The LGB community acknowledged years ago and looked to address, the issue of domestic and other violence committed by its members toward each other. Much on a par with the heterosexual community I suspect.
It is only since the TRAs started claiming that inordinate amounts of violence are being directed at them by outsiders ,have we found that stats are becoming unreliable and skewed. In my nearly 76 years on this planet I've only had one violent assault perpetrated on me in my early 20s at a Gay dance at Auckland University by a very hostile heterosexual male custodian old enough to be my father, who did not like it when I asked him to keep his hands to himself. I ended up with a broken nose. I'm more inclined to think it was a result of me being an uppity female rather than because of my sexual orientation.
I have however in my youth witnessed trans being very violent toward others both within the gay community and outside of it. Needless to say they were mainly blokes. Its all smoke and mirrors and cry wolf. They are no more at risk than women in fact less so. Albert park being a perfect example of this.
I also believe that men who say they're women are at less risk of violence than women are in the same situations. However, they generally put themselves in riskier situations than women, like men do on average, in a variety of ways.
Agreed. One of my friends (quite small) back in the 70s driving buses for a few months to get some money for Uni (as we all did back then) stopped at the bus stop outside a long gone pub in Victoria st Auckland just up the road from Queen st to use the loo. As she had her head down washing her hands, she heard male voices and without looking up said "hey guys you're in the wrong bathroom". Needless to say she was badly beaten by the three hulking cross dressing males who'd invaded the space. At least in those days you could call the cops.
I remember the cross-dressers in the nightclubs of my youth, and they were always unpredictable. They could be fun, but they could also turn vicious in the blink of an eye.
Same experiences, though in truth many of them were hostile to women. A major insult was to call a woman 'a fish'. I remember not understanding when one of my gay male friends reacted badly (punched him) toward one of the queens who called me that. He had to explain to me why he was so angry and what it meant.
Trannys are THE MOST PROTECTED DEMOGRAPHIC ON THE PLANET.
Less than 350 a year are killed and most of them are Brazilian tranny whores.
When you and I go to bed tonight, 238 women (the ones without dicks) will be killed. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. And on and on and on every fucking day.
Trannys are mentally ill skinwalking predators, in the main.
Men in or out of a dress are definitely at less risk of domestic violence than het women are as the size-strength differential enables the man to use his physical advantage to intimidate and abuse her in a way he could not another man. If kids are involved, as they often are, the maternal instinct to protect her kids also gives him a power advantage over her in threatening to hurt the children, as many abusive men do, such that abused women will suffer the abuse rather than risk him carrying out these threats if she tries to leave. The most dangerous time for a battered woman is when she tries to leave her abuser. There is no equivalent danger for men in relationships nor for women in relationships with other women. The heterosexual power imbalance in favour of men, physical and social, is an integral part of the domestic violence narrative.
Here is some good news. This week Judith Collins announced a change to the Marsden funding. Social Sciences are no longer eligible. While this is not good news for those doing decent research, it chops a certain Dr Jamie (James) Veale https://profiles.waikato.ac.nz/jaimie.veale Marsden fund list
://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and-opportunities/marsden/awarded-grants/marsden-fund-awards-2022/ based at the (less said about quality the better) Waikato University psychology dept off at the knees. Why is this good. Said Dr Beale who is a trans activist and who was behind the 'counting ourselves' and other shonky trans projects along with Jack (Judith) Byrne https://nz.linkedin.com/in/jack-byrne-b2209745 will no longer be able to access that funding source for his research.
and of course Judith Collins knows exactly what a woman is even though not a single politician on either side voted against the self ID bill. Now to get the tras out of the Rutherford fund.
The movement is built on and around lies, and when caught out they lie some more. What I don't get is how they've managed to con so many into lying to themselves and everyone in their family and social group. Thanks for the info... screenshot and posted ... although I am only really getting through to 3 or 4 people 😒
Indeed U.K. prison stats for perpetrators of violent sexual crimes put trans at overcthree timesxthe offending ratescof real ( !) males ( those not into autog...but just normal haters) and one woman in a million! Hmmm. I opine stats could not be worked out by NZ sources as a result ofcfalsexdata on censusxrecording gender instead of sex and g cert blokes fudging figures...or being blokes in court but surprisingly at srntencing becoming(!) a 'real' woman...and through benighted idiocybof the court system then prancing off to continue their criminal roles in the women's prison estate. Where yet again women are their victims.
It's amazing how many men discover their 'gender dysphoria' once they get into the courthouse. False and unreliable data will play a big part in there being no available stats for 'trans', I reckon.
Oh, except *those* men who are obviously “faking it”.
