply concerned about referencing

(but does not want to talk about the findings of the Swedish Study)

All of this: the interrogation/interview, the mockery, the accusation of untruth, the inappropriate referencing nitpickery is designed to draw attention away from the finding of the Swedish Study

*MtF transsexuals retained male patterns of criminality, including violent crime*

It is also trying to draw attention away from the actual bad academic move that is trying to be pulled:

Using an interview in a magazine to deny the findings of a quantitative study in a peer reviewed journal.

(@TimHarford this is up your street)

If Bean and Cox had any interest in the actual quality of evidence they would be asking questions about this, not about whether Alice Sullivan is being disparaging.

Adding this to the thread of bad behaviour.

This is an extraordinary accusation by Simon Cox - he accuses the three gender critical academics of "hiding [a] critical text from parliament".

This is absolutely baseless