FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Another asylum seeker guilty of murder
Another asylum seeker guilty of murder
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? " Anyone who kills someone should absolutely face the full weight of the law — no question there. But this is a violent person issue, not an immigration issue. The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it. | |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? Anyone who kills someone should absolutely face the full weight of the law — no question there. But this is a violent person issue, not an immigration issue. The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it." naaaa , I'm done with all the apologists. | |||
"naaaa , I'm done with all the apologists. " That’s fine, but facts aren’t apologism. They’re just reality — and ignoring them doesn’t make anyone safer. | |||
| |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? Anyone who kills someone should absolutely face the full weight of the law — no question there. But this is a violent person issue, not an immigration issue. The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it." The use of LLM tools for every topic is going to be problematic. If that is the tone you were going for, fair enough, but I doubt you would personally sound so detached. | |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? Anyone who kills someone should absolutely face the full weight of the law — no question there. But this is a violent person issue, not an immigration issue. The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it." Show the official data to the young child who has to grow up without their mother. | |||
" The use of LLM tools for every topic is going to be problematic. If that is the tone you were going for, fair enough, but I doubt you would personally sound so detached. " Gotten tired of not engaging with me, I see! Detached? Hardly. I just prefer to look at what the numbers actually say instead of letting outrage do the talking. You can care about the victim and recognise that blaming a whole group for one person’s actions doesn’t fix a thing — in fact, it usually makes things worse for many. | |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? " Hopefully they will manage to keep this one behind bars and not let him free like they have just done with the other asylum seeker that sexually attacked women and sparked the protests the other week. To add to the chaos one of the first to be deported under the one in one out scheme simply got back into another dinghy and returned to the UK for a second time. So much for the deterrence factor. | |||
"Show the official data to the young child who has to grow up without their mother. " That kind of emotional appeal is exactly the problem — it turns a horrific personal tragedy into a political talking point. I don’t need reminding that someone lost their life; that’s precisely why justice matters. But using grief to generalise about an entire group helps no one — it just spreads hate and, instead of preventing violence, it perpetuates it. | |||
| |||
" The use of LLM tools for every topic is going to be problematic. If that is the tone you were going for, fair enough, but I doubt you would personally sound so detached. Gotten tired of not engaging with me, I see! Detached? Hardly. I just prefer to look at what the numbers actually say instead of letting outrage do the talking. You can care about the victim and recognise that blaming a whole group for one person’s actions doesn’t fix a thing — in fact, it usually makes things worse for many." It's not about blaming a whole group it's about letting people enter the country with no knowledge about them and their mental state or criminal history, if this means tarring everyone with the same brush and stopping everyone entering until a better system is in place then so be it Because clearly the current system isn't working and one death is one death too many. Or are the lives of our citizens not as important as those from the other side of the world simply because they claim to be in danger. Throwing fact's only show's a lack of compassion and respect for the victims. | |||
" The use of LLM tools for every topic is going to be problematic. If that is the tone you were going for, fair enough, but I doubt you would personally sound so detached. Gotten tired of not engaging with me, I see! Detached? Hardly. I just prefer to look at what the numbers actually say instead of letting outrage do the talking. You can care about the victim and recognise that blaming a whole group for one person’s actions doesn’t fix a thing — in fact, it usually makes things worse for many." Unfortunately AI doesn't really provide human style responses, the tone is usually too matter of fact and the structure is not natural. On sensitive subjects it doesn't work at all well. A human response is required because the tools don't pass the Turing test, you see. | |||
" It's not about blaming a whole group it's about letting people enter the country with no knowledge about them and their mental state or criminal history, if this means tarring everyone with the same brush and stopping everyone entering until a better system is in place then so be it Because clearly the current system isn't working and one death is one death too many. Or are the lives of our citizens not as important as those from the other side of the world simply because they claim to be in danger. Throwing fact's only show's a lack of compassion and respect for the victims. " One death is already too many — no one’s arguing that. But closing the door on everyone just creates new victims. A working asylum system protects everyone — citizens and refugees — through proper checks and support. Most people seeking asylum are escaping the same kind of violence you’re angry about. I value human life, wherever someone was born. Facts and compassion go hand in hand — ignoring either doesn’t protect anyone. You don’t fix a broken system by breaking people. | |||
" Unfortunately AI doesn't really provide human style responses, the tone is usually too matter of fact and the structure is not natural. On sensitive subjects it doesn't work at all well. A human response is required because the tools don't pass the Turing test, you see." Actually what you’re seeing is the thought pattern of an autistic person trying not to give in to hate like so many others do. Wouldn’t be the first time someone called an autistic person ‘robotic’ — but let’s be honest, that’s just ableist. Everything I post, I mean. I step back and look for causes and solutions because I do care — because I want something that actually fucking helps, not just more shouting at immigrants (which helps no one). If that sounds less emotional to you, maybe it’s because I’m using empathy as a tool for logic, not rage. | |||
" Unfortunately AI doesn't really provide human style responses, the tone is usually too matter of fact and the structure is not natural. On sensitive subjects it doesn't work at all well. A human response is required because the tools don't pass the Turing test, you see. Actually what you’re seeing is the thought pattern of an autistic person trying not to give in to hate like so many others do. Wouldn’t be the first time someone called an autistic person ‘robotic’ — but let’s be honest, that’s just ableist. Everything I post, I mean. I step back and look for causes and solutions because I do care — because I want something that actually fucking helps, not just more shouting at immigrants (which helps no one). If that sounds less emotional to you, maybe it’s because I’m using empathy as a tool for logic, not rage." I know you care that is why I said "I doubt you would personally sound so detached". I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose, it was friendly advice that's all. | |||
"I know you care that is why I said "I doubt you would personally sound so detached". I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose, it was friendly advice that's all. " If it was meant as friendly advice, then fair enough — but calling an autistic person’s way of communicating ‘detached’ isn’t advice, it’s dismissive. You might not have meant harm, but intent doesn’t erase impact. I’ll always take accuracy over performative emotion — because empathy isn’t about tone, it’s about understanding. I appreciate you clarifying though — it’s good to see it plainly. | |||
"Unfortunately AI doesn't really provide human style responses, the tone is usually too matter of fact and the structure is not natural. On sensitive subjects it doesn't work at all well. A human response is required because the tools don't pass the Turing test, you see." I'm thinking of changing the nickname from Mr Woolly to Mr Broken Record. | |||
" I'm thinking of changing the nickname from Mr Woolly to Mr Broken Record." I had actually considered recording a screen grab showing exactly how I build my responses — thought it might settle the ‘AI’ nonsense once and for all. Then I realised people who’ve already decided not to listen would just call it staged anyway. And for the record, AI can be a really effective tool for people with executive dysfunction or chemo brain. Just because I use a large language model doesn’t mean it’s the one in the driver’s seat — it’s an accessibility aid, not a ghostwriter. The funny part is, the Turing test cuts both ways. Sometimes people fail to recognise humanity even when it’s right in front of them. | |||
| |||
"He thinks I'm AI generated too and that my many typos are just an attempt to try and cover it up." Yeah, I had noticed. I use it as an accessibility tool, but I’m far too stubborn (and probably too proud) to ever let it think for me. I think that’s a remnant of the whole “gifted child” syndrome — if I’m not over-explaining things myself, it doesn’t feel right. | |||
| |||
"The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it." There are no government statistics on homicides by immigration status so people can make any thing they want up. Just as you have. It is highly dangerous to make the claim that “astylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population.” by extrapolating from zero reported crimes in Warwickshire. To show why it is dangerous I will give you a counter example based on real government statistics that looks like (superficially) it destroys your claim when it comes to murder. It is subject to the same statistical issues your claim has. As you observe murders are incredibly rare. In the year to March 2025 (the latest report) there were 535 homicides in England and Wales according to ONS. That is 8.8 homicides per million head of population. The Home Office reported that the number of people in asylum claims was 111,084 in the year to June 2025. If there are 8.8 homicides per million population then you would expect 0.97 homicides per 111,084 population of asylum claimants if they are just as likely to commit murder as the general public. The murder in question uses up that 0.97 murders per 111,084 so that shows that when it comes to murders then the asylum claimant population is just as likely to commit murders as the general population. They are certainly not 200x less likely when it comes to murder. If there were to be another murder from that population then they would be more likely. Statistically my example appears more robust than yours. It’s based on real numbers. However it draws from very small population sizes and so the extrapolation fails. Just as your claim for 200 times less dangerous fails. You can’t draw meaningful conclusions from zero reported crimes. The reality is no one has any clue as to the relative danger of the asylum and general population so we should all stop making up numbers. | |||
" There are no government statistics on homicides by immigration status so people can make any thing they want up. Just as you have. It is highly dangerous to make the claim that “astylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population.” by extrapolating from zero reported crimes in Warwickshire. To show why it is dangerous I will give you a counter example based on real government statistics that looks like (superficially) it destroys your claim when it comes to murder. It is subject to the same statistical issues your claim has. As you observe murders are incredibly rare. In the year to March 2025 (the latest report) there were 535 homicides in England and Wales according to ONS. That is 8.8 homicides per million head of population. The Home Office reported that the number of people in asylum claims was 111,084 in the year to June 2025. If there are 8.8 homicides per million population then you would expect 0.97 homicides per 111,084 population of asylum claimants if they are just as likely to commit murder as the general public. The murder in question uses up that 0.97 murders per 111,084 so that shows that when it comes to murders then the asylum claimant population is just as likely to commit murders as the general population. They are certainly not 200x less likely when it comes to murder. If there were to be another murder from that population then they would be more likely. Statistically my example appears more robust than yours. It’s based on real numbers. However it draws from very small population sizes and so the extrapolation fails. Just as your claim for 200 times less dangerous fails. You can’t draw meaningful conclusions from zero reported crimes. The reality is no one has any clue as to the relative danger of the asylum and general population so we should all stop making up numbers." Fair point — small datasets are fragile, and I never claimed the 200× figure was absolute. It was an illustrative estimate using the statistical “rule of three,” which is standard when a dataset reports zero cases. The point wasn’t to prove asylum seekers are harmless — it’s that if there were a large-scale problem, it would show up in the data we do have. You’re right that homicide rates are far too low to make clean per-capita comparisons — but that cuts both ways. They’re also far too rare to justify broad claims that asylum seekers are “dangerous.” The real takeaway is transparency. The Home Office doesn’t publish breakdowns by immigration status, and that’s the real issue. We can’t have an informed debate if the data isn’t even collected. Until it is, working with what’s available beats basing arguments on outrage and guesswork. | |||
" There are no government statistics on homicides by immigration status so people can make any thing they want up. Just as you have. It is highly dangerous to make the claim that “astylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population.” by extrapolating from zero reported crimes in Warwickshire. To show why it is dangerous I will give you a counter example based on real government statistics that looks like (superficially) it destroys your claim when it comes to murder. It is subject to the same statistical issues your claim has. As you observe murders are incredibly rare. In the year to March 2025 (the latest report) there were 535 homicides in England and Wales according to ONS. That is 8.8 homicides per million head of population. The Home Office reported that the number of people in asylum claims was 111,084 in the year to June 2025. If there are 8.8 homicides per million population then you would expect 0.97 homicides per 111,084 population of asylum claimants if they are just as likely to commit murder as the general public. The murder in question uses up that 0.97 murders per 111,084 so that shows that when it comes to murders then the asylum claimant population is just as likely to commit murders as the general population. They are certainly not 200x less likely when it comes to murder. If there were to be another murder from that population then they would be more likely. Statistically my example appears more robust than yours. It’s based on real numbers. However it draws from very small population sizes and so the extrapolation fails. Just as your claim for 200 times less dangerous fails. You can’t draw meaningful conclusions from zero reported crimes. The reality is no one has any clue as to the relative danger of the asylum and general population so we should all stop making up numbers. Fair point — small datasets are fragile, and I never claimed the 200× figure was absolute. It was an illustrative estimate using the statistical “rule of three,” which is standard when a dataset reports zero cases. The point wasn’t to prove asylum seekers are harmless — it’s that if there were a large-scale problem, it would show up in the data we do have. You’re right that homicide rates are far too low to make clean per-capita comparisons — but that cuts both ways. They’re also far too rare to justify broad claims that asylum seekers are “dangerous.” The real takeaway is transparency. The Home Office doesn’t publish breakdowns by immigration status, and that’s the real issue. We can’t have an informed debate if the data isn’t even collected. Until it is, working with what’s available beats basing arguments on outrage and guesswork." The real takeaway is that people should refrain from trying to claim statistical primacy. | |||
"The real takeaway is that people should refrain from trying to claim statistical primacy." I actually agree — no one should be claiming statistical primacy, especially when the government doesn’t even publish clear data on this. That’s the core issue: people make sweeping emotional claims without evidence, and when someone tries to ground things in numbers, it gets labelled as “detached.” If the Home Office tracked and released proper figures, we wouldn’t need estimates — we’d be debating facts instead of feelings. | |||
"Unfortunately AI doesn't really provide human style responses, the tone is usually too matter of fact and the structure is not natural. On sensitive subjects it doesn't work at all well. A human response is required because the tools don't pass the Turing test, you see. I'm thinking of changing the nickname from Mr Woolly to Mr Broken Record." Blind incompetence, you expect others to believe because you believe. AI is an awful tool in the wrong hands... | |||
" AI is an awful tool in the wrong hands..." Who gets to decide what the “wrong hands” are? | |||
" AI is an awful tool in the wrong hands... Who gets to decide what the “wrong hands” are?" The recipient of the spoof | |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? " This sounds more like a mental health issue than an immigration issue…. Especially if you listen to and respect the families witness impact statement after the trial They say they don’t want it being used to put the anti immigrant agenda especially since she worked in a place that helped them … they aren’t blaming immigrants or immigration, they are blaming the individual! Maybe people should heed their wish | |||
| |||
"But like I said, the current system isn't working is it, too many falling through the holes so to speak. An overhaul is needed if it means stopping everyone until a better, fairer and safer system is in place so be it. But hey I get that people just like to look smart and patronising by quoting figures and stats, hell it's the go to for MPs. But it's not actually solving anything is it. " Let’s follow that logic for a second. In the UK, the group statistically most likely to commit violent crime is white men. So should we ban them from public spaces “until a fairer, safer system is in place”? Of course not — because collective punishment isn’t justice, and fear isn’t policy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Anyone who is struggling to join the dots... We have people into the country without knowing who they are, nothing to identify them and yet we allow them in, house them and feed them. That lack of control has led to people being killed. Why is this so hard to understand and why are people trying to dilute the failures of our state and deaths of innocent people with stats that try to wash away the impact." That’s not what anyone’s saying. The stats don’t “wash anything away” — they highlight where the real issues are. Our feelings might tell us one thing, but the data often shows another. Ignoring evidence because it doesn’t match the outrage doesn’t fix the failures of the system — it just makes sure we repeat them. | |||
"Anyone who is struggling to join the dots... We have people into the country without knowing who they are, nothing to identify them and yet we allow them in, house them and feed them. That lack of control has led to people being killed. Why is this so hard to understand and why are people trying to dilute the failures of our state and deaths of innocent people with stats that try to wash away the impact. That’s not what anyone’s saying. The stats don’t “wash anything away” — they highlight where the real issues are. Our feelings might tell us one thing, but the data often shows another. Ignoring evidence because it doesn’t match the outrage doesn’t fix the failures of the system — it just makes sure we repeat them." do you recognise that we let people into the country without knowing anything about them, no background checks for criminality or health in terms of mental well being? | |||
" do you recognise that we let people into the country without knowing anything about them, no background checks for criminality or health in terms of mental well being? " That’s not really true — asylum seekers are checked. They’re fingerprinted, photographed, and run through UK and international databases like Interpol before they’re housed. The issue isn’t “no checks,” it’s that some records can’t be verified instantly because people are fleeing regimes where paperwork barely exists. We actually know far less about citizens until they commit a crime. And statistically, men born here are still the group most likely to commit violent offences — but no one’s suggesting banning them from public life. | |||