How one fakes being a fake baffles me … a difference without a distinction of any meaningful kind, at least until we can detect the contents of a person’s heart and mind.
Giant tranny manslabs being correctly sexed isn't a hate crime.
How can it be a hate crime if I loved every fucking minute of it, officer? LoL.
Trannys lie. They lie every day, all day, every minute - their entire existence is predicated on a lie, of course they'll lie to get their way like the mentally ill fuckwits they/them are. I'll never validate.
I spent some time today trying to track down the original source of the “suppressed” stats line from the news report.
In case it’s helpful for anyone else, it’s pulled from this linked Cycle 6 NZCVS PDF, bottom of page 12. (The contents of this original source document don’t show up on any search engines AFAICT, as the PDF isn’t rendered as/with searchable text except for the page numbers - bad form NZGov!)
I am unsure as to why they wouldn’t simply include the high/low uncertainty info 🤷
And I am, frankly, perplexed by the apparent contradiction between the “statistical uncertainty” text and the broad claim that follows that “*No* LGBT+ group” had a (statistically) significant departure from average NZ victimization rates.
Yes, uncertainty in one data set can be “smoothed” out by including it in a larger more certain superset, but then you can’t make declarations about *every* subset of that data superset. Only about those subsets that didn’t *start* with lower uncertainty.
All in all pretty fishy imho, given what we’ve all seen in terms of TRAs putting their massive thumbs on the research scale.
I’d be willing to place a sizable bet on political interference being at least part of the reason for these reports anomalies - time and FOIs will surely tell, just like with Johanna Olson-Kennedy’s 9-year-delayed study, with her stated fear of “weaponized” results excuse.
Wow - thank you for this. I did notice that there was no link to follow in the news article or Ministry of Justice report, so thanks for excavating it :-)
Where it says "No LGBT+ group had a prevalence rate significantly different from the NZ average in 2023", does that mean that they were no more likely to be victims of crime than any other group?
Thanks - very telling, indeed. Perhaps that is why the report wasn’t made easy to find, or at least one reason. However, now I’ve seen it, thanks to you. I’m going to share the relevant excerpt around (with the link).
Apologies, I also wanted to note the similarity in terms of possible “incomplete scrubbing” on this topic, and the amusing and equally faith-driven Intelligent Design “cdesign proponentsists” find & replace debacle.
Although I see the almost copy-and-paste section referred to, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "note the similarity in terms of possible “incomplete scrubbing” on this topic"?
Having worked in government and gov contracting for a good portion of my career, I’ve directly experienced and seen a similar kind of pressure to “recast the tone”’ of a report as the authors of the ID book did after Creationists lost an “equally valid as evolution in education” case in the US.
They scrambled to replace all instances of “creationists” with “internal design proponents” - and left telltale signs behind in drafts (I think due to incompetence) that sealed their fate in the subsequent “ID <> creationism” court case.
Whenever such “recasting” is *specified* by a superior in the chain reviewing drafts, the non-author tends to miss some of the related details and how they fit together consistently - the change *they* wanted to see isn’t necessarily properly integrated with other report contents, leading to internal inconsistency.
If it’s kicked back to the lead author to fix, either the author defers to the “request” and dutifully makes it *all* consistent again (with possible missed changes still), or does what I usually did - passive resistance.
“You said to make this change. I did.”
“Oh I must have missed that.”
Etc.
Better still, in a couple important cases, I was able to intentionally subvert “questionably legal” suppression directives by ensuring all the relevant info was *still* in the report, just less obvious to the non-expert reviewers - “oh, looks like he made the change we wanted” without really understanding how the *other* (subtle) changes I made undid the political spin that was being sought.
One of those cases resulted in the US State Department deposing me in a 🇨🇦corporate boardroom, because *they* got the message I had hidden within the nicely “packaged” attempt to twist truth that needed to get out.
$25M USD in fines to head office, and our division was sold to a company with proper governance for the kind of work we did.
I was a pariah, except among a few of the new owner’s leadership, but that was still better than taking direction from liars and crooks (just crooks 🤣).
Before leaving that new company 4 years later - still dogged by consequences from my earlier insubordination - I was “asked” by my director supervisor to sign off that a set of controls specifically relating to the $25M fine and compliance agreement were in satisfactory order (they were not, due to underfunding, lack of sr mgmt support aka slow roadblocking, or in some cases plain old direction to not perform the control - always in writing though, as I’d learned a lot from the first case in noted above).
I stood my ground: if my firsthand expert observations on where *specifically* the controls were absent or weak were excluded from the report, I wouldn’t sign off on my section. And if anyone senor to me wanted to challenge those findings, I told them they were welcome to sign off on it instead of me.