"Anyone who is struggling to join the dots... " Use of patronising and offensive language right from the start. "We have people into the country without knowing who they are, nothing to identify them and yet we allow them in, house them and feed them" As per our internationally agreed obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, plus the Principle of "Non-Refoulment" and Humanitarian Protection under ECHR. . However you're making it out that people just waltz in. That's quite incorrect and misleading. . "That lack of control has led to people being killed." Emotive. Anyone getting killed is a tragedy. But you are explicitly linking it to a lack of control. "Why is this so hard to understand and why are people trying to dilute the failures of our state and deaths of innocent people with stats that try to wash away the impact." Back to the patronising and belittling language again, with a side-dish of blaming others for quoting factual stats. That's irrational and does not help your position. It just makes it sound like you have an "agenda" or you've been manipulated by sensationalist and exploitative media reporting. | |||
" We actually know far less about citizens until they commit a crime. And statistically, men born here are still the group most likely to commit violent offences — but no one’s suggesting banning them from public life." Where do I find these statistics? Also, the way you have written this hides the problem by lumping legal and illegal immigrants together. It's a tactic many left wingers use even while discussing economic impact of illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have to go through numerous background checks and even health checks before coming to UK. Hence it's wrong to put them together when specifically discussing illegal migration. Same with economics. Legal immigrants have minimum salary requirements. So obviously they will do economically better on an average. That's not true with illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are a net economic burden to the country. I don't think UK publishes crime numbers based on nationality. Some research papers have been published in other European countries and they clearly shows immigrants from regions being vastly overrepresented in crimes. | |||
"Anyone who is struggling to join the dots... Use of patronising and offensive language right from the start. We have people into the country without knowing who they are, nothing to identify them and yet we allow them in, house them and feed them As per our internationally agreed obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, plus the Principle of "Non-Refoulment" and Humanitarian Protection under ECHR. . However you're making it out that people just waltz in. That's quite incorrect and misleading. . That lack of control has led to people being killed. Emotive. Anyone getting killed is a tragedy. But you are explicitly linking it to a lack of control. Why is this so hard to understand and why are people trying to dilute the failures of our state and deaths of innocent people with stats that try to wash away the impact. Back to the patronising and belittling language again, with a side-dish of blaming others for quoting factual stats. That's irrational and does not help your position. It just makes it sound like you have an "agenda" or you've been manipulated by sensationalist and exploitative media reporting." You are basically waffling. There is no way to check the backgrounds of these people and that is the core issue people have with the migrants entering the country. People have been killed, sexually assaulted, attacked and threatened to be shot by some of these people. We can't do anything about it because of the "obligation" you and others are clinging onto. You would rather brush off the risks and loopholes being exploited that have caused impact to people in real terms, than be seen to be mindful of the wider problems unvetted individuals can have on our society. Would you let a complete stranger you knew nothing about in your house? | |||
" do you recognise that we let people into the country without knowing anything about them, no background checks for criminality or health in terms of mental well being? That’s not really true — asylum seekers are checked. They’re fingerprinted, photographed, and run through UK and international databases like Interpol before they’re housed. The issue isn’t “no checks,” it’s that some records can’t be verified instantly because people are fleeing regimes where paperwork barely exists. We actually know far less about citizens until they commit a crime. And statistically, men born here are still the group most likely to commit violent offences — but no one’s suggesting banning them from public life." There is nothing to check them against. We don't have their real names, ages or relationships with countries they claim to be fleeing from to query who they are. We are forced to take thousands of people on their word. | |||
"Poor lass, should never have been in the situation looking after those fucking animals" unfortunatley after hearing her mother talk yesterday she put herself in that position by thinking there is good in everyone unfortunately fir her she found out that isnt the case | |||
" It's not about blaming a whole group it's about letting people enter the country with no knowledge about them and their mental state or criminal history, if this means tarring everyone with the same brush and stopping everyone entering until a better system is in place then so be it Because clearly the current system isn't working and one death is one death too many. Or are the lives of our citizens not as important as those from the other side of the world simply because they claim to be in danger. Throwing fact's only show's a lack of compassion and respect for the victims. One death is already too many — no one’s arguing that. But closing the door on everyone just creates new victims. A working asylum system protects everyone — citizens and refugees — through proper checks and support. Most people seeking asylum are escaping the same kind of violence you’re angry about. I value human life, wherever someone was born. Facts and compassion go hand in hand — ignoring either doesn’t protect anyone. You don’t fix a broken system by breaking people." they aint escaping violence they are escaping france or is a european country such as france that violent? | |||
"Where do I find these statistics? Also, the way you have written this hides the problem by lumping legal and illegal immigrants together. It's a tactic many left wingers use even while discussing economic impact of illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have to go through numerous background checks and even health checks before coming to UK. Hence it's wrong to put them together when specifically discussing illegal migration. Same with economics. Legal immigrants have minimum salary requirements. So obviously they will do economically better on an average. That's not true with illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are a net economic burden to the country. I don't think UK publishes crime numbers based on nationality. Some research papers have been published in other European countries and they clearly shows immigrants from regions being vastly overrepresented in crimes." You’re mixing a few things up here. This thread’s about asylum seekers — people legally applying for protection — not “illegal immigration.” The only time they break the law is if they stay after a rejected claim. And on violence: UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS). Asylum seekers are involved so rarely that many police forces record zero cases in a whole year. Even using the most exaggerated estimates, they’re still far less likely to offend per capita. That’s not “hiding the problem” — it’s just refusing to invent one. Conflating asylum with illegal immigration doesn’t make you sound informed, it just makes it clear where you’re getting your headlines from. | |||
" Would you let a complete stranger you knew nothing about in your house? " That’s a bit of a loaded question, isn’t it? We take people at their word every single day — when a plumber comes to fix a leak, when you grab a taxi, when someone new starts at work, even when you meet someone off this site. We don’t demand a full criminal background before we interact with them. It’s not some unique phenomenon with asylum seekers. Honestly, for most of them, we’ve got more verified info — fingerprints, photos, database checks — than we do on “Joe down the street.” The idea that they’re some special mystery danger is just nonsense and scare-mongering to further a culture war against immigration. | |||
| |||
" You’re mixing a few things up here. This thread’s about asylum seekers — people legally applying for protection — not “illegal immigration.” The only time they break the law is if they stay after a rejected claim. " You are wasting time with semantics here. We both know what I meant when I said illegal immigration. " And on violence: UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS). " What % of UK population is UK born? Do the numbers match? Also, you can share ONS links on the form. So can you share the source for this? " Asylum seekers are involved so rarely that many police forces record zero cases in a whole year. Even using the most exaggerated estimates, they’re still far less likely to offend per capita. " Where did you get this from? I don't think UK publishes numbers specific to asylum seekers. Not to mention the fact that the numbers will be skewed by Ukrainian and Hong Kong immigrants who aren't really known for crime. " That’s not “hiding the problem” — it’s just refusing to invent one. Conflating asylum with illegal immigration doesn’t make you sound informed, it just makes it clear where you’re getting your headlines from." My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. | |||
" We take people at their word every single day — when a plumber comes to fix a leak, when you grab a taxi, when someone new starts at work, even when you meet someone off this site. We don’t demand a full criminal background before we interact with them. " You post an ad with your number asking for a plumber. Someone calls you from a phone number and says he is a plumber and would love to visit your home. Do you let them visit or do you look for reviews to ensure that he is indeed a plumber, his phone number matches with the business listing and then let him in? | |||
"Poor lass, should never have been in the situation looking after those fucking animalsunfortunatley after hearing her mother talk yesterday she put herself in that position by thinking there is good in everyone unfortunately fir her she found out that isnt the case" Ah one of those, still feel for the poor lass of only the rest of those who support the mass importation of third world filth would see what happened to her and learn from it | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats." I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat. | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. " You can still share the title of the ONS link. I will try to search it myself. " The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. " How many responded, how many didn't? How many of these areas even have asylum seekers living there? " Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat." There is a thing called proportionality. If 90 people of group A and 10 people of group B form a group. 10 people of group A commit a crime and only 5 people of groups B commit a crime, still people of group B are more dangerous. Also, one group grew up here and UK society/government is responsible for them either way. The other group didn't and there is no reason why this country has to put up with them. | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat." Man … chatGPT really does love those em dashes doesn't it. Still it’s a nice indicator for when people are over using it . | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat." No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x | |||
" There is a thing called proportionality. If 90 people of group A and 10 people of group B form a group. 10 people of group A commit a crime and only 5 people of groups B commit a crime, still people of group B are more dangerous. Also, one group grew up here and UK society/government is responsible for them either way. The other group didn't and there is no reason why this country has to put up with them." This thread is about asylum seekers. To be an asylum seeker, you have to have formally claimed asylum — so this isn’t about “anyone coming over on a boat,” it’s about people going through a legal process that the UK is bound by international law to uphold. You asked where the data came from: the FOI figures are from local police forces across England and Wales — Warwickshire, Kent, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, and several others. Most returned zero asylum-linked offences for the year; a handful said they don’t categorise by status, which in itself tells you how rare it is. On proportionality: that’s exactly the point. If asylum seekers made up even a fraction of 1% of violent offenders, it would show up in the numbers. It doesn’t. Also, I misspoke earlier — and I apologise for remembering the wrong site name before. The “over 80%” figure isn’t from the ONS but from the UK Government’s “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2023” report, which shows that males account for 84% of all arrests in England and Wales. That’s government data, not opinion. As for your “we didn’t raise them, so we don’t owe them” argument — international law and basic humanity disagree. The UK signed the Refugee Convention; we don’t get to cherry-pick which moral obligations apply only when it’s convenient. And you’re right, UK society is responsible for UK-born offenders — which makes it all the more ironic that the people demanding accountability from others seem to avoid any when it’s their own demographic topping every violent-crime stat. | |||
"Man … chatGPT really does love those em dashes doesn't it. Still it’s a nice indicator for when people are over using it ." I’ve actually been open about that — I use AI as an accessibility tool to turn my thoughts into properly written replies. It helps me structure what I want to say clearly, especially when fatigue or executive dysfunction make that harder. It doesn’t write for me, it writes with me. Every argument I make is still my own reasoning — the tech just helps me express it cleanly instead of losing my train of thought halfway through. If you’re spotting em dashes, that’s just formatting — not authorship. | |||
"No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x" Oh dear — would you like to be the one to tell the multitude of sciences, historians, and social researchers that the term “cis” doesn’t exist, or shall I? I mean, I get it — understanding adjectives isn’t for everyone. | |||
" On proportionality: that’s exactly the point. If asylum seekers made up even a fraction of 1% of violent offenders, it would show up in the numbers. It doesn’t. " There's a reason it doesn't show up in the figures though, isn't there. Mrs x | |||
"There's a reason it doesn't show up in the figures though, isn't there. Mrs x " Maybe the reason it doesn’t show up is because it barely happens — the data suggests it’s statistically negligible. The only other explanation would involve assuming entire groups are dangerous without evidence, and that’s not a data problem, that’s a bias problem. | |||
"No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Oh dear — would you like to be the one to tell the multitude of sciences, historians, and social researchers that the term “cis” doesn’t exist, or shall I? I mean, I get it — understanding adjectives isn’t for everyone." Cis is redundant, means nothing and adds fuck all to the definition of a man or woman. It's only been in dictionary for 10 years, so what were men and woman before 2015? Oh yeah they were men and woman. Mrs x | |||
"There's a reason it doesn't show up in the figures though, isn't there. Mrs x Maybe the reason it doesn’t show up is because it barely happens — the data suggests it’s statistically negligible. The only other explanation would involve assuming entire groups are dangerous without evidence, and that’s not a data problem, that’s a bias problem." Pr it might be the government does not distinguish political statuses of offenders. You might be better off discussing FNOs, which is what a successful asylum seeker may be classified after committing a crime. So maybe look at the data for Foreign National Offenders as well. Mrs x | |||
"Cis is redundant, means nothing and adds fuck all to the definition of a man or woman. It's only been in dictionary for 10 years, so what were men and woman before 2015? Oh yeah they were men and woman. Mrs x" Language evolves to describe reality more precisely — the concept existed long before the dictionary entry. ‘Cis’ just gives a term for people whose gender matches their birth assignment, the same way ‘heterosexual’ gave language to what was once just called ‘normal.’ The word didn’t create the idea; it clarified it. And if the Latin prefix cis- bothers you that much, we can always switch to the Greek and call it homogender. Your choice. | |||
"No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Oh dear — would you like to be the one to tell the multitude of sciences, historians, and social researchers that the term “cis” doesn’t exist, or shall I? I mean, I get it — understanding adjectives isn’t for everyone." It's understanding reality that's the problem. Mrs x | |||
"Pr it might be the government does not distinguish political statuses of offenders. You might be better off discussing FNOs, which is what a successful asylum seeker may be classified after committing a crime. So maybe look at the data for Foreign National Offenders as well. Mrs x" That’s a different dataset entirely — FNOs include everyone without UK citizenship, from tourists to long-term residents, not just asylum seekers. The discussion here was about asylum seekers specifically, because that’s who people are blaming for violent crime. If the government doesn’t distinguish political status in its stats, that actually proves my earlier point — the numbers are too small to even separate out. | |||
"No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Oh dear — would you like to be the one to tell the multitude of sciences, historians, and social researchers that the term “cis” doesn’t exist, or shall I? I mean, I get it — understanding adjectives isn’t for everyone.It's understanding reality that's the problem. Mrs x" Reality’s actually got a pretty long record of proving you wrong there. Trans and gender-nonconforming people have existed across every documented civilisation — from the Gala priests of Mesopotamia, to India’s Hijra community, to the Two-Spirit people of Native American nations, and many others. A trans man, Dr James Barry, revolutionised C-section procedures in the 1800s. And if you’re using a smartphone right now, you can thank a trans woman whose work on signal processing helped make it possible. Trans people have always been part of reality — you’ve just chosen to ignore the evidence. Or… did you mean you were the one struggling to understand reality? If so, my apologies — please ignore this post. | |||
" This thread is about asylum seekers. To be an asylum seeker, you have to have formally claimed asylum — so this isn’t about “anyone coming over on a boat,” it’s about people going through a legal process that the UK is bound by international law to uphold. " Again, you are wasting time with semantics. We both know who we are talking about. " You asked where the data came from: the FOI figures are from local police forces across England and Wales — Warwickshire, Kent, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, and several others. Most returned zero asylum-linked offences for the year; " I searched around myself for this data. This is part of Warwickshire police's response: "However, this is not mandatory and in the event that the marker is not selected then information will not be returned and, therefore, searches conducted in this way cannot be assumed to be accurate." This is from the response of Kent police: "The reason for that is that there are no markers or qualifiers which may be attached to a custody record or crime report which would identify a detainee or suspect as an asylum seeker, and any relevant data which might be held could not be retrieved through automated means" Dorset police also say something similar that it's hard to find crimes done by asylum seekers specifically. But they do say that from Jan 2024 to October 2024 - they arrested 7469 UK nationals and 1117 foreign nationals. The overwhelming response from most of the police has been "not enough data available" or "no data available", which you have conveniently interpreted as data is available and no asylum seeker committed crimes. " On proportionality: that’s exactly the point. If asylum seekers made up even a fraction of 1% of violent offenders, it would show up in the numbers. It doesn’t. " Because we don't have the numbers " The “over 80%” figure isn’t from the ONS but from the UK Government’s “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2023” report, which shows that males account for 84% of all arrests in England and Wales. That’s government data, not opinion. " But you said "UK-born cis men". This only says males. Where did the "UK-born" part come from? " As for your “we didn’t raise them, so we don’t owe them” argument — international law and basic humanity disagree. The UK signed the Refugee Convention; we don’t get to cherry-pick which moral obligations apply only when it’s convenient. " So if we withdraw from the convention, you wouldn't make the argument right? You would be happy with us not taking refugees? If you are going to use the "law says so" excuse when people are complaining about the law itself, you should be fine with the law being changed. " And you’re right, UK society is responsible for UK-born offenders — which makes it all the more ironic that the people demanding accountability from others seem to avoid any when it’s their own demographic topping every violent-crime stat." Statistics which you have clearly misinterpreted/cooked up. And no one wants to ignore crimes committed by UK born criminals either. With foreign criminals, it's easier to handle it by just not allowing them in the first place. | |||
"Cis is redundant, means nothing and adds fuck all to the definition of a man or woman. It's only been in dictionary for 10 years, so what were men and woman before 2015? Oh yeah they were men and woman. Mrs x Language evolves to describe reality more precisely — the concept existed long before the dictionary entry. ‘Cis’ just gives a term for people whose gender matches their birth assignment, the same way ‘heterosexual’ gave language to what was once just called ‘normal.’ The word didn’t create the idea; it clarified it. And if the Latin prefix cis- bothers you that much, we can always switch to the Greek and call it homogender. Your choice." What about the word Real? The trans community fought hard to be recognised and thats fine. They have their own community and should feel rightly pleased about that but to then go and tell other communities they must now accept what they say as the truth is were I have an issue with this. I cannot die from prostrate cancer, you from ovarian, only one of us can be correct but you classify yourself as a woman not a transwoman but we arent the same. I dont need to use any other word to describe myself other than woman because I havent changed anything but for someone to change gender it makes sense to. This denotes the change and Trans seems to be the acceptable choice within the community. So to be a Transwoman or jave had to have medical assistance to change and so the prefix Trans is a verbal necessity to denote that changr, there's absolutely no need to prefix woman or man because there's been no change. You dont pick an apple from a tree and when it comes eat it call it a Cisapple because it still is an apple. That would be ridiculous. Mrs x | |||
"No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Oh dear — would you like to be the one to tell the multitude of sciences, historians, and social researchers that the term “cis” doesn’t exist, or shall I? I mean, I get it — understanding adjectives isn’t for everyone.It's understanding reality that's the problem. Mrs x Reality’s actually got a pretty long record of proving you wrong there. Trans and gender-nonconforming people have existed across every documented civilisation — from the Gala priests of Mesopotamia, to India’s Hijra community, to the Two-Spirit people of Native American nations, and many others. A trans man, Dr James Barry, revolutionised C-section procedures in the 1800s. And if you’re using a smartphone right now, you can thank a trans woman whose work on signal processing helped make it possible. Trans people have always been part of reality — you’ve just chosen to ignore the evidence. Or… did you mean you were the one struggling to understand reality? If so, my apologies — please ignore this post. " I'm not saying Yranspeople font exist, Im saying that they do, thats fine. What I'm saying is that men and woman exist and they don't need any sort of 'extra' labelling to prove this. They've always been men & woman, they've always known they are men & woman and dont now need to be told they are 'something' else. The person that coined this term, which was taken from chemistry and not biology, even said she used used this term because it was the least likely to upset the 'trans' community when describing men & woman by giving them a prefix. It was an exercise in inclusivity that gave no additional definition to the perfectly acceptable terms of man & woman. It was redundant then, ots redundant now and even the courts now acknowledge this. Mrs x | |||
"What about the word Real? The trans community fought hard to be recognised and thats fine. They have their own community and should feel rightly pleased about that but to then go and tell other communities they must now accept what they say as the truth is were I have an issue with this. I cannot die from prostrate cancer, you from ovarian, only one of us can be correct but you classify yourself as a woman not a transwoman but we arent the same. I dont need to use any other word to describe myself other than woman because I havent changed anything but for someone to change gender it makes sense to. This denotes the change and Trans seems to be the acceptable choice within the community. So to be a Transwoman or jave had to have medical assistance to change and so the prefix Trans is a verbal necessity to denote that changr, there's absolutely no need to prefix woman or man because there's been no change. You dont pick an apple from a tree and when it comes eat it call it a Cisapple because it still is an apple. That would be ridiculous. Mrs x" Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap. You can see that in every culture throughout history, from the Hijra in India to the Two-Spirit peoples of North America to the sworn virgins of the Balkans. The meaning of “woman” has always evolved with society — it was never just a matter of anatomy. Claiming otherwise goes against the entire foundation of modern feminist thought, which fought tooth and nail to separate womanhood from reproductive function. So unless you can find a single peer-reviewed journal that says gender identity doesn’t exist — and good luck with that — maybe stop pretending opinion outweighs decades of research. Trans women aren’t trying to rewrite womanhood. We’re reminding you that it was never as narrow as you were told. | |||
"I'm not saying Yranspeople font exist, Im saying that they do, thats fine. What I'm saying is that men and woman exist and they don't need any sort of 'extra' labelling to prove this. They've always been men & woman, they've always known they are men & woman and dont now need to be told they are 'something' else. The person that coined this term, which was taken from chemistry and not biology, even said she used used this term because it was the least likely to upset the 'trans' community when describing men & woman by giving them a prefix. It was an exercise in inclusivity that gave no additional definition to the perfectly acceptable terms of man & woman. It was redundant then, ots redundant now and even the courts now acknowledge this. Mrs x" The “redundant” argument misses the point. The prefix cis- doesn’t exist to change what “man” or “woman” mean — it exists so we can talk accurately about different experiences of gender without implying one is the default and the other an exception. Every field — biology, linguistics, sociology, medicine — uses prefixes to clarify distinctions, not erase them. That’s how language works. And as for the chemistry origin? So does the word gender itself — from Latin genus, meaning “kind” or “type.” Language evolves, science borrows, and the world keeps turning. If precision offends you, maybe the problem isn’t the prefix. | |||
"What about the word Real? The trans community fought hard to be recognised and thats fine. They have their own community and should feel rightly pleased about that but to then go and tell other communities they must now accept what they say as the truth is were I have an issue with this. I cannot die from prostrate cancer, you from ovarian, only one of us can be correct but you classify yourself as a woman not a transwoman but we arent the same. I dont need to use any other word to describe myself other than woman because I havent changed anything but for someone to change gender it makes sense to. This denotes the change and Trans seems to be the acceptable choice within the community. So to be a Transwoman or jave had to have medical assistance to change and so the prefix Trans is a verbal necessity to denote that changr, there's absolutely no need to prefix woman or man because there's been no change. You dont pick an apple from a tree and when it comes eat it call it a Cisapple because it still is an apple. That would be ridiculous. Mrs x Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap. You can see that in every culture throughout history, from the Hijra in India to the Two-Spirit peoples of North America to the sworn virgins of the Balkans. The meaning of “woman” has always evolved with society — it was never just a matter of anatomy. Claiming otherwise goes against the entire foundation of modern feminist thought, which fought tooth and nail to separate womanhood from reproductive function. So unless you can find a single peer-reviewed journal that says gender identity doesn’t exist — and good luck with that — maybe stop pretending opinion outweighs decades of research. Trans women aren’t trying to rewrite womanhood. We’re reminding you that it was never as narrow as you were told." Haha, love your not so subtle, short, blonde, bigoted woman description. Love it but lets not get too personal with the adjectives, not sure youll like it as i think your a sensitive soul. "Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap." These are your own words not mine. You seem confused though. One second the term wonan is a noun, next its a social construct. So which is it?. I know its a noun, describing the female of the the species. And as for decades of research, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying there are Trans people and then there are men and woman. There is no need for a further description for those born, and who still identify with their gender at birth. If tgats not the case then why is it not applied to other nouns, as in my example of a Cisapple. So if you are a Transwoman you are not a woman, just like me being a woman I am not a Transwoman. I'm not claiming any superiority in this I'm just stating the reality of this. It's very, very simple. Mrs x | |||
| |||
"Haha, love your not so subtle, short, blonde, bigoted woman description. Love it but lets not get too personal with the adjectives, not sure youll like it as i think your a sensitive soul. "Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap." These are your own words not mine. You seem confused though. One second the term wonan is a noun, next its a social construct. So which is it?. I know its a noun, describing the female of the the species. And as for decades of research, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying there are Trans people and then there are men and woman. There is no need for a further description for those born, and who still identify with their gender at birth. If tgats not the case then why is it not applied to other nouns, as in my example of a Cisapple. So if you are a Transwoman you are not a woman, just like me being a woman I am not a Transwoman. I'm not claiming any superiority in this I'm just stating the reality of this. It's very, very simple. Mrs x " It’s not confusion — it’s context. Woman is a noun, yes. But what that noun means is shaped by social constructs — the same way “king,” “money,” or “citizen” are all nouns that exist entirely because humans agree they do. Calling gender a social construct doesn’t make it imaginary; it means the criteria for it are defined by culture, not biology alone. Across history and societies, those criteria have constantly changed — which is why womanhood isn’t fixed to one anatomy, role, or ability. “Cis” isn’t a slur or an attack; it’s just language catching up to describe two different experiences — people whose gender aligns with birth assignment and people whose doesn’t. If you think reality is that simple, you’re welcome to it — but medicine, sociology, and history all say otherwise. So unless you can find a peer-reviewed source that defines “woman” solely by reproductive organs, you’re arguing feelings, not facts. | |||
"Regardless of figures from this agency or that department, trying to show everything is fine, the sad fact is that a lady is dead because a person travelled here claiming he needed asylum and needed this countries help. " You’re absolutely right — a violent person came here, claimed asylum, and now a woman is dead. That’s horrifying, and nothing can or should diminish that. But using one man’s actions to condemn all asylum seekers is like blaming every British citizen for the crimes of a single murderer born here. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. The goal should be fixing the systems that failed — not demonising an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it. | |||
"Regardless of figures from this agency or that department, trying to show everything is fine, the sad fact is that a lady is dead because a person travelled here claiming he needed asylum and needed this countries help. You’re absolutely right — a violent person came here, claimed asylum, and now a woman is dead. That’s horrifying, and nothing can or should diminish that. But using one man’s actions to condemn all asylum seekers is like blaming every British citizen for the crimes of a single murderer born here. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. The goal should be fixing the systems that failed — not demonising an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it." It's the asylum system that's the root cause of the failure. Letting unvetted strangers into a country is always dangerous. So saying that we shouldn't touch the asylum system but "we should fix the systems that failed" is meaningless. | |||
"What about the word Real? The trans community fought hard to be recognised and thats fine. They have their own community and should feel rightly pleased about that but to then go and tell other communities they must now accept what they say as the truth is were I have an issue with this. I cannot die from prostrate cancer, you from ovarian, only one of us can be correct but you classify yourself as a woman not a transwoman but we arent the same. I dont need to use any other word to describe myself other than woman because I havent changed anything but for someone to change gender it makes sense to. This denotes the change and Trans seems to be the acceptable choice within the community. So to be a Transwoman or jave had to have medical assistance to change and so the prefix Trans is a verbal necessity to denote that changr, there's absolutely no need to prefix woman or man because there's been no change. You dont pick an apple from a tree and when it comes eat it call it a Cisapple because it still is an apple. That would be ridiculous. Mrs x Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap. You can see that in every culture throughout history, from the Hijra in India to the Two-Spirit peoples of North America to the sworn virgins of the Balkans. The meaning of “woman” has always evolved with society — it was never just a matter of anatomy. Claiming otherwise goes against the entire foundation of modern feminist thought, which fought tooth and nail to separate womanhood from reproductive function. So unless you can find a single peer-reviewed journal that says gender identity doesn’t exist — and good luck with that — maybe stop pretending opinion outweighs decades of research. Trans women aren’t trying to rewrite womanhood. We’re reminding you that it was never as narrow as you were told." Your statement that... "...The meaning of “woman” has always evolved with society — it was never just a matter of anatomy. Claiming otherwise goes against the entire foundation of modern feminist thought, which fought tooth and nail to separate womanhood from reproductive function." is not only flawed, its absolute bollocks, maybe even a lie because it totally ignores the Gender Critical school of feminism. And there are tons of academic papers written on this matter. But you wont want to admit this, as it goes against your narrative. So maybe we should just stick with the term sex, with there only being two options here, male and female or man & woman but sure you and your AI frirnd will disagree. Mrs x | |||
"Regardless of figures from this agency or that department, trying to show everything is fine, the sad fact is that a lady is dead because a person travelled here claiming he needed asylum and needed this countries help. You’re absolutely right — a violent person came here, claimed asylum, and now a woman is dead. That’s horrifying, and nothing can or should diminish that. But using one man’s actions to condemn all asylum seekers is like blaming every British citizen for the crimes of a single murderer born here. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. The goal should be fixing the systems that failed — not demonising an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it. It's the asylum system that's the root cause of the failure. Letting unvetted strangers into a country is always dangerous. So saying that we shouldn't touch the asylum system but "we should fix the systems that failed" is meaningless." I never said we shouldn’t fix the asylum system. I said we don’t need to demonise all asylum seekers to do it. The system can and should be improved — with better processing, vetting, and support — but that’s not the same as claiming every person seeking safety is a threat. We can fix structural failures without resorting to fear-mongering or collective blame. In fact, that’s the only way we’ll ever build a system that actually works. | |||
" is not only flawed, its absolute bollocks, maybe even a lie because it totally ignores the Gender Critical school of feminism. And there are tons of academic papers written on this matter. But you wont want to admit this, as it goes against your narrative. So maybe we should just stick with the term sex, with there only being two options here, male and female or man & woman but sure you and your AI frirnd will disagree. Mrs x " Gender-critical ideology isn’t feminism — it’s a reaction against it. Feminism fought for decades to separate womanhood from reproductive function and to challenge biological determinism — the very thing gender-critical thought tries to drag back. And if there are “tons” of peer-reviewed papers backing your view, by all means — cite one. Because every major scientific and academic body — from the British Psychological Society and the World Health Organization to the American Medical Association and the UN — recognises gender identity as real and distinct from sex. And since we’re talking science, there isn’t even a strictly binary definition of sex in biology. Sex is bimodal, not binary — meaning most people fall into one of two clusters, but there’s natural variation in chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy that doesn’t fit neatly into “male” or “female.” That’s just observable reality. So no, gender-critical ideology isn’t “feminism.” It’s outdated biological essentialism with a fresh coat of paint — and actual feminists spent decades dismantling that very mindset. | |||
"Regardless of figures from this agency or that department, trying to show everything is fine, the sad fact is that a lady is dead because a person travelled here claiming he needed asylum and needed this countries help. You’re absolutely right — a violent person came here, claimed asylum, and now a woman is dead. That’s horrifying, and nothing can or should diminish that. But using one man’s actions to condemn all asylum seekers is like blaming every British citizen for the crimes of a single murderer born here. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. The goal should be fixing the systems that failed — not demonising an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it." There’s only you putting all asylum seekers into one group. Everyone else has been clear that the problem lies with a system that lets people enter the country as complete unknowns. When an unknown commits a crime, it is our failure to prevent the unverified entrants that created the opportunity. As for social constructs you have mentioned in other posts, it is very important we don't let disrupters break social construct for selfish reasons that do not help the human race. Time and measurement are a social constructs, if they are misunderstood and confusing the worlds would grind to a halt. Medicines could not be manufactured, notifications of events would be impossible. Challenges to society norms and preservation are having to be slowly unpicked through the courts, the Supreme Court needed to rule on what is a woman, they said: A “woman” is a person who is biologically female. We will at some point in the not too distant future also challenge and win through the courts the right to prevent unknowns entering the country with no identification and by nefarious means. Such is life... | |||