After delivering the compliance update report 6-months late and conspicuously missing the name of a key control person (me!) who the statutory recipients of the report knew well from the $25M incident, round 2 of compliance directives were issued to the new owners’ head office.
I didn’t have the stomach for another 5 years of pushing water uphill; 15+ years later a cloud of distrust still hangs over them, but all the main perps have left/retired/been fired or reassigned to other duties.
Funny world 🤷
***
Bottom line: there are usually tell-tale clues of such manipulation, either from incompetence and/or from a whistleblower-inspired individual who can sneak in a few anomalous details that a close reader will pick up, and start to question.
FWIW, I’d have been willing to be a “true” whistleblower in either case.
As the person ultimately responsible for data protection, I was uniquely positioned to ensure that the crucial pieces of incriminating evidence (emails and responses, draft versions of reports, etc.) were preserved while the subtle clues I left were being found and followed up on by the right authorities 😬
As long as no one was at *immediate* risk to life or limb, I could just sit on the evidence.
~12 months for my first baby to come to term
~9 months for the second one
So I was able to avoid having to explicitly admit my role in the “FO greeting the FA” both times, get the right outcome, and leave with my reputation intact and on my terms.
I knew and know that I was as lucky as clever, and that many others in such situations don’t get those opportunities - so I knew I had to make the most of them.
And I’m grateful for almost 20 years since without any such high drama 🙏
I know who to come to for surreptitious and/or undercover work in future - lol! Of course, at the moment I’m more interested in exposing stuff, than hiding it, but your comments have been educational in showing just how much we need to be aware of maybe having to read between the lines.
The LGB community acknowledged years ago and looked to address, the issue of domestic and other violence committed by its members toward each other. Much on a par with the heterosexual community I suspect.
It is only since the TRAs started claiming that inordinate amounts of violence are being directed at them by outsiders ,have we found that stats are becoming unreliable and skewed. In my nearly 76 years on this planet I've only had one violent assault perpetrated on me in my early 20s at a Gay dance at Auckland University by a very hostile heterosexual male custodian old enough to be my father, who did not like it when I asked him to keep his hands to himself. I ended up with a broken nose. I'm more inclined to think it was a result of me being an uppity female rather than because of my sexual orientation.
I have however in my youth witnessed trans being very violent toward others both within the gay community and outside of it. Needless to say they were mainly blokes. Its all smoke and mirrors and cry wolf. They are no more at risk than women in fact less so. Albert park being a perfect example of this.
Being an uppity female would do it.
I also believe that men who say they're women are at less risk of violence than women are in the same situations. However, they generally put themselves in riskier situations than women, like men do on average, in a variety of ways.
Agreed. One of my friends (quite small) back in the 70s driving buses for a few months to get some money for Uni (as we all did back then) stopped at the bus stop outside a long gone pub in Victoria st Auckland just up the road from Queen st to use the loo. As she had her head down washing her hands, she heard male voices and without looking up said "hey guys you're in the wrong bathroom". Needless to say she was badly beaten by the three hulking cross dressing males who'd invaded the space. At least in those days you could call the cops.
I remember the cross-dressers in the nightclubs of my youth, and they were always unpredictable. They could be fun, but they could also turn vicious in the blink of an eye.
Same experiences, though in truth many of them were hostile to women. A major insult was to call a woman 'a fish'. I remember not understanding when one of my gay male friends reacted badly (punched him) toward one of the queens who called me that. He had to explain to me why he was so angry and what it meant.
Bastards. They didn't need permission to invade our spaces and abuse us if we objected. But they got it anyway. :(
Trannys are THE MOST PROTECTED DEMOGRAPHIC ON THE PLANET.
Less than 350 a year are killed and most of them are Brazilian tranny whores.
When you and I go to bed tonight, 238 women (the ones without dicks) will be killed. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. And on and on and on every fucking day.
Trannys are mentally ill skinwalking predators, in the main.
Hard agree.
Men in or out of a dress are definitely at less risk of domestic violence than het women are as the size-strength differential enables the man to use his physical advantage to intimidate and abuse her in a way he could not another man. If kids are involved, as they often are, the maternal instinct to protect her kids also gives him a power advantage over her in threatening to hurt the children, as many abusive men do, such that abused women will suffer the abuse rather than risk him carrying out these threats if she tries to leave. The most dangerous time for a battered woman is when she tries to leave her abuser. There is no equivalent danger for men in relationships nor for women in relationships with other women. The heterosexual power imbalance in favour of men, physical and social, is an integral part of the domestic violence narrative.