"Haha, love your not so subtle, short, blonde, bigoted woman description. Love it but lets not get too personal with the adjectives, not sure youll like it as i think your a sensitive soul. "Trans woman isn’t a weird term — trans is just an adjective before a noun, the same way you’d say short woman, blonde woman, or bigoted woman. “Woman” is a gender — and gender is a social construct, not a bio-essentialist trap." These are your own words not mine. You seem confused though. One second the term wonan is a noun, next its a social construct. So which is it?. I know its a noun, describing the female of the the species. And as for decades of research, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying there are Trans people and then there are men and woman. There is no need for a further description for those born, and who still identify with their gender at birth. If tgats not the case then why is it not applied to other nouns, as in my example of a Cisapple. So if you are a Transwoman you are not a woman, just like me being a woman I am not a Transwoman. I'm not claiming any superiority in this I'm just stating the reality of this. It's very, very simple. Mrs x It’s not confusion — it’s context. Woman is a noun, yes. But what that noun means is shaped by social constructs — the same way “king,” “money,” or “citizen” are all nouns that exist entirely because humans agree they do. Calling gender a social construct doesn’t make it imaginary; it means the criteria for it are defined by culture, not biology alone. Across history and societies, those criteria have constantly changed — which is why womanhood isn’t fixed to one anatomy, role, or ability. “Cis” isn’t a slur or an attack; it’s just language catching up to describe two different experiences — people whose gender aligns with birth assignment and people whose doesn’t. If you think reality is that simple, you’re welcome to it — but medicine, sociology, and history all say otherwise. So unless you can find a peer-reviewed source that defines “woman” solely by reproductive organs, you’re arguing feelings, not facts." I can find a legal judgement straight away, a woman means a biological wonan, so society agrees with this in the UK. As for medicine, can you die of ovarian cancer, because woman can, so the definition of woman does align with this. It's just reality. Woman have ovaries, men have prostrate, so yeah the definition of each requires these anatomical features, fact. So it appears you are arguing from a feelings point of view. And as for peer reviewed sourses on Gender Critical theory then look at the work of Lawford-Smith, Kathleen Stock and Alex Byrne. Mrs x | |||
" I can find a legal judgement straight away, a woman means a biological wonan, so society agrees with this in the UK. As for medicine, can you die of ovarian cancer, because woman can, so the definition of woman does align with this. It's just reality. Woman have ovaries, men have prostrate, so yeah the definition of each requires these anatomical features, fact. So it appears you are arguing from a feelings point of view. And as for peer reviewed sourses on Gender Critical theory then look at the work of Lawford-Smith, Kathleen Stock and Alex Byrne. Mrs x" Actually, no — the people you’re citing (Stock, Lawford-Smith, Byrne) aren’t peer-reviewed medical researchers. Their work sits in philosophy and opinion, not clinical or empirical science. In fact, several peer-reviewed journals have criticised Stock’s arguments for misrepresenting the evidence. The Supreme Court case you’re referencing explicitly dealt with sex in a legal context, not gender — and even that ruling has faced strong criticism from legal scholars and women’s rights groups for the social harm it causes. A legal definition can change with politics; a scientific one doesn’t. As for “biology,” it’s simply not binary. Not all natal females have ovaries, and not all people with ovaries are female — intersex conditions and chromosomal variations make that medically demonstrable. That’s why every major medical body — from the British Medical Association to the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association — defines gender as distinct from sex. So no — this isn’t about “feelings.” Your side has a handful of philosophy papers and political talking points. Mine has decades of peer-reviewed medicine, anthropology, psychology, and history behind it. | |||
" I never said we shouldn’t fix the asylum system. I said we don’t need to demonise all asylum seekers to do it. The system can and should be improved — with better processing, vetting, and support — but that’s not the same as claiming every person seeking safety is a threat. We can fix structural failures without resorting to fear-mongering or collective blame. In fact, that’s the only way we’ll ever build a system that actually works." No one demonised all the asylum seekers either. But unfortunately there is no practical way to filter out the criminals alone. Better processing, vetting and support isn't going to stop criminals from coming in or committing a crime. End of the day, the government's top most priority should be protecting the citizens in the country. Charity for others while risking the safety of people here is not going to work in the long run. | |||
"No one demonised all the asylum seekers either. But unfortunately there is no practical way to filter out the criminals alone. Better processing, vetting and support isn't going to stop criminals from coming in or committing a crime. End of the day, the government's top most priority should be protecting the citizens in the country. Charity for others while risking the safety of people here is not going to work in the long run." I dunno, calling asylum seekers ‘filthy animals’ or saying we shouldn’t let any in sounds a lot like demonising to me. Of course the government should protect citizens — that’s literally part of the system working properly. But safety and compassion aren’t opposites. Every credible analysis shows that blanket hostility doesn’t make anyone safer — it just drives people underground and makes vetting harder. If the real goal is safety, then logic says we fix the process, not punish everyone who uses it. And for the record, anyone found to be violent or dangerous should absolutely have their claim denied and face the full weight of the law. That’s justice — not prejudice. | |||
" I can find a legal judgement straight away, a woman means a biological wonan, so society agrees with this in the UK. As for medicine, can you die of ovarian cancer, because woman can, so the definition of woman does align with this. It's just reality. Woman have ovaries, men have prostrate, so yeah the definition of each requires these anatomical features, fact. So it appears you are arguing from a feelings point of view. And as for peer reviewed sourses on Gender Critical theory then look at the work of Lawford-Smith, Kathleen Stock and Alex Byrne. Mrs x Actually, no — the people you’re citing (Stock, Lawford-Smith, Byrne) aren’t peer-reviewed medical researchers. Their work sits in philosophy and opinion, not clinical or empirical science. In fact, several peer-reviewed journals have criticised Stock’s arguments for misrepresenting the evidence. The Supreme Court case you’re referencing explicitly dealt with sex in a legal context, not gender — and even that ruling has faced strong criticism from legal scholars and women’s rights groups for the social harm it causes. A legal definition can change with politics; a scientific one doesn’t. As for “biology,” it’s simply not binary. Not all natal females have ovaries, and not all people with ovaries are female — intersex conditions and chromosomal variations make that medically demonstrable. That’s why every major medical body — from the British Medical Association to the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association — defines gender as distinct from sex. So no — this isn’t about “feelings.” Your side has a handful of philosophy papers and political talking points. Mine has decades of peer-reviewed medicine, anthropology, psychology, and history behind it." I dont have a side, my side is me. So if I'm mistaken I'm sorry but its so confusing. Gender when I was brought up was described as male & female, man, woman, that sort of thing. But now you say gender is a social construct. So maybe I should use the term sex. As for Cis, whether or not it relates to gender or not, its still redundant. A prefix that does not alter the noun it precedes, or adds any additional descriptive element, is functional useless. So if you are one state and remain that state then there is no need for a prefix. This is just linguistic logic. H2O exists in three forms, solid, liquid or gas. It doesn't become pre-steam as it heats up or post solid as it defrosted, its either ice, water or steam and only becomes one of these states under certain strict criteria. So yes I believe that you are a man or a woman, unless you decide to change that and that change requires medical intervention. You cannot simply will to alter your sex for it to happen. Name anything else in the animal kingdom that requires the use of a prefix to describe the difference between the exes. It's irrelevant. Mrs x | |||
"I dont have a side, my side is me. So if I'm mistaken I'm sorry but its so confusing. Gender when I was brought up was described as male & female, man, woman, that sort of thing. But now you say gender is a social construct. So maybe I should use the term sex. As for Cis, whether or not it relates to gender or not, its still redundant. A prefix that does not alter the noun it precedes, or adds any additional descriptive element, is functional useless. So if you are one state and remain that state then there is no need for a prefix. This is just linguistic logic. H2O exists in three forms, solid, liquid or gas. It doesn't become pre-steam as it heats up or post solid as it defrosted, its either ice, water or steam and only becomes one of these states under certain strict criteria. So yes I believe that you are a man or a woman, unless you decide to change that and that change requires medical intervention. You cannot simply will to alter your sex for it to happen. Name anything else in the animal kingdom that requires the use of a prefix to describe the difference between the exes. It's irrelevant. Mrs x" You keep saying this is just about “reality,” but biology itself isn’t as fixed as you seem to think. In nature, sex and gender fluidity are everywhere — clownfish, wrasses, frogs, and even certain reptiles can change sex under specific conditions. A documented lioness in Botswana’s Okavango Delta even developed a mane and took on male social roles after a hormonal shift. Biology isn’t binary; it’s adaptable. The same is true for humans. In many ways, science couldn’t tell the difference between me and a cis woman. An endocrinologist would see blood work that’s hormonally female. A haematologist would see red and white cell patterns within female norms. Even neurology would place my brain structure and activity on the female side of the bimodal spectrum. And about that word “cis” — of course it has relevance. It’s not meant as an insult; it’s just a descriptor for people whose gender matches their birth assignment. It’s useful because if I’d just said “men,” that would have included trans men — who, hormonally and neurologically, are male but don’t share the same violent-crime statistics that cis men do. The same logic applies to women: across every dataset, women — trans or cis — are statistically far less likely to commit violent offences. That distinction matters when you’re actually trying to understand the data rather than just feel angry about it. So when people say “biology decides,” I always wonder — which part of biology? The hormones? The chromosomes? The brain? Because the more we learn, the less that argument holds up. If you’re going to appeal to science, at least keep up with where the science actually is. | |||
"No one demonised all the asylum seekers either. But unfortunately there is no practical way to filter out the criminals alone. Better processing, vetting and support isn't going to stop criminals from coming in or committing a crime. End of the day, the government's top most priority should be protecting the citizens in the country. Charity for others while risking the safety of people here is not going to work in the long run. I dunno, calling asylum seekers ‘filthy animals’ or saying we shouldn’t let any in sounds a lot like demonising to me. Of course the government should protect citizens — that’s literally part of the system working properly. But safety and compassion aren’t opposites. Every credible analysis shows that blanket hostility doesn’t make anyone safer — it just drives people underground and makes vetting harder. " Safety and compassion cannot coexist in many situations and this is one of them. What credible analysis? Is it as credible as the statistics you cooked up in your previous posts? " If the real goal is safety, then logic says we fix the process, not punish everyone who uses it. " How do you fix the process? How do you know which one of these are criminals? In Sweden, close to two thirds convicted of sexual assault are from foreign background, according to research by Ardavan Khoshnood that was published recently. How exactly should Sweden protect their women? " And for the record, anyone found to be violent or dangerous should absolutely have their claim denied and face the full weight of the law. That’s justice — not prejudice." Would you be happy with deporting them irrespective of where they came from? | |||
" And about that word “cis” — of course it has relevance. It’s not meant as an insult; it’s just a descriptor for people whose gender matches their birth assignment. It’s useful because if I’d just said “men,” that would have included trans men — who, hormonally and neurologically, are male but don’t share the same violent-crime statistics that cis men do. " Why does it have to be this way? Let the word "men" just mean biological males. Trans men could be called trans men and we can have a different word if we want to include both men and trans men. Most scientific journals and legal documents written historically have always used "men" to mean biological males. Instead of trying to go back and rephrasing all that, isn't it convenient to use the word "men" to be what it always meant and use a different word for newer concepts? | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat.No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x" Wow sure your wrong that their all trans you must live in a mighty weird reality. | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat.No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Wow sure your wrong that their all trans you must live in a mighty weird reality." Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x | |||
"Regardless of figures from this agency or that department, trying to show everything is fine, the sad fact is that a lady is dead because a person travelled here claiming he needed asylum and needed this countries help. You’re absolutely right — a violent person came here, claimed asylum, and now a woman is dead. That’s horrifying, and nothing can or should diminish that. But using one man’s actions to condemn all asylum seekers is like blaming every British citizen for the crimes of a single murderer born here. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. The goal should be fixing the systems that failed — not demonising an entire group of people who had nothing to do with it." I agree demonising an entire group because some are criminals is wrong, which is why I do not do that. That goes for this topic and others as sometimes I see people demonising others for being in favour of a political party or watching/reading particular news outlets. On this topic I see people pointing out that people coming here and claiming it's for safety reasons then go on to murder and r**e those that help them. That's demonising the individuals involved. The system is clearly not fit for purpose and it's failings leads to others suffering terribly. | |||
"Would you be happy with deporting them irrespective of where they came from?" I didn’t “cook up” anything — I just misremembered which dataset a stat came from, and corrected it. That’s not dishonesty; it’s accuracy. The Sweden example doesn’t prove what you think. Khoshnood’s paper has been criticised for lumping together all “foreign background” people, including citizens born in Sweden, and it doesn’t show causation — only correlation. Safety and compassion can absolutely coexist. Countries that invest properly in asylum processing and integration, like Canada or Germany, have lower violent crime rates and better outcomes than those that rely on hostility. Yes, violent offenders should face full legal consequences and lose their claim — and I’m fine with deportation where appropriate. But I don’t believe in sending anyone straight into a death sentence. Justice should protect people, not imitate the cruelty it condemns. | |||
"Why does it have to be this way? Let the word "men" just mean biological males. Trans men could be called trans men and we can have a different word if we want to include both men and trans men. Most scientific journals and legal documents written historically have always used "men" to mean biological males. Instead of trying to go back and rephrasing all that, isn't it convenient to use the word "men" to be what it always meant and use a different word for newer concepts?" Because that’s how language actually works — it evolves as reality and understanding evolve. Think of it this way: until the electric guitar came along, there was no such thing as an “acoustic” guitar — it was just a guitar. Once a new form appeared, we needed a way to distinguish between them. The word didn’t change the instrument; it clarified the meaning. “Cis” does the same thing. It doesn’t redefine anyone — it just adds precision to describe two different experiences under the same broader category. That’s not ideological; it’s linguistic logic. | |||
"I dont have a side, my side is me. So if I'm mistaken I'm sorry but its so confusing. Gender when I was brought up was described as male & female, man, woman, that sort of thing. But now you say gender is a social construct. So maybe I should use the term sex. As for Cis, whether or not it relates to gender or not, its still redundant. A prefix that does not alter the noun it precedes, or adds any additional descriptive element, is functional useless. So if you are one state and remain that state then there is no need for a prefix. This is just linguistic logic. H2O exists in three forms, solid, liquid or gas. It doesn't become pre-steam as it heats up or post solid as it defrosted, its either ice, water or steam and only becomes one of these states under certain strict criteria. So yes I believe that you are a man or a woman, unless you decide to change that and that change requires medical intervention. You cannot simply will to alter your sex for it to happen. Name anything else in the animal kingdom that requires the use of a prefix to describe the difference between the exes. It's irrelevant. Mrs x You keep saying this is just about “reality,” but biology itself isn’t as fixed as you seem to think. In nature, sex and gender fluidity are everywhere — clownfish, wrasses, frogs, and even certain reptiles can change sex under specific conditions. A documented lioness in Botswana’s Okavango Delta even developed a mane and took on male social roles after a hormonal shift. Biology isn’t binary; it’s adaptable. The same is true for humans. In many ways, science couldn’t tell the difference between me and a cis woman. An endocrinologist would see blood work that’s hormonally female. A haematologist would see red and white cell patterns within female norms. Even neurology would place my brain structure and activity on the female side of the bimodal spectrum. ⁰ — who, hormonally and neurologically, are male but don’t share the same violent-crime statistics that cis men do. The same logic applies to women: across every dataset, women — trans or cis — are statistically far less likely to commit violent offences. That distinction matters when you’re actually trying to understand the data rather than just feel angry about it. So when people say “biology decides,” I always wonder — which part of biology? The hormones? The chromosomes? The brain? Because the more we learn, the less that argument holds up. If you’re going to appeal to science, at least keep up with where the science actually is." You are ignoring the science. Endoxhronoligists can identify your sex from the existence of your sex hormones, or the range of things in your blood such as haemoglobin and haemocrit which differ between the sexes. Thats why you have been prescribed hormones by an endocrinologist as you state in your profile. A haemotoligist can also determine this from a blood test too. Again they'd look at tge range of components in your blood, which have different ranges between the exes. They could also do a chromosonal analysis of you blood. How do you think they determine sex in cases such as the Olympic boxer or the trans swimmer both of whose names allude me at present. And again you say ..."And about that word “cis” — of course it has relevance. It’s not meant as an insult; it’s just a descriptor for people whose gender matches their birth assignment. It’s useful because if I’d just said “men,” that would have included trans men" thats just not true because the word men does not include 'transmen' it just includes biological men. Men are men, transmen are transmen, they are not the same and never will be. They have different anatomy, can die from specific sex related illnesses and only one requires any form of intervention to achieve its desired state. Thats just facts. The term 'men' does not include 'transmen' it excludes it, and vice versa. Mrs x | |||
"Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x" The implication of your sentence is exactly why the word cis exists — to make it clear that trans men are men. Without the term, you’d be treating “men” as if it excludes them, which it doesn’t. Cis is just a linguistic way to acknowledge that there’s more than one route to being male — it’s not a value judgment, just precision in language. | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat.No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Wow sure your wrong that their all trans you must live in a mighty weird reality.Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x" The statement men are men includes all men and therefore trans men and cis men (please note the spaces here). Cis is not reductive or derogatory just descriptive. Your use of transwomen rather than trans women is, I feel, intentional derogatory. You clearly want to other those in the trans community and very rarely at the moment is that done without mal-intent. The fact that you have previously tried to pass off gender critical ideologists as peer reviewed scientist speaks volumes of your beliefs. | |||
"Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x The implication of your sentence is exactly why the word cis exists — to make it clear that trans men are men. Without the term, you’d be treating “men” as if it excludes them, which it doesn’t. Cis is just a linguistic way to acknowledge that there’s more than one route to being male — it’s not a value judgment, just precision in language." | |||
"Would you be happy with deporting them irrespective of where they came from? I didn’t “cook up” anything — I just misremembered which dataset a stat came from, and corrected it. That’s not dishonesty; it’s accuracy. " Your data set only shows the % of males. But you said "UK born males". And your statement about police not making asylum seekers arrest is also blatantly wrong because the police basically said they don't have enough data. " The Sweden example doesn’t prove what you think. Khoshnood’s paper has been criticised for lumping together all “foreign background” people, including citizens born in Sweden, and it doesn’t show causation — only correlation. " His paper talks about different generations too. The fact that migrants are overrepresented still stays. If two-thirds of criminals of a particular type of crime come from certain background, there definitely is some causation. But if you are too emotionally blinded by bias, you wouldn't be able to see that. " Safety and compassion can absolutely coexist. Countries that invest properly in asylum processing and integration, like Canada or Germany, have lower violent crime rates and better outcomes than those that rely on hostility. " Crime statistics in Germany also show that immigrants are overrepresented in crime. If the Cologne New year's eve mass sexual assaults doesn't open your eyes to the problem, I don't know what will. What good is the safety of those women, right? " Yes, violent offenders should face full legal consequences and lose their claim — and I’m fine with deportation where appropriate. But I don’t believe in sending anyone straight into a death sentence. Justice should protect people, not imitate the cruelty it condemns." But you said that violent criminals should have their asylum denied. What should we do with them if they have their asylum denied? Would you rather risk safety of people from this country to protect this criminal? | |||
"Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x The implication of your sentence is exactly why the word cis exists — to make it clear that trans men are men. Without the term, you’d be treating “men” as if it excludes them, which it doesn’t. Cis is just a linguistic way to acknowledge that there’s more than one route to being male — it’s not a value judgment, just precision in language." Again thats not true, there's only one route to being a man but there's also only one route to being a translator. One just requires birth, the other requires medical intervention, including drugs and surgery. They are not the same. Thats precise and if you can tell me you can transition naturally then you may have a point. But you and I both know you can't, thats just impossible. Men are men, transfer are transfer and tge same position applies to the woman of tge species, Mrs x | |||
"Endoxhronoligists can identify your sex from the existence of your sex hormones, or the range of things in your blood such as haemoglobin and haemocrit which differ between the sexes. Thats why you have been prescribed hormones by an endocrinologist as you state in your profile. A haemotoligist can also determine this from a blood test too. Again they'd look at tge range of components in your blood, which have different ranges between the exes. They could also do a chromosonal analysis of you blood. How do you think they determine sex in cases such as the Olympic boxer or the trans swimmer both of whose names allude me at present. And again you say ..."And about that word “cis” — of course it has relevance. It’s not meant as an insult; it’s just a descriptor for people whose gender matches their birth assignment. It’s useful because if I’d just said “men,” that would have included trans men" thats just not true because the word men does not include 'transmen' it just includes biological men. Men are men, transmen are transmen, they are not the same and never will be. They have different anatomy, can die from specific sex related illnesses and only one requires any form of intervention to achieve its desired state. Thats just facts. The term 'men' does not include 'transmen' it excludes it, and vice versa. Mrs x " You keep claiming I’m “ignoring the science,” but everything you’ve written contradicts what modern medicine, biology, and neuroscience actually say. Endocrinologists don’t “identify sex” by glancing at a hormone range — they treat hormone profiles, which vary across individuals and overlap heavily between what we call male and female. That’s why I said an endocrinologist would read mine as female: because clinically, that’s exactly how the data presents. The same goes for haematology and neurology — both are demonstrably bimodal, not binary. Chromosomes aren’t the trump card you think they are either. Even among so-called “biological” males and females, there are countless natural variations — XXY, X0, mosaicism, androgen insensitivity, and more — all recognised by the NHS, WHO, and other medical bodies. Biology is far more complex than your talking points allow. And let’s be real — unless you’ve personally had your chromosomes tested, you don’t actually know what yours are. Around 1 in 100 people have some form of intersex variation, including XY women and XX men, and most never find out. That’s why modern medicine stopped pretending chromosomes neatly define sex or gender decades ago. As for your claim that “men are men and trans men never will be,” that’s not a “fact.” It’s an opinion contradicted by every major medical authority in the world — from the British Medical Association to the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization — all of which recognise trans men as men and trans women as women. You can claim to be following the science, but unless you can cite a single peer-reviewed medical paper that defines “man” or “woman” solely by anatomy, you’re arguing belief, not biology. And just to be clear — while gender-critical beliefs are legally protected as a philosophical view, using them to deny or devalue someone’s identity crosses into transphobic hate incident territory under the Equality Act and CPS guidance. So by all means, hold your beliefs — just be aware of where protected belief ends and unlawful discrimination begins. | |||
"Why does it have to be this way? Let the word "men" just mean biological males. Trans men could be called trans men and we can have a different word if we want to include both men and trans men. Most scientific journals and legal documents written historically have always used "men" to mean biological males. Instead of trying to go back and rephrasing all that, isn't it convenient to use the word "men" to be what it always meant and use a different word for newer concepts? Because that’s how language actually works — it evolves as reality and understanding evolve. " Language evolves. But it doesn't have to evolve the way you want it to. Your idea that we should redefine the word "men" to mean trans men too is expensive and causes lots of misunderstandings and problems in conversations. There is no reason why we have to do it that way. You are forcing the case just because you get a power trip out of it. " Think of it this way: until the electric guitar came along, there was no such thing as an “acoustic” guitar — it was just a guitar. Once a new form appeared, we needed a way to distinguish between them. The word didn’t change the instrument; it clarified the meaning. " That's a terrible comparison. We always think of guitar as an instrument that makes a specific type of music. So it makes sense to call both guitars. That hasn't been the case with "men". | |||
" But you said that violent criminals should have their asylum denied. What should we do with them if they have their asylum denied? Would you rather risk safety of people from this country to protect this criminal?" You’ve misread what I said. Denying someone’s asylum claim and deporting them are not automatically the same thing — especially when deportation would mean sending someone to torture or execution. That’s basic compliance with the UN Refugee Convention, not “protecting criminals.” If someone commits a violent offence here, they should be tried, sentenced, and — once their sentence is complete — deported only where it’s lawful and safe to do so. That’s how justice works in a civilised country: we uphold our laws and our human-rights obligations at the same time. As for your other points — over-representation doesn’t equal causation, and none of the data you’ve mentioned changes the fact that most asylum seekers never offend at all. | |||
" That's a terrible comparison. We always think of guitar as an instrument that makes a specific type of music. So it makes sense to call both guitars. That hasn't been the case with "men". " That’s not a “power trip”; it’s literally how language and taxonomy have always worked. Words evolve to reflect new understanding — whether that’s biology, identity, or technology. “Men” already includes trans men, because trans men are men. Adding “cis” just clarifies context, the same way “left-handed” or “disabled” clarifies without redefining. Historical usage doesn’t make language static; if it did, we’d still be calling all women “mankind.” Language changes because reality does — and whether you like it or not, modern science, medicine, and society already recognise trans men as men. The dictionary’s just catching up. | |||
" My point still stands. I was talking about the people showing up in boats. Instead of addressing that, you went on an unnecessary rant about definition of illegal immigration. All the statistics you shared still mixes skilled immigrants with the ones showing up in boats. I don’t post ONS links unless a moderator explicitly says it’s fine — it’s not on the approved list and I’ve been burnt before for sharing completely legitimate sources. The figures for asylum seekers come from FOI requests made to local police forces. Not all responded, but most that did reported zero incidents. And it doesn’t matter what other immigrant groups do — the discussion was about asylum seekers specifically. Considering men make up 49% of the population but commit around 80% of all violent crime, even if the remaining 20% were split however you like, UK-born cis men still remain by far the statistically greatest violent threat.No such thing as Cis men, Mrs x Wow sure your wrong that their all trans you must live in a mighty weird reality.Why because I think men are men and not Cismen? Mrs x The statement men are men includes all men and therefore trans men and cis men (please note the spaces here). Cis is not reductive or derogatory just descriptive. Your use of transwomen rather than trans women is, I feel, intentional derogatory. You clearly want to other those in the trans community and very rarely at the moment is that done without mal-intent. The fact that you have previously tried to pass off gender critical ideologists as peer reviewed scientist speaks volumes of your beliefs. " I'll apologise wholeheartedly for my missing a space out when talking about trans people, its not my intent to cause hurt or offence, even though you say its intentional. However when I talk about men or woman and trans men and trans woman its because there is a distinction between the two, thats just fact. The use of Cis is redundant, the nouns men and woman do not refer to trans people. This is not my opinion alone. It's a widely held belief and is the current legal position, which certain people in the trans community seem to want to ignore. Since this judgement this clarifies what what I've been saying. Men are biological men, this excludes trans men not matter what you believe and will do unless there's another decision which over turns this. As for you saying I've tried to pass of critical ideologies as scientific, peer reviewed, evidence thats disingenuous. Gender ideology is a social construct and as a social construct its developedment falls in tge realm of social sciences. So it will be developed by sociologists and philosophers and others within this realm. As for medical experts can I pose you a question. As a trans woman who develops prostate cancer, would you be happy to be treated for a 'female' specific cancer, because you identify as a 'woman' or would you accept that you need to be treated for a biologically male cancer? Sometimes reality has to be faced. Men and woman are different from trans men or trans woman, its just a fact. Mrs x | |||
"I'll apologise wholeheartedly for my missing a space out when talking about trans people, its not my intent to cause hurt or offence, even though you say its intentional. However when I talk about men or woman and trans men and trans woman its because there is a distinction between the two, thats just fact. The use of Cis is redundant, the nouns men and woman do not refer to trans people. This is not my opinion alone. It's a widely held belief and is the current legal position, which certain people in the trans community seem to want to ignore. Since this judgement this clarifies what what I've been saying. Men are biological men, this excludes trans men not matter what you believe and will do unless there's another decision which over turns this. As for you saying I've tried to pass of critical ideologies as scientific, peer reviewed, evidence thats disingenuous. Gender ideology is a social construct and as a social construct its developedment falls in tge realm of social sciences. So it will be developed by sociologists and philosophers and others within this realm. As for medical experts can I pose you a question. As a trans woman who develops prostate cancer, would you be happy to be treated for a 'female' specific cancer, because you identify as a 'woman' or would you accept that you need to be treated for a biologically male cancer? Sometimes reality has to be faced. Men and woman are different from trans men or trans woman, its just a fact. Mrs x" You say you “don’t mean offence,” but intent isn’t what defines discrimination — impact does. Under the Equality Act 2010, “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic. That means the law recognises trans men as men and trans women as women. Saying “men are biological men” or that trans men “aren’t really men” directly contradicts that legal protection — and yes, it’s considered discrimination. And your “reality” argument doesn’t hold up either. Medicine treats anatomy; identity describes personhood. A trans woman with a prostate would obviously be treated for prostate cancer — just as a cis woman who’s had a hysterectomy doesn’t stop being a woman. Health conditions don’t define who someone is; they describe how their body functions. You also keep saying people are “born men or women,” but that’s just not true — no one is born a man or a woman. Everyone is born a baby — typically described as a boy or girl based on observed sex traits. “Man” and “woman” refer specifically to adults, and what those words mean has always been shaped by culture, history, and society. So when you insist “men are men” as if it’s a biological constant, you’re misusing your own language — not defending reality. If you want to talk about “facts,” start with the actual ones: Law, medicine, and linguistics all recognise trans people as who they say they are. The only people denying that reality are the ones relying on belief instead of evidence. | |||
"Endoxhronoligists can identify your sex from the existence of your sex hormones, or the range of things in your blood such as haemoglobin and haemocrit which differ between the sexes. Thats why you have been prescribed hormones by an endocrinologist as you state in your profile. A haemotoligist can also determine this from a blood test too. Again they'd look at tge range of components in your blood, which have different ranges between the exes. They could also do a chromosonal analysis of you blood. How do you think they determine sex in cases such as the Olympic boxer or the trans swimmer both of whose names allude me at present. And again you say ..."And about that word “cis” — of course it has relevance. It’s not meant as an insult; it’s just a descriptor for people whose gender matches their birth assignment. It’s useful because if I’d just said “men,” that would have included trans men" thats just not true because the word men does not include 'transmen' it just includes biological men. Men are men, transmen are transmen, they are not the same and never will be. They have different anatomy, can die from specific sex related illnesses and only one requires any form of intervention to achieve its desired state. Thats just facts. The term 'men' does not include 'transmen' it excludes it, and vice versa. Mrs x You keep claiming I’m “ignoring the science,” but everything you’ve written contradicts what modern medicine, biology, and neuroscience actually say. Endocrinologists don’t “identify sex” by glancing at a hormone range — they treat hormone profiles, which vary across individuals and overlap heavily between what we call male and female. That’s why I said an endocrinologist would read mine as female: because clinically, that’s exactly how the data presents. The same goes for haematology and neurology — both are demonstrably bimodal, not binary. Chromosomes aren’t the trump card you think they are either. Even among so-called “biological” males and females, there are countless natural variations — XXY, X0, mosaicism, androgen insensitivity, and more — all recognised by the NHS, WHO, and other medical bodies. Biology is far more complex than your talking points allow. And let’s be real — unless you’ve personally had your chromosomes tested, you don’t actually know what yours are. Around 1 in 100 people have some form of intersex variation, including XY women and XX men, and most never find out. That’s why modern medicine stopped pretending chromosomes neatly define sex or gender decades ago. As for your claim that “men are men and trans men never will be,” that’s not a “fact.” It’s an opinion contradicted by every major medical authority in the world — from the British Medical Association to the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization — all of which recognise trans men as men and trans women as women. You can claim to be following the science, but unless you can cite a single peer-reviewed medical paper that defines “man” or “woman” solely by anatomy, you’re arguing belief, not biology. And just to be clear — while gender-critical beliefs are legally protected as a philosophical view, using them to deny or devalue someone’s identity crosses into transphobic hate incident territory under the Equality Act and CPS guidance. So by all means, hold your beliefs — just be aware of where protected belief ends and unlawful discrimination begins." So where are you hiding your womb and the rest of your female sexual organs? How do you explain the existence of your prostate? If you die and your skeleton is found thousands, even millions of years from now, archaeologists can determine your biological sex. 'Archaeologists determine the sex of skeletons primarily through skeletal features, particularly the pelvis and skull, which show dimorphism related to childbearing and locomotion. Modern genetic analysis of DNA or ancient proteins from teeth can also provide sex identification, sometimes confirming or even contradicting older methods.' So how is it that modern medicine cannot establish this? Thats just wrong, expect some spin on this, Mrs x | |||
"So where are you hiding your womb and the rest of your female sexual organs? How do you explain the existence of your prostate? If you die and your skeleton is found thousands, even millions of years from now, archaeologists can determine your biological sex. 'Archaeologists determine the sex of skeletons primarily through skeletal features, particularly the pelvis and skull, which show dimorphism related to childbearing and locomotion. Modern genetic analysis of DNA or ancient proteins from teeth can also provide sex identification, sometimes confirming or even contradicting older methods.' So how is it that modern medicine cannot establish this? Thats just wrong, expect some spin on this, Mrs x" You might want to be careful citing archaeology there, because that field actually proves my point, not yours. Archaeologists don’t determine sex — they estimate it, based on skeletal features that vary statistically between populations. The error rate is high enough that reanalysis frequently changes classifications. That’s why we keep seeing headlines like “Viking warrior previously thought to be male found to be female” — because the initial call was based on stereotypes (weapons = male) or bone structure averages that overlap. Even the pelvic and skull markers you mentioned are probabilistic, not definitive. And as you quoted yourself, “modern genetic analysis… can confirm or contradict older methods.” Exactly — which means earlier assumptions were wrong. Often by a lot. As for the “your skeleton would prove your sex” argument — no, it would show what someone 2,000 years later interpreted through whatever cultural lens and classification system they were using. Archaeology doesn’t uncover immutable truth; it reconstructs probability. And honestly, my bones aren’t likely to be dug up anyway — I plan on being cremated. This obsession with wombs and prostates misses the point completely. Bodies differ. Always have. But womanhood and manhood — those are social categories layered over biology, not confined to it. If your argument keeps needing to redefine “fact” every time evidence doesn’t fit, maybe the problem isn’t the science. | |||