Here is some good news. This week Judith Collins announced a change to the Marsden funding. Social Sciences are no longer eligible. While this is not good news for those doing decent research, it chops a certain Dr Jamie (James) Veale https://profiles.waikato.ac.nz/jaimie.veale Marsden fund list
://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and-opportunities/marsden/awarded-grants/marsden-fund-awards-2022/ based at the (less said about quality the better) Waikato University psychology dept off at the knees. Why is this good. Said Dr Beale who is a trans activist and who was behind the 'counting ourselves' and other shonky trans projects along with Jack (Judith) Byrne https://nz.linkedin.com/in/jack-byrne-b2209745 will no longer be able to access that funding source for his research.
and of course Judith Collins knows exactly what a woman is even though not a single politician on either side voted against the self ID bill. Now to get the tras out of the Rutherford fund.
And of course Judith Collins knows exactly what a woman is.
Now this is interesting
https://www.city-journal.org/article/aclu-attorney-confesses-transgender-suicide-claim-is-a-mythhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Strangio
Oh, yes - that will
reverberate globally.
The movement is built on and around lies, and when caught out they lie some more. What I don't get is how they've managed to con so many into lying to themselves and everyone in their family and social group. Thanks for the info... screenshot and posted ... although I am only really getting through to 3 or 4 people 😒
You’re lucky to have that many who you’re getting through to!
Gawd.
Indeed U.K. prison stats for perpetrators of violent sexual crimes put trans at overcthree timesxthe offending ratescof real ( !) males ( those not into autog...but just normal haters) and one woman in a million! Hmmm. I opine stats could not be worked out by NZ sources as a result ofcfalsexdata on censusxrecording gender instead of sex and g cert blokes fudging figures...or being blokes in court but surprisingly at srntencing becoming(!) a 'real' woman...and through benighted idiocybof the court system then prancing off to continue their criminal roles in the women's prison estate. Where yet again women are their victims.
It's amazing how many men discover their 'gender dysphoria' once they get into the courthouse. False and unreliable data will play a big part in there being no available stats for 'trans', I reckon.
POGD- prison onset gender dysphoria. It’s a thing now 😁
It replaced the prior phenomenon of POJD: prison onset Jesus discovery.
😂
Acceptance without exception, right?
Oh, except *those* men who are obviously “faking it”.
How one fakes being a fake baffles me … a difference without a distinction of any meaningful kind, at least until we can detect the contents of a person’s heart and mind.
it's a freakin epidemic!!!
Giant tranny manslabs being correctly sexed isn't a hate crime.
How can it be a hate crime if I loved every fucking minute of it, officer? LoL.
Trannys lie. They lie every day, all day, every minute - their entire existence is predicated on a lie, of course they'll lie to get their way like the mentally ill fuckwits they/them are. I'll never validate.
I spent some time today trying to track down the original source of the “suppressed” stats line from the news report.
In case it’s helpful for anyone else, it’s pulled from this linked Cycle 6 NZCVS PDF, bottom of page 12. (The contents of this original source document don’t show up on any search engines AFAICT, as the PDF isn’t rendered as/with searchable text except for the page numbers - bad form NZGov!)
https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZCVS-2023-Key-Results-Cycle-6.pdf
I am unsure as to why they wouldn’t simply include the high/low uncertainty info 🤷
And I am, frankly, perplexed by the apparent contradiction between the “statistical uncertainty” text and the broad claim that follows that “*No* LGBT+ group” had a (statistically) significant departure from average NZ victimization rates.
Yes, uncertainty in one data set can be “smoothed” out by including it in a larger more certain superset, but then you can’t make declarations about *every* subset of that data superset. Only about those subsets that didn’t *start* with lower uncertainty.
All in all pretty fishy imho, given what we’ve all seen in terms of TRAs putting their massive thumbs on the research scale.
I’d be willing to place a sizable bet on political interference being at least part of the reason for these reports anomalies - time and FOIs will surely tell, just like with Johanna Olson-Kennedy’s 9-year-delayed study, with her stated fear of “weaponized” results excuse.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/mcclain-probes-9-7-million-taxpayer-funded-study-buried-by-activist-researcher-on-puberty-blockers/
Wow - thank you for this. I did notice that there was no link to follow in the news article or Ministry of Justice report, so thanks for excavating it :-)
Where it says "No LGBT+ group had a prevalence rate significantly different from the NZ average in 2023", does that mean that they were no more likely to be victims of crime than any other group?
That is my read, yes.
aka not the perpetual victims that TQ+ cast themselves as.
Thanks - very telling, indeed. Perhaps that is why the report wasn’t made easy to find, or at least one reason. However, now I’ve seen it, thanks to you. I’m going to share the relevant excerpt around (with the link).