" “Men” already includes trans men, because trans men are men. " You are making a circular argument here. You begin with an assumption that men already include transmen and then prove that cis-men should be a term because of this assumption. Historically, in most societies, "men" never included trans men. " Adding “cis” just clarifies context, the same way “left-handed” or “disabled” clarifies without redefining. " You can also achieve the same level of clarity by using transmen, men(to describe biological males) and a different term to describe the group of men and trans men together. This way of doing things reduces confusion and cost. Why MUST we do it your way? | |||
"I'll apologise wholeheartedly for my missing a space out when talking about trans people, its not my intent to cause hurt or offence, even though you say its intentional. However when I talk about men or woman and trans men and trans woman its because there is a distinction between the two, thats just fact. The use of Cis is redundant, the nouns men and woman do not refer to trans people. This is not my opinion alone. It's a widely held belief and is the current legal position, which certain people in the trans community seem to want to ignore. Since this judgement this clarifies what what I've been saying. Men are biological men, this excludes trans men not matter what you believe and will do unless there's another decision which over turns this. As for you saying I've tried to pass of critical ideologies as scientific, peer reviewed, evidence thats disingenuous. Gender ideology is a social construct and as a social construct its developedment falls in tge realm of social sciences. So it will be developed by sociologists and philosophers and others within this realm. As for medical experts can I pose you a question. As a trans woman who develops prostate cancer, would you be happy to be treated for a 'female' specific cancer, because you identify as a 'woman' or would you accept that you need to be treated for a biologically male cancer? Sometimes reality has to be faced. Men and woman are different from trans men or trans woman, its just a fact. Mrs x You say you “don’t mean offence,” but intent isn’t what defines discrimination — impact does. Under the Equality Act 2010, “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic. That means the law recognises trans men as men and trans women as women. Saying “men are biological men” or that trans men “aren’t really men” directly contradicts that legal protection — and yes, it’s considered discrimination. And your “reality” argument doesn’t hold up either. Medicine treats anatomy; identity describes personhood. A trans woman with a prostate would obviously be treated for prostate cancer — just as a cis woman who’s had a hysterectomy doesn’t stop being a woman. Health conditions don’t define who someone is; they describe how their body functions. You also keep saying people are “born men or women,” but that’s just not true — no one is born a man or a woman. Everyone is born a baby — typically described as a boy or girl based on observed sex traits. “Man” and “woman” refer specifically to adults, and what those words mean has always been shaped by culture, history, and society. So when you insist “men are men” as if it’s a biological constant, you’re misusing your own language — not defending reality. If you want to talk about “facts,” start with the actual ones: Law, medicine, and linguistics all recognise trans people as who they say they are. The only people denying that reality are the ones relying on belief instead of evidence." So how have I discriminated anyone, you are clutching at straws now. I am, like the others you state in the Law, medicine and linguistics, recognising trans people for who they are. I've said about trans woman is a trans woman. I've not been derogatory towards them. I'm just stating empirical facts, stating there's a difference between these two groups and there is. No matter what you are trying to say. As for the cancer question, you are going into the realms of desperation. I'm glad you say that a trans woman who has prostate cancer would have treatment for this type of cancer, it may save her life. Your assertion that a woman having a hysterectomy doesn't make her any less of a woman is very strange. Only a trans woman could have prostate surgery, whereas ALL woman could potentially have hysterectomy surgery. You are actually agreeing with my argument here. Trans woman and woman are not the same. This is scientific fact. You keep going on about the scientific evidence, quote one doctor that states all woman have prostate or all Trans woman have ovaries. Mrs x | |||
" But you said that violent criminals should have their asylum denied. What should we do with them if they have their asylum denied? Would you rather risk safety of people from this country to protect this criminal? You’ve misread what I said. Denying someone’s asylum claim and deporting them are not automatically the same thing — especially when deportation would mean sending someone to torture or execution. That’s basic compliance with the UN Refugee Convention, not “protecting criminals.” If someone commits a violent offence here, they should be tried, sentenced, and — once their sentence is complete — deported only where it’s lawful and safe to do so. That’s how justice works in a civilised country: we uphold our laws and our human-rights obligations at the same time. " It still means you are prioritising the safety of a foreign criminal over the safety of a law abiding person in this country. Why should we do that? If the legal framework is changed, would you be fine with it? " As for your other points — over-representation doesn’t equal causation, and none of the data you’ve mentioned changes the fact that most asylum seekers never offend at all." Over-represention does tell a clear story. These researches also have data about which countries most sexual offenders are from. The story is that men from cultures where "good" women are expected to wear a tent to cover every inch of their body react terribly when they enter countries where women have rights to wear whatever they want. Anyone with common sense can see this problem. Unfortunately, left wingers would rather have some women assaulted if it means they could pretend like they are compassionate about the world. So no matter how much data hits their face, their brainwashed self will make them bury their heads in the sand and pretend like it's not a problem. | |||
" This way of doing things reduces confusion and cost. Why MUST we do it your way?" I’m not the one being circular here — I’m describing how language and categorisation actually work. “Men” includes trans men because trans men meet the current social, medical, and legal definitions of men. That’s not an assumption — it’s where decades of evidence and policy have led us, from the NHS to the Gender Recognition Act. And the argument that “historically it didn’t mean that” doesn’t hold up either. Historically, plenty of people were excluded from definitions that later expanded — not because biology changed, but because understanding did. At one time, the Irish weren’t even considered white. Neither were Italians or Jews. “Whiteness” was a social category that moved its boundaries whenever it was convenient for those in power. Now, people use the same bad logic to police who counts as a “real” man or “real” woman. The pattern’s identical — just a new target. Adding “cis” isn’t rewriting reality; it’s clarifying it. It distinguishes experiences without redefining anyone. Refusing to use it doesn’t make you linguistically precise — it just signals ideological discomfort. Language evolves when understanding improves — not when someone demands the world freeze at their comfort level. | |||
"So how have I discriminated anyone, you are clutching at straws now. I am, like the others you state in the Law, medicine and linguistics, recognising trans people for who they are. I've said about trans woman is a trans woman. I've not been derogatory towards them. I'm just stating empirical facts, stating there's a difference between these two groups and there is. No matter what you are trying to say. As for the cancer question, you are going into the realms of desperation. I'm glad you say that a trans woman who has prostate cancer would have treatment for this type of cancer, it may save her life. Your assertion that a woman having a hysterectomy doesn't make her any less of a woman is very strange. Only a trans woman could have prostate surgery, whereas ALL woman could potentially have hysterectomy surgery. You are actually agreeing with my argument here. Trans woman and woman are not the same. This is scientific fact. You keep going on about the scientific evidence, quote one doctor that states all woman have prostate or all Trans woman have ovaries. Mrs x " You keep calling these “empirical facts,” but what you’re really describing are anatomical differences, not categorical ones. Medicine recognises anatomical differences between people all the time — that doesn’t mean those differences define who someone is. A trans woman having a prostate doesn’t make her “not a woman” any more than a cis woman who’s had a hysterectomy stops being one. You’ve just repeated my point: anatomy varies, identity doesn’t vanish with a medical procedure. And “scientific fact” isn’t on your side here. The British Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the World Health Organization all explicitly state that sex and gender are distinct, and that trans women are women and trans men are men. That’s not ideology — that’s consensus. Your claim that “ALL women could potentially have hysterectomies” is also wrong. Some cis women are born without uteruses or ovaries, others lose them before adulthood, and intersex women may never have them at all. Would you tell them they aren’t women either? Because that’s exactly where your logic leads. You also keep appealing to “science” but ignore that every scientific body disagrees with you. You’re not citing data — you’re citing personal discomfort. You can frame it however you like, but saying “trans women and women are not the same” is exactly the kind of statement classed as discriminatory under the Equality Act. You may not mean offence, but when your words deny people’s legal and social reality, that’s the impact — and that’s what the law cares about. Facts don’t care about feelings — but what you’re offering isn’t fact. It’s just feeling in a lab coat. | |||
"So where are you hiding your womb and the rest of your female sexual organs? How do you explain the existence of your prostate? If you die and your skeleton is found thousands, even millions of years from now, archaeologists can determine your biological sex. 'Archaeologists determine the sex of skeletons primarily through skeletal features, particularly the pelvis and skull, which show dimorphism related to childbearing and locomotion. Modern genetic analysis of DNA or ancient proteins from teeth can also provide sex identification, sometimes confirming or even contradicting older methods.' So how is it that modern medicine cannot establish this? Thats just wrong, expect some spin on this, Mrs x You might want to be careful citing archaeology there, because that field actually proves my point, not yours. Archaeologists don’t determine sex — they estimate it, based on skeletal features that vary statistically between populations. The error rate is high enough that reanalysis frequently changes classifications. That’s why we keep seeing headlines like “Viking warrior previously thought to be male found to be female” — because the initial call was based on stereotypes (weapons = male) or bone structure averages that overlap. Even the pelvic and skull markers you mentioned are probabilistic, not definitive. And as you quoted yourself, “modern genetic analysis… can confirm or contradict older methods.” Exactly — which means earlier assumptions were wrong. Often by a lot. As for the “your skeleton would prove your sex” argument — no, it would show what someone 2,000 years later interpreted through whatever cultural lens and classification system they were using. Archaeology doesn’t uncover immutable truth; it reconstructs probability. And honestly, my bones aren’t likely to be dug up anyway — I plan on being cremated. This obsession with wombs and prostates misses the point completely. Bodies differ. Always have. But womanhood and manhood — those are social categories layered over biology, not confined to it. If your argument keeps needing to redefine “fact” every time evidence doesn’t fit, maybe the problem isn’t the science." A quick AI search reveals the accuracy of the tests conducted by archaeologists. Archaeologists can determine the sex of a skeleton with high accuracy, often above 90%, by examining features of the pelvis and skull, though individual and population variations mean results are not 100% perfect. Modern genetic testing offers even higher accuracy, often serving as the gold standard to validate skeletal-based methods. Methods for determining sex from skeletons Macroscopic analysis Pelvis: The female pelvis is generally wider and has a larger, more open sciatic notch compared to the male pelvis. Analyzing a combination of features, such as the subpubic angle and the sciatic notch angle, can lead to high accuracy rates (92–100%). Skull: The skull provides numerous features, including the brow ridge, mastoid process, and nuchal crest, which are often more pronounced in males. The accuracy rate from skull-only analysis is generally lower than from the pelvis alone, with combined skull and pelvis analysis yielding the highest accuracy (up to 97.7%). Combined analysis: Using both pelvic and cranial features can provide the most reliable macroscopic estimates, often exceeding 95% accuracy. Genetic analysis DNA testing: Genetic methods, like analysis of the amelogenin gene, can determine the sex of a skeleton with very high accuracy, sometimes even when the bone fragments are small or the skeleton is otherwise degraded. Gold standard: Genetic analysis is often used as the gold standard to test and validate the accuracy of macroscopic methods on a particular sample.' You are either desperate to prove your narrative or just making things up now. The accuracy is mid to high 90% for the traditional methods and even higher for the newer DNA methods. Biological sex is easily determined at birth, fact. Obviously I'm expecting the 'Intersex' argument now. Mrs x | |||
" It still means you are prioritising the safety of a foreign criminal over the safety of a law abiding person in this country. Why should we do that? If the legal framework is changed, would you be fine with it?" How? That’s right — I’m not the one prioritising anything over public safety. You’re adding your own bias to what I actually said. Criminals should face consequences. Always. But pretending that upholding human-rights law means ‘choosing criminals over citizens’ is just lazy framing — and it’s the same framing used to justify every human-rights abuse in history. You keep talking about ‘over-representation’ as though that automatically explains why it happens. It doesn’t. Correlation isn’t causation. Those stats say more about poverty, trauma, and systemic bias than ethnicity or religion — unless you’ve already decided which groups you want to blame. And for the record, real common sense is knowing that fear isn’t the same thing as evidence.” | |||
"So how have I discriminated anyone, you are clutching at straws now. I am, like the others you state in the Law, medicine and linguistics, recognising trans people for who they are. I've said about trans woman is a trans woman. I've not been derogatory towards them. I'm just stating empirical facts, stating there's a difference between these two groups and there is. No matter what you are trying to say. As for the cancer question, you are going into the realms of desperation. I'm glad you say that a trans woman who has prostate cancer would have treatment for this type of cancer, it may save her life. Your assertion that a woman having a hysterectomy doesn't make her any less of a woman is very strange. Only a trans woman could have prostate surgery, whereas ALL woman could potentially have hysterectomy surgery. You are actually agreeing with my argument here. Trans woman and woman are not the same. This is scientific fact. You keep going on about the scientific evidence, quote one doctor that states all woman have prostate or all Trans woman have ovaries. Mrs x You keep calling these “empirical facts,” but what you’re really describing are anatomical differences, not categorical ones. Medicine recognises anatomical differences between people all the time — that doesn’t mean those differences define who someone is. A trans woman having a prostate doesn’t make her “not a woman” any more than a cis woman who’s had a hysterectomy stops being one. You’ve just repeated my point: anatomy varies, identity doesn’t vanish with a medical procedure. And “scientific fact” isn’t on your side here. The British Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the World Health Organization all explicitly state that sex and gender are distinct, and that trans women are women and trans men are men. That’s not ideology — that’s consensus. Your claim that “ALL women could potentially have hysterectomies” is also wrong. Some cis women are born without uteruses or ovaries, others lose them before adulthood, and intersex women may never have them at all. Would you tell them they aren’t women either? Because that’s exactly where your logic leads. You also keep appealing to “science” but ignore that every scientific body disagrees with you. You’re not citing data — you’re citing personal discomfort. You can frame it however you like, but saying “trans women and women are not the same” is exactly the kind of statement classed as discriminatory under the Equality Act. You may not mean offence, but when your words deny people’s legal and social reality, that’s the impact — and that’s what the law cares about. Facts don’t care about feelings — but what you’re offering isn’t fact. It’s just feeling in a lab coat." Name that doctor, you can't, only men have prostate, woman bombs fact but you cannot give me that name can you. The law, in this country states men are biological men, how's that me denying anyone's legal reality. Someones denying reality and its not me haha, Mrs x | |||
" I’m not the one being circular here — I’m describing how language and categorisation actually work. “Men” includes trans men because trans men meet the current social, medical, and legal definitions of men. That’s not an assumption — it’s where decades of evidence and policy have led us, from the NHS to the Gender Recognition Act. " And that GRA caused numerous issues after that because it made the wrong assumption. Most people before GRA and even now, mean biological males when they say "men". Just because a bunch of bureaucrats passed a bill, people wouldn't change their usage of the word. " And the argument that “historically it didn’t mean that” doesn’t hold up either. Historically, plenty of people were excluded from definitions that later expanded — not because biology changed, but because understanding did. " In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It depends on what's logistically better. " At one time, the Irish weren’t even considered white. Neither were Italians or Jews. “Whiteness” was a social category that moved its boundaries whenever it was convenient for those in power. Now, people use the same bad logic to police who counts as a “real” man or “real” woman. The pattern’s identical — just a new target. " Are Jews considered white today? That's news to me. " Adding “cis” isn’t rewriting reality; it’s clarifying it. It distinguishes experiences without redefining anyone. Refusing to use it doesn’t make you linguistically precise — it just signals ideological discomfort. " All the debates over the past two decades are proof that it clarified fuck all. It made the situation more confusing and lot worse. Tell me why we shouldn't use a different term for the group of transmen and men together instead of using cis-men for biological men? What advantages are you getting out of the latter. I have mentioned the advantages of the former clear. | |||
"Obviously I'm expecting the 'Intersex' argument now. Mrs x" You might want to reread your own source — it actually supports what I said. It’s talking about sex, not gender, and even then, every line includes “accuracy,” “estimate,” or “probabilistic.” That means it’s classification, not identity. Those mid-90% figures only apply when bones are intact and DNA is recoverable. In practice, that’s rare — which is why archaeologists routinely reclassify remains. Yes, DNA can show chromosomal sex, but chromosomes don’t map neatly onto lived biology. XXY, X0, XY women, XX men — all medically recognised by the NHS and WHO. That’s why modern medicine distinguishes sex characteristics from gender identity: one is anatomy, the other is social and psychological reality. So sure, archaeology can estimate sex. It can’t tell you who someone was. And about your “intersex argument” comment — that’s not an argument, it’s a medical fact. Either you accept intersex people exist (which means sex isn’t binary), or you’re claiming every major medical institution is wrong. You can’t call it “science” while ignoring the scientific evidence that disproves your position. | |||
" It still means you are prioritising the safety of a foreign criminal over the safety of a law abiding person in this country. Why should we do that? If the legal framework is changed, would you be fine with it? How? That’s right — I’m not the one prioritising anything over public safety. You’re adding your own bias to what I actually said. " We have a clearly violent criminal who is a threat to the law abiding decent people. He is not even from this country. So we aren't responsible for what he turned out to be. You would rather have him here and increase the threat on people here instead of sending him back because he faces threat in his home country. So obviously you consider the foreign criminal more important than the people here. " But pretending that upholding human-rights law means ‘choosing criminals over citizens’ is just lazy framing — and it’s the same framing used to justify every human-rights abuse in history. " So if those human rights laws are changed and allows us to send back violent criminals for the sake of national safety, you would be fine? Because we will still be upholding human rights laws. " You keep talking about ‘over-representation’ as though that automatically explains why it happens. It doesn’t. Correlation isn’t causation. Those stats say more about poverty, trauma, and systemic bias than ethnicity or religion — unless you’ve already decided which groups you want to blame. " That's all nonsense you cooked up just like the numbers you cooked up. Would you advise a woman to wear a short skirt and walk around with alcohol in hand in any of the middle eastern countries? Not all cultures are same. Either way, all the things you mentioned don't matter. Irrespective of the reason why they are that way, they are a threat to people in Sweden. Why must Sweden welcome them while putting their own people in danger just to satisfy some left wingers who pretend to be compassionate? " And for the record, real common sense is knowing that fear isn’t the same thing as evidence.”" You have evidence in numbers. So you should probably take your own advice. | |||
"Name that doctor, you can't, only men have prostate, woman bombs fact but you cannot give me that name can you. The law, in this country states men are biological men, how's that me denying anyone's legal reality. Someones denying reality and its not me haha, Mrs x " Actually, the Supreme Court and the Equality Act both went out of their way to be specific about this. The For Women Scotland ruling refers only to the definition of sex within the sex clause of the Equality Act. It doesn’t rewrite or override the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which explicitly covers trans people. So no — the law doesn’t declare “men are biological men.” It says that in that one legal context, “sex” refers to natal male or female. Everywhere else in the Act, trans people are recognised in law as the gender they live as. And I don’t need to name a doctor — you’re the one claiming a prostate defines womanhood. That’s not how biology or law work. By that logic, a cis woman born without a uterus wouldn’t be a woman, and a cis man who’s had his prostate removed wouldn’t be a man. That’s obviously nonsense. The legal, medical, and linguistic consensus all align on this: trans women are women, trans men are men. You don’t have to like it, but pretending otherwise doesn’t make it any less true. | |||
"Either way, all the things you mentioned don't matter. Irrespective of the reason why they are that way, they are a threat to people in Sweden. Why must Sweden welcome them while putting their own people in danger just to satisfy some left wingers who pretend to be compassionate?" When has deportation ever required sending someone straight to their home country? It doesn’t — and it never has. The UK deports people to any third country that’s legally able and willing to receive them safely. What’s unlawful under the UN Refugee Convention (which the UK helped write) is returning someone to a place where they face torture or execution. That’s called refoulement — and it’s a human-rights breach, not compassion. No one said violent offenders should stay here. I said they should serve their sentence, then be removed safely and lawfully. That’s exactly how civilised justice systems work. And you keep confusing “protecting people” with “breaking laws we signed.” The UK doesn’t get to pick and choose which international treaties it follows depending on who’s trending in the headlines. As for your “short skirt in the Middle East” comment — that’s not cultural insight; it’s victim-blaming dressed up as geopolitics. Women’s safety isn’t protected by xenophobia, and countries that treat human rights as optional always end up less safe, not more. Evidence isn’t fear. Fear isn’t evidence. You might want to learn the difference before accusing others of making things up. | |||
| |||
"Either way, all the things you mentioned don't matter. Irrespective of the reason why they are that way, they are a threat to people in Sweden. Why must Sweden welcome them while putting their own people in danger just to satisfy some left wingers who pretend to be compassionate? When has deportation ever required sending someone straight to their home country? " Which other country would take a known criminal? " It doesn’t — and it never has. The UK deports people to any third country that’s legally able and willing to receive them safely. What’s unlawful under the UN Refugee Convention (which the UK helped write) is returning someone to a place where they face torture or execution. That’s called refoulement — and it’s a human-rights breach, not compassion. " So if we change the human rights framework, you would be fine with it? " No one said violent offenders should stay here. I said they should serve their sentence, then be removed safely and lawfully. That’s exactly how civilised justice systems work. " So if we change the law to say that we deport violent criminals at all cost to protect the people here, you would be fine with it? " And you keep confusing “protecting people” with “breaking laws we signed.” The UK doesn’t get to pick and choose which international treaties it follows depending on who’s trending in the headlines. " Same question. You keep pointing fingers at the human rights laws. People are pissed of with those laws because they are clearly dangerous to themselves. Ideally these laws themselves should be reformed. Meloni is already trying to get the European politicians to reform ECHR before the situation becomes worse. That's the right thing to do. If they don't do that, countries will just start leaving ECHR the way Farage wants to. You will have nothing to point fingers at, when that happens. " As for your “short skirt in the Middle East” comment — that’s not cultural insight; it’s victim-blaming dressed up as geopolitics. Women’s safety isn’t protected by xenophobia, and countries that treat human rights as optional always end up less safe, not more. " Sorry who is the victim here? I am blaming the men in those cultures who would assault such women. Are you saying they are victims? 😂 " Evidence isn’t fear. Fear isn’t evidence. You might want to learn the difference before accusing others of making things up." What are you blabbering? The numbers are available and you are doing all sorts of mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid making inferences from those facts. | |||
"Obviously I'm expecting the 'Intersex' argument now. Mrs x You might want to reread your own source — it actually supports what I said. It’s talking about sex, not gender, and even then, every line includes “accuracy,” “estimate,” or “probabilistic.” That means it’s classification, not identity. Those mid-90% figures only apply when bones are intact and DNA is recoverable. In practice, that’s rare — which is why archaeologists routinely reclassify remains. Yes, DNA can show chromosomal sex, but chromosomes don’t map neatly onto lived biology. XXY, X0, XY women, XX men — all medically recognised by the NHS and WHO. That’s why modern medicine distinguishes sex characteristics from gender identity: one is anatomy, the other is social and psychological reality. So sure, archaeology can estimate sex. It can’t tell you who someone was. And about your “intersex argument” comment — that’s not an argument, it’s a medical fact. Either you accept intersex people exist (which means sex isn’t binary), or you’re claiming every major medical institution is wrong. You can’t call it “science” while ignoring the scientific evidence that disproves your position." Intersex is such a small figure, less than 2% of the worlds population. For want of a better word its an anomaly. More people are born with less than two legs, it doesnt mean as a species we are not bi pedal. It's sad but its a birth defect. Mrs x | |||
"I promised myself I’d actually relax a bit tonight — so I’m hitting pause here. I’ll check back tomorrow to see what new and excitingly inaccurate statements have appeared. " Nite Mrs x | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I promised myself I’d actually relax a bit tonight — so I’m hitting pause here. I’ll check back tomorrow to see what new and excitingly inaccurate statements have appeared. " To be fair, I think there will be many. The only person making sense to me is you. I do not understand absolutes because they are meaningless and nonsensical. You speak with nuance and science which resonates with me. Thank you. | |||
"Just reading the sickening story about the poor hotel worker pointlessly murdered by a asylum seeker who clearly shows no remorse and appeared to be happy with his actions. Whilst helping people who need it is all well and good how many people must die before enough is enough?? Anyone who kills someone should absolutely face the full weight of the law — no question there. But this is a violent person issue, not an immigration issue. The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size. If you scale that cautiously across all UK police forces, even the most damning estimate would be around 330 cases a year nationwide — just 0.005% of all recorded crime. That means asylum seekers are roughly 200 times less likely to commit a serious offence than the general UK population. So even using the most damning possible interpretation of the numbers, the idea that asylum seekers are driving violent crime simply doesn’t hold up. But please — if you can find official data showing otherwise, I’d genuinely love to read it. Show the official data to the young child who has to grow up without their mother. " Exactly.  | |||
" Exactly. "The data that was shared in the post has all turned out to be made up, as I mentioned in the previous post. Most of the police responded to the FOI for this data saying that they don't have this information at all or the information they have is inaccurate as they don't track if the criminal is asylum seeker or not. "No data" and "not accurate data" has been conveniently interpreted as there is data and no asylum seeker has committed crimes. Still no source for their claim that "UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS)" either. | |||
" Exactly.
The data that was shared in the post has all turned out to be made up, as I mentioned in the previous post. Most of the police responded to the FOI for this data saying that they don't have this information at all or the information they have is inaccurate as they don't track if the criminal is asylum seeker or not. "No data" and "not accurate data" has been conveniently interpreted as there is data and no asylum seeker has committed crimes.
Still no source for their claim that "UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS)" either."I did provide a citation — it’s from GOV.UK, not directly from the ONS page, though the same data appears in the ONS breakdown if you go a layer deeper into the “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales” dataset. The figures are consistent: around 79–81% of violent crime where the offender’s sex was known was committed by males. You can dislike the statistic if you want, but it’s not “made up.” It’s government data — you just have to read beyond the summary tables. | |||
" Exactly.
The data that was shared in the post has all turned out to be made up, as I mentioned in the previous post. Most of the police responded to the FOI for this data saying that they don't have this information at all or the information they have is inaccurate as they don't track if the criminal is asylum seeker or not. "No data" and "not accurate data" has been conveniently interpreted as there is data and no asylum seeker has committed crimes.
Still no source for their claim that "UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS)" either.
I did provide a citation — it’s from GOV.UK, not directly from the ONS page, though the same data appears in the ONS breakdown if you go a layer deeper into the “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales” dataset. The figures are consistent: around 79–81% of violent crime where the offender’s sex was known was committed by males.
"You said "UK born". Where did you get that from? And the police replies to the FOI requests clearly say they don't have accurate data or they don't have any data as they don't track if someone is an asylum seeker or not. You conveniently misinterpreted it to say that the number of crimes committed by asylum seekers is close to 0. " You can dislike the statistic if you want, but it’s not “made up.” It’s government data — you just have to read beyond the summary tables. " Oh I don't dislike the statistics where they exist. But the ones you mentioned don't exist. Hence I said they were made up. | |||
" Oh I don't dislike the statistics where they exist. But the ones you mentioned don't exist. Hence I said they were made up." I said “UK-born” to make clear I was comparing like with like — the ONS dataset on violent crime breaks down offenders by sex, not nationality, but UK-born men make up the overwhelming majority of recorded male offenders, so the figure reflects that group. And no, none of this was “made up.” The 79–81% figure comes directly from GOV.UK → Office for National Statistics → “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2023.” It’s right there in the offender-sex tables if you read beyond the headline summary. As for the FOIs, most police forces either explicitly recorded zero asylum-linked offences or confirmed they don’t track that category. Both responses are valid data points — one says “none recorded,” the other says “not categorised.” That’s not misrepresentation; that’s transparency. If you’re going to accuse someone of fabricating stats, at least check the source before doing it. | |||
| |||
" Exactly.
The data that was shared in the post has all turned out to be made up, as I mentioned in the previous post. Most of the police responded to the FOI for this data saying that they don't have this information at all or the information they have is inaccurate as they don't track if the criminal is asylum seeker or not. "No data" and "not accurate data" has been conveniently interpreted as there is data and no asylum seeker has committed crimes.
Still no source for their claim that "UK-born cis men commit over 80% of all violent crime (ONS)" either.
I did provide a citation — it’s from GOV.UK, not directly from the ONS page, though the same data appears in the ONS breakdown if you go a layer deeper into the “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales” dataset. The figures are consistent: around 79–81% of violent crime where the offender’s sex was known was committed by males.
You can dislike the statistic if you want, but it’s not “made up.” It’s government data — you just have to read beyond the summary tables."You are still ignoring the point that we as a country are obliged to allow anyone into the country who arrives here by any means they choose, by simply saying I'm seeking asylum. The icing on the cake is they don't need to provide evidence of who they are, they simply say they fled without papers 98% who crossed the Channel did not have ID. This leaves us in a vulnerable position, we have people in the country who we know nothing about, not even their name, we are obliged to believe what they are telling us. Can you understand that when one of these men kill, sexually assault or threaten to kill, the "obligation" that forces our has allowed that to happen. Your blind support is another layer of forced trust, you argue with stats to dilute the impact of the crime they have committed as trivial. This free loading, exploitation based on the words of unknowns needs to stop. To think other wise puts you in ever decreasing minority, thankfully. | |||
" Oh I don't dislike the statistics where they exist. But the ones you mentioned don't exist. Hence I said they were made up. I said “UK-born” to make clear I was comparing like with like — the ONS dataset on violent crime breaks down offenders by sex, not nationality, but UK-born men make up the overwhelming majority of recorded male offenders, so the figure reflects that group. And no, none of this was “made up.” The 79–81% figure comes directly from GOV.UK → Office for National Statistics → “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2023.” It’s right there in the offender-sex tables if you read beyond the headline summary. " The statistics say that 79-81% of violent crime are committed by men. You somehow translated it to say that 80% of violent crimes are committed by "UK born" cis-men. Your excuse is that majority of them or UK born and hence you just assumed that all of that 80% are UK born? In what world does that make sense? Definitely not in the mathematical world. You know that 60% out of 100 is also majority right? " As for the FOIs, most police forces either explicitly recorded zero asylum-linked offences " No. The ones who said they searched the data and found nothing added a disclaimer that the data is not accurate as they aren't expected to record it. This is Warwickshire police response: "However, this is not mandatory and in the event that the marker is not selected then information will not be returned and, therefore, searches conducted in this way cannot be assumed to be accurate" Kent and Dorset police said they don't have any data at all. " or confirmed they don’t track that category. Both responses are valid data points — one says “none recorded,” the other says “not categorised.” That’s not misrepresentation; that’s transparency. " Their statements are valid. But it's clear that the data is good enough to reach any conclusions. You are the one who misrepresented the data for whatever reason. " If you’re going to accuse someone of fabricating stats, at least check the source before doing it." If you are going to just add "UK born" clause without any data supporting it, misrepresent lack of data as data is available and it favours your view point, you are opening yourself to accusation. You do all this and when I share proper research data from Sweden, you brush it aside as "correlation is not causation". Either statistics aren't your strong point or you are intentionally making up these things. | |||
"I'm not sure how relevant the examination over data is. What we do know is that if you have limited resources and care about getting the murder rate down you wouldn't be focussing asylum seekers. It's an anti migration conversation, not an anti crime one. About a third of murders are drug related, and about 60pc of women who are murdered are victims to partners, friends or family. If you're concerned about safeguarding and reducing murder those are the conversations I don't hear people having." Oh I would love to participate in the other conversations too. I believe MeToo movement overall had a positive impact and we have to do more about protecting women from abuse. But these things don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can discuss and try to solve multiple problems at the same time. | |||
| |||
" Oh I don't dislike the statistics where they exist. But the ones you mentioned don't exist. Hence I said they were made up. I said “UK-born” to make clear I was comparing like with like — the ONS dataset on violent crime breaks down offenders by sex, not nationality, but UK-born men make up the overwhelming majority of recorded male offenders, so the figure reflects that group. And no, none of this was “made up.” The 79–81% figure comes directly from GOV.UK → Office for National Statistics → “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2023.” It’s right there in the offender-sex tables if you read beyond the headline summary. As for the FOIs, most police forces either explicitly recorded zero asylum-linked offences or confirmed they don’t track that category. Both responses are valid data points — one says “none recorded,” the other says “not categorised.” That’s not misrepresentation; that’s transparency. If you’re going to accuse someone of fabricating stats, at least check the source before doing it." We went through this yesterday and your analysis was shown to be meaningless due to small numbers issues. You agreed with that and yet you are repeating it again. You can’t use small number statistics to “prove” anything. Please heed that message. To show how unreliable your usage of data is I will come up with another “example” that is just as broken as your data and yet “proves” the opposite of what you are claiming. You are showing that statistically the majority of crime is from males despite them being only 49% of the population and from that you are hypothesising that males need to be locked up because they are disproportionally dangerous. You make a couple of group related errors to start off with because you change your definition mid way through from males to uk adult cis males which is a smaller population set and you misdefine the male population as adults when it also includes boys. The original data set covers all males in the uk. This includes those males in the asylum system. Looking at the the Home Office stats for June 2025 we see that adult males make up 59% of all asylum claimants as opposed to 49% of all general population males. Therefore by your “logic”, because there are disproportionally more asylum claiming males than the general population, they represent an even more dangerous population. Reducing the asylum claim subset to those arriving illegally by boat then adult males make an even higher proportion and your “analysis” will claim that they are the most dangerous population subset. Everything I have written is statistically meaningless but it is statistically meaningless in the same way your “arguments” are. I would suggest that in the future you make sure that the population subset you are looking to defend isn’t disproportionately biased towards those you are claiming are dangerous. Stopping misusing numbers would also help. | |||