Apologies, I also wanted to note the similarity in terms of possible “incomplete scrubbing” on this topic, and the amusing and equally faith-driven Intelligent Design “cdesign proponentsists” find & replace debacle.
https://ncse.ngo/cdesign-proponentsists
FWIW, I particularly enjoyed the article’s droll evolution in-joke (perfectly crafted for the science nerd dad that I am):
“she even found a *transitional form* between the two labels”
😂😂😂
Although I see the almost copy-and-paste section referred to, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "note the similarity in terms of possible “incomplete scrubbing” on this topic"?
Having worked in government and gov contracting for a good portion of my career, I’ve directly experienced and seen a similar kind of pressure to “recast the tone”’ of a report as the authors of the ID book did after Creationists lost an “equally valid as evolution in education” case in the US.
They scrambled to replace all instances of “creationists” with “internal design proponents” - and left telltale signs behind in drafts (I think due to incompetence) that sealed their fate in the subsequent “ID <> creationism” court case.
Whenever such “recasting” is *specified* by a superior in the chain reviewing drafts, the non-author tends to miss some of the related details and how they fit together consistently - the change *they* wanted to see isn’t necessarily properly integrated with other report contents, leading to internal inconsistency.
If it’s kicked back to the lead author to fix, either the author defers to the “request” and dutifully makes it *all* consistent again (with possible missed changes still), or does what I usually did - passive resistance.
“You said to make this change. I did.”
“Oh I must have missed that.”
Etc.
Better still, in a couple important cases, I was able to intentionally subvert “questionably legal” suppression directives by ensuring all the relevant info was *still* in the report, just less obvious to the non-expert reviewers - “oh, looks like he made the change we wanted” without really understanding how the *other* (subtle) changes I made undid the political spin that was being sought.
One of those cases resulted in the US State Department deposing me in a 🇨🇦corporate boardroom, because *they* got the message I had hidden within the nicely “packaged” attempt to twist truth that needed to get out.
$25M USD in fines to head office, and our division was sold to a company with proper governance for the kind of work we did.
I was a pariah, except among a few of the new owner’s leadership, but that was still better than taking direction from liars and crooks (just crooks 🤣).
Before leaving that new company 4 years later - still dogged by consequences from my earlier insubordination - I was “asked” by my director supervisor to sign off that a set of controls specifically relating to the $25M fine and compliance agreement were in satisfactory order (they were not, due to underfunding, lack of sr mgmt support aka slow roadblocking, or in some cases plain old direction to not perform the control - always in writing though, as I’d learned a lot from the first case in noted above).
I stood my ground: if my firsthand expert observations on where *specifically* the controls were absent or weak were excluded from the report, I wouldn’t sign off on my section. And if anyone senor to me wanted to challenge those findings, I told them they were welcome to sign off on it instead of me.
After delivering the compliance update report 6-months late and conspicuously missing the name of a key control person (me!) who the statutory recipients of the report knew well from the $25M incident, round 2 of compliance directives were issued to the new owners’ head office.
I didn’t have the stomach for another 5 years of pushing water uphill; 15+ years later a cloud of distrust still hangs over them, but all the main perps have left/retired/been fired or reassigned to other duties.
Funny world 🤷
***
Bottom line: there are usually tell-tale clues of such manipulation, either from incompetence and/or from a whistleblower-inspired individual who can sneak in a few anomalous details that a close reader will pick up, and start to question.
Such shenanigans! We ‘outsiders’ simply have no idea, eh? But clever subversion on your part :-)
I live to serve, m’lady 😊
FWIW, I’d have been willing to be a “true” whistleblower in either case.
As the person ultimately responsible for data protection, I was uniquely positioned to ensure that the crucial pieces of incriminating evidence (emails and responses, draft versions of reports, etc.) were preserved while the subtle clues I left were being found and followed up on by the right authorities 😬
As long as no one was at *immediate* risk to life or limb, I could just sit on the evidence.
~12 months for my first baby to come to term
~9 months for the second one
So I was able to avoid having to explicitly admit my role in the “FO greeting the FA” both times, get the right outcome, and leave with my reputation intact and on my terms.
I knew and know that I was as lucky as clever, and that many others in such situations don’t get those opportunities - so I knew I had to make the most of them.
And I’m grateful for almost 20 years since without any such high drama 🙏
I know who to come to for surreptitious and/or undercover work in future - lol! Of course, at the moment I’m more interested in exposing stuff, than hiding it, but your comments have been educational in showing just how much we need to be aware of maybe having to read between the lines.
Trans is not a sexuality.