" If you are going to just add "UK born" clause without any data supporting it, misrepresent lack of data as data is available and it favours your view point, you are opening yourself to accusation. You do all this and when I share proper research data from Sweden, you brush it aside as "correlation is not causation". Either statistics aren't your strong point or you are intentionally making up these things." You’re right that this discussion is about asylum seekers and crime, not male violence in general. The ONS data I mentioned only breaks violent offenders down by sex, not nationality. Around 79 to 81 percent of violent crimes where the offender’s sex was known were committed by men, according to the ONS report “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2023.” My earlier use of “UK-born” was inaccurate and I withdraw it. When it comes to asylum seekers, the UK simply doesn’t have national data linking crime to asylum status. Most police forces responding to FOI requests said they don’t record that information, and those that tried to search for it warned the results were incomplete. That lack of data is telling: when a trend becomes significant, it gets tracked. The absence of a specific asylum marker suggests there isn’t evidence of a notable pattern. Research from the Home Office and other European systems generally shows asylum seeker crime rates are similar to or lower than the general population once factors like age and poverty are taken into account. It still doesn’t change my central point: there’s no credible data or reasonable rationale for demonising asylum seekers as a group because of the crimes of a few. Collective blame isn’t supported by evidence, and it does more harm to public understanding than good to public safety. | |||
" That lack of data is telling: when a trend becomes significant, it gets tracked. The absence of a specific asylum marker suggests there isn’t evidence of a notable pattern." You are jumping to a highly speculative conclusion there. In more than one high profile case, there is iron-clad evidence that sometimes data around ethnicity is explicitly *not* recorded/reported/acted upon for fear of appearing (or promoting beliefs that are) racist. So perhaps that conclusion is wildly incorrect? | |||
| |||
" If you are going to just add "UK born" clause without any data supporting it, misrepresent lack of data as data is available and it favours your view point, you are opening yourself to accusation. You do all this and when I share proper research data from Sweden, you brush it aside as "correlation is not causation". Either statistics aren't your strong point or you are intentionally making up these things. You’re right that this discussion is about asylum seekers and crime, not male violence in general. The ONS data I mentioned only breaks violent offenders down by sex, not nationality. Around 79 to 81 percent of violent crimes where the offender’s sex was known were committed by men, according to the ONS report “Nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2023.” My earlier use of “UK-born” was inaccurate and I withdraw it. When it comes to asylum seekers, the UK simply doesn’t have national data linking crime to asylum status. Most police forces responding to FOI requests said they don’t record that information, and those that tried to search for it warned the results were incomplete. That lack of data is telling: when a trend becomes significant, it gets tracked. The absence of a specific asylum marker suggests there isn’t evidence of a notable pattern. Research from the Home Office and other European systems generally shows asylum seeker crime rates are similar to or lower than the general population once factors like age and poverty are taken into account. It still doesn’t change my central point: there’s no credible data or reasonable rationale for demonising asylum seekers as a group because of the crimes of a few. Collective blame isn’t supported by evidence, and it does more harm to public understanding than good to public safety." You think murder, sexual assault and threats of violence by people who have arrived here claiming asylum are insignificant and therefore not worth recording? If you want to understand where your thinking is flawed, look into the lack of grooming gang data, that is prominent news right now. I will also repeat there is only "you" and maybe one other that has grouped it to "all". | |||
"safety. You think murder, sexual assault and threats of violence by people who have arrived here claiming asylum are insignificant and therefore not worth recording? If you want to understand where your thinking is flawed, look into the lack of grooming gang data, that is prominent news right now. I will also repeat there is only "you" and maybe one other that has grouped it to "all"." How? That isn’t what I said at all. Saying the data aren’t significant enough to be tracked isn’t the same as saying individual crimes don’t matter. Every assault or murder matters. Always. But from a statistical point of view, “not significant” means not large enough to change national patterns, not “unimportant.” You brought up grooming gangs. That’s a good example of how data change when patterns become clear. Once reliable evidence showed a regional problem, police forces created specific markers and national reports followed. The same would happen here if asylum-linked offences showed a measurable rise. They haven’t. And you’re right that only a few people framed this as “all asylum seekers.” That’s exactly why I’m pushing back. Because it starts with “a few bad ones” and too often turns into suspicion of everyone. Data don’t excuse crime, but neither do they justify prejudice. Justice deals in facts. Fear deals in headlines. | |||
"safety. You think murder, sexual assault and threats of violence by people who have arrived here claiming asylum are insignificant and therefore not worth recording? If you want to understand where your thinking is flawed, look into the lack of grooming gang data, that is prominent news right now. I will also repeat there is only "you" and maybe one other that has grouped it to "all". How? That isn’t what I said at all. Saying the data aren’t significant enough to be tracked isn’t the same as saying individual crimes don’t matter. Every assault or murder matters. Always. But from a statistical point of view, “not significant” means not large enough to change national patterns, not “unimportant.” You brought up grooming gangs. That’s a good example of how data change when patterns become clear. Once reliable evidence showed a regional problem, police forces created specific markers and national reports followed. The same would happen here if asylum-linked offences showed a measurable rise. They haven’t. And you’re right that only a few people framed this as “all asylum seekers.” That’s exactly why I’m pushing back. Because it starts with “a few bad ones” and too often turns into suspicion of everyone. Data don’t excuse crime, but neither do they justify prejudice. Justice deals in facts. Fear deals in headlines." So just to be clear you’re saying police don’t record asylum linked crime data, but if the data they don’t collect ever showed a pattern, they would start tracking it? The circle has been completed. | |||
" So just to be clear you’re saying police don’t record asylum linked crime data, but if the data they don’t collect ever showed a pattern, they would start tracking it? The circle has been completed. " Not quite. I’m saying that right now, police forces don’t routinely collect that data, and without consistent recording, no national pattern can be established. That’s not circular; it’s procedural. When an issue becomes large enough to appear through other indicators — volume of cases, policy demand, regional trends — the Home Office directs forces to add a marker. That’s exactly how “county lines,” “domestic abuse,” and “hate crime” became tracked categories. Until that threshold is met, the evidence base stays limited, which is why any national claim about asylum-linked crime is guesswork. So yes, the data gap exists. But pretending that absence proves a hidden epidemic is still speculation, not analysis. | |||
" So just to be clear you’re saying police don’t record asylum linked crime data, but if the data they don’t collect ever showed a pattern, they would start tracking it? The circle has been completed. Not quite. I’m saying that right now, police forces don’t routinely collect that data, and without consistent recording, no national pattern can be established. That’s not circular; it’s procedural. When an issue becomes large enough to appear through other indicators — volume of cases, policy demand, regional trends — the Home Office directs forces to add a marker. That’s exactly how “county lines,” “domestic abuse,” and “hate crime” became tracked categories. Until that threshold is met, the evidence base stays limited, which is why any national claim about asylum-linked crime is guesswork. So yes, the data gap exists. But pretending that absence proves a hidden epidemic is still speculation, not analysis." If lack of data shouldn't be taken to assume that asylum seekers commit crime, unless there is evidence of our institutions making such attempts. Similarly, lack of data shouldn't be taken as asylum seekers not committing crime either, which was your original claim. You were so confidently portraying lack of data as presence of data as you can see this paragraph from your post: "The best data available shows just how rare these cases actually are. For example, Warwickshire Police recorded zero offences involving asylum seekers in 2023. Statistically, when a force reports zero, analysts use what’s called the rule of three — meaning the upper limit is about three possible cases per year in an area that size." | |||
" If lack of data shouldn't be taken to assume that asylum seekers commit crime, unless there is evidence of our institutions making such attempts. Similarly, lack of data shouldn't be taken as asylum seekers not committing crime either, which was your original claim. You were so confidently portraying lack of data as presence of data as you can see this paragraph from your post " I think you’re reading intent that wasn’t there. I never claimed asylum seekers don’t commit crime. I said the available figures show how rarely these cases appear within the data we have. That’s a statement about scale, not certainty. If a police force reports zero recorded offences, that doesn’t mean none ever happened. It means none were logged under that category. The distinction matters. I was pointing out that the number of known cases is too low to register as statistically relevant across the system — not that the number is literally zero. My point hasn’t changed. Without consistent national recording, we can’t measure the rate with confidence. But the fact that no such tracking has been deemed necessary suggests the scale isn’t large enough to reshape policy. That’s an observation, not a defence of crime. | |||
" So just to be clear you’re saying police don’t record asylum linked crime data, but if the data they don’t collect ever showed a pattern, they would start tracking it? The circle has been completed. Not quite. I’m saying that right now, police forces don’t routinely collect that data, and without consistent recording, no national pattern can be established. That’s not circular; it’s procedural. When an issue becomes large enough to appear through other indicators — volume of cases, policy demand, regional trends — the Home Office directs forces to add a marker. That’s exactly how “county lines,” “domestic abuse,” and “hate crime” became tracked categories. Until that threshold is met, the evidence base stays limited, which is why any national claim about asylum-linked crime is guesswork. So yes, the data gap exists. But pretending that absence proves a hidden epidemic is still speculation, not analysis." Nobody is pretending anything, we are talking fact.. Asylum seekers who we know nothing about in terms of their past, have committed murder, sexual assaults and threats of violence. However going back to your data: If the data is not being recorded until a “pattern” shows up elsewhere, how is the pattern discovered? Clue it wont be through data they haven't got, so we are going to rely on guesswork and headlines to decide what is worth tracking. We should without doubt accept the Casey findings and make sure that those same failings on reporting are not being repeated here.. | |||
" I think you’re reading intent that wasn’t there. I never claimed asylum seekers don’t commit crime. I said the available figures show how rarely these cases appear within the data we have. That’s a statement about scale, not certainty. " That statement is also wrong and a blatant misrepresentation of statistics. "We don't have data" means we can't reach any conclusions about the data. " My point hasn’t changed. Without consistent national recording, we can’t measure the rate with confidence. " But you were confidently making statements that asylum seekers commit insignificant percentage of crime. Not to mention the lack of details on proportionality. " But the fact that no such tracking has been deemed necessary suggests the scale isn’t large enough to reshape policy. That’s an observation, not a defence of crime." Cool. So if the government tomorrow informs the police asking them to record asylum seekers status, would you admit that the scale is large enough? | |||
| |||
"I tried to read this thread, but it is the same coset racists saying the same old waffle that it bores me to death." You say this a lot, what is it you have seen that is racist? I won't hold my breathe | |||
| |||
"I tried to read this thread, but it is the same coset racists saying the same old waffle that it bores me to death." What part are you considering racist. | |||
"I tried to read this thread, but it is the same coset racists saying the same old waffle that it bores me to death. What part are you considering racist." The person who used the term “looking after those fucking animals” to describe a group of people doesn’t look great Mind you, I don’t think they was much “closeted” about that | |||
"I tried to read this thread, but it is the same coset racists saying the same old waffle that it bores me to death. What part are you considering racist. The person who used the term “looking after those fucking animals” to describe a group of people doesn’t look great Mind you, I don’t think they was much “closeted” about that " Haha that was me, I’m not racist just telling it like i see it, most if not all in those hotels are third world filth considering they happy to float over here for the sole purpose of living off our system. I myself only exist due to immigration my grandfather on my dads side met my grandmother in Spain and settled here, not that I’m using that as an excuse to say what I want about immigrants. | |||
"I tried to read this thread, but it is the same coset racists saying the same old waffle that it bores me to death. What part are you considering racist. The person who used the term “looking after those fucking animals” to describe a group of people doesn’t look great Mind you, I don’t think they was much “closeted” about that " Possibly though will have to await clarification from the person making the accusation as they put racists so expecting more than one, and as you point out, closeted. Also depends on who they are referring to when they say animals. Are they meaning all that come here or those that come here claiming we need to help them but then murder innocent people. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Horrible sight in Hillingdon today. Just awful. " I'm waiting for someone to tell you the numbers of murders are so low that they are insignificant.  | |||
"Horrible sight in Hillingdon today. Just awful. " Another shocking and horrific attack, this time by an Afghan. 3 more victims, one dead, one with life changing injuries and a 14 year old also with knife wounds. Fully understandable the local community are scared | |||
" We actually know far less about citizens until they commit a crime. And statistically, men born here are still the group most likely to commit violent offences — but no one’s suggesting banning them from public life. Where do I find these statistics? Also, the way you have written this hides the problem by lumping legal and illegal immigrants together. It's a tactic many left wingers use even while discussing economic impact of illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have to go through numerous background checks and even health checks before coming to UK. Hence it's wrong to put them together when specifically discussing illegal migration. Same with economics. Legal immigrants have minimum salary requirements. So obviously they will do economically better on an average. That's not true with illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are a net economic burden to the country. I don't think UK publishes crime numbers based on nationality. Some research papers have been published in other European countries and they clearly shows immigrants from regions being vastly overrepresented in crimes." The illegal immigrants are ones who arrive in the country and do not, at the earliest opportunity, claim asylum, or overstay a visa. People arriving by boat, or any other irregular means and claiming asylum are not illegal immigrants. | |||
"Horrible sight in Hillingdon today. Just awful. Another shocking and horrific attack, this time by an Afghan. 3 more victims, one dead, one with life changing injuries and a 14 year old also with knife wounds. Fully understandable the local community are scared" And the racist sexual assault on the 20 year old, British born Sikh woman in Oldbury. | |||
"Horrible sight in Hillingdon today. Just awful. Another shocking and horrific attack, this time by an Afghan. 3 more victims, one dead, one with life changing injuries and a 14 year old also with knife wounds. Fully understandable the local community are scared" And he was granted asylum in 2020. Its hard to feel safe walking down the streets anymore | |||
"Horrible sight in Hillingdon today. Just awful. Another shocking and horrific attack, this time by an Afghan. 3 more victims, one dead, one with life changing injuries and a 14 year old also with knife wounds. Fully understandable the local community are scared And the racist sexual assault on the 20 year old, British born Sikh woman in Oldbury. " And a second racially motivated attack in the last couple of days in Walsall. | |||
| |||
"Outrage shouldn’t depend on who the suspect is. The attack in Hillingdon is horrific, but so were the assaults in Oldbury and Walsall where the victims were British minorities. All of them deserve the same reaction — justice, compassion, and proper investigation. If people only get angry when the suspect isn’t white, that’s not about safety. That’s about politics." Totally agree. | |||
"Outrage shouldn’t depend on who the suspect is. The attack in Hillingdon is horrific, but so were the assaults in Oldbury and Walsall where the victims were British minorities. All of them deserve the same reaction — justice, compassion, and proper investigation. If people only get angry when the suspect isn’t white, that’s not about safety. That’s about politics." Who mentioned skin colour?? I certainly didn't and of course it's about politics because the politics is why we are in this position in the first place. Making excuses for people because of skin colour is a very very dangerous road to go down. Fact is ANOTHER asylum seeker has committed another murder proof once again that the system in place is failing public safety. It's not a case of simply saying noone is allowed in because that's ridiculous, but a far stricter vetting process is required. As for discussion incident involving British nationals well that frankly pointless because everything could be compared to something else, if you want to start a separate thread related to these incidents and knife crime in general please do because it's needed. But this isn't about that or skin colour. | |||
"Outrage shouldn’t depend on who the suspect is. The attack in Hillingdon is horrific, but so were the assaults in Oldbury and Walsall where the victims were British minorities. All of them deserve the same reaction — justice, compassion, and proper investigation. If people only get angry when the suspect isn’t white, that’s not about safety. That’s about politics. Who mentioned skin colour?? I certainly didn't and of course it's about politics because the politics is why we are in this position in the first place. Making excuses for people because of skin colour is a very very dangerous road to go down. Fact is ANOTHER asylum seeker has committed another murder proof once again that the system in place is failing public safety. It's not a case of simply saying noone is allowed in because that's ridiculous, but a far stricter vetting process is required. As for discussion incident involving British nationals well that frankly pointless because everything could be compared to something else, if you want to start a separate thread related to these incidents and knife crime in general please do because it's needed. But this isn't about that or skin colour. " . Seems reasonable especially as this thread is about an asylum seeker attacking and killing in the country they requested help from. | |||
| |||
