How does one access the a rise in reports? A rise in reports could be bad or good. A) it could be good because the rate of crime is fixed, but more crimes are being reported. B) it could be bad because the rate crime is rising (with the same proportion of crimes being reported). C) it could even be bad because there is an increasing number of false reports.

I am also very intrigued by how one actually estimates rates of things like false reports, unreported crimes, and false convictions. How given that by these categories definitions they are being miscatagorized by the system does any academic or institution estimate these statistics? It seems one would need an independent body to conduct separate investigations to properly estimate any of these

The report is from the NPCC. Here is another report of theirs on the difference between crime levels and reporting levels:

> A significant contributory factor to the increase in recorded crime is the 30 per cent increase in records of violence without injury, and 37 per cent rise in records of sexual offences. NPCC analysis with police forces suggests that increases are as a result of improved recording practices and greater victim confidence to report and do not indicate a marked rise in offending

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/stats-show-crime-fallin...

A similar situation with hate crimes:

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/increases-in-hate-crime...

Also, the actual source of the current story:

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/call-to-action-as-viole...

This does absolutely nothing to compare it to violence against men. Without a comparison, for all we know, its far less than the crime against men.

Now, I am not diminishing anything stated in this article. Im purely stating this article does a very poor job of conveying how the numbers they present are statistically significant outside their immediate domain.

Isn't this just pandering?

I've lived a life in both shoes, it's not worse for men. Sorry, I'm sure it feels this way some times, but unless you've lived a life in both shoes, it's not coming from a place of experience.

>I've lived a life in both shoes

No you haven't.

>but unless you've lived a life in both shoes

Which isn't possible. Just like it's not possible to live life as a goldfish, but we have great understanding of how goldfish live.

>it's not worse for men

All statistics on violent crime, deaths due to crime, deaths due to workplace violence, deaths due to workplace accidents, homelessness, etc. all show that men are the primary victims.

>it's not coming from a place of experience.

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless at population scale. Luckily we have population statistics that provide us the objective truth.

> > I've lived a life in both shoes

> No you haven't.

Exactly. I wish these men would stop trying to insert themselves into every discussion on women's issues as if they have personal experience of being female. It's really irritating and just derails the conversation into propping up their fantasy.

I have years of personal experience being female. It's two different worlds. Happy to take any questions.

You are a transwoman, right? That means you are by definition male, not female. Nothing wrong with that, just a fact of one's sex.

I'm sure you could expound at length on the experiences of being a feminized male and the experience of transitioning to that state, and it may well be an interesting story to tell.

But that's not the same as being female and having the authentic lifelong experience of growing up as a girl to a woman. So it doesn't make sense to be commenting authoritatively on female issues.

Do you disagree and if so why?

No, sorry. I'm definitionally and descriptively female. No one has more authority over who I am than me. Just as you have authority over who you are.

I didn't say I was an authority on the female experience; no one is. I am an authority on my own personal experience as female. I'd rather not turn this into a definitions discussion as a way to discredit my experience.

I've interacted with hundreds of people who perceive and treat me based on what they and I believe me to be. There is no one outside of myself that can draw a line and say that doesn't count.

It really feels like this is turning into a cross-examination rather than curious conversation.

May I ask how you came to believe you are female?

Most transwomen make the distinction between the reality of their sex (male) and what they perceive to be their gender (woman), so I'm curious as to why you've decided to call yourself female.

I've given myself permission to be my own ontological authority. We could unpack how people tend to view ontological relationships and their propensity to leave reification unexamined. But I believe I'm an active participant in creating my reality and choose to do so for myself as I see fit.

Wow. So full postmodern scientific gigastacey anti-realism. To be fair, I think we're all doing the same thing deep down. The only differences are how subjectively convincing the justifications for it are. https://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=14

Your only problem is that most people won't agree with your ontology and will perceive this as going fully mask off on reality in order to accommodate mental illness. Which, if that's what it all always was, is good to know. Based and redpilled.

I see. Would you agree that this is in the same category as people who believe themselves to be some famous historical figure, such as Jesus Christ, even though this self-belief doesn't correspond with any reality external to their own perception?

Not surprised that you didn't get a response. To sum it up:

"I'm a mentally ill man who delusionally believes that I'm a women. I lie to myself and others about my sex/gender by abusing a sophomoric understanding of nihilism."

Sounds about right. And most likely too, he immerses himself in an echo chamber of other males who believe the same reality-defying nonsense.

Could you give us some more details?

I transitioned several years ago. They are two different worlds.

“ Although there were no differences in the likelihood of CSEW headline victimisation by sex, women were more likely to experience sexual assault, stalking, harassment and domestic abuse”

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

If there's no difference in the overall rate, but women are more likely to experience certain kinds of violence, then men must be more likely to experience some other kinds.

Maybe violence in general could be increasing and this is only looking at a subset of the data. Moreover, YouTube for example gives a platform and profits from a lot and I mean a lot of misogynistic content. IMO all this hate will eventually reach the day-to-day life and could be causing what this article suggests.

This is a change of argument and I won't be engaging in it.

It’s an article about how violence against women is increasing.

How is violence against men relevant here?

Do you consider the needs of women so little, that you consider discussion of issues involving them irrelevant unless in the context of how they compare to the issues of men?

Society places a lot of care and concern about women, but when a man has a problem, they're usually told something along the lines of "Just suck it up, buttercup."

It's easy to see how a subset of men would be angry and sick of women getting all the social awareness while men are left to rot.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't even know if I have a good definition of the overall problem. However, there are clearly problems that aren't being addressed, and if left untouched, they will be no good for society.

> when a man has a problem, they're usually told something along the lines of "Just suck it up, buttercup."

I thought that too, then asked for help once, and was rewarded for it: my belief was wrong.

My psychologist then told me that before 'toxic masculinity' was used by 3rd wave feminists (the 'empowerment' movement), it was a psychologist term used for men who refused help because of this 'i'll be told to suck it up' belief, term created in the wake of the Vietnam War and PTSD. Our masculinity become toxic once it makes us believe we aren't allowed to fail, cry or ask for help. Basically. He explained it way better, sorry.

When is the last time you tried asking anyone for help, about anything, and was told 'suck it up'?

The point is that the article is pointlessly gendered. Why focus specifically on violence against women?

JavaScript is a terrible programming language.

Wait, talking about how JavaScript is a terrible programming language is pointlessly biased - we need to also talk about how Python is a terrible programming language. Everyone always seems to complain about JavaScript, but no one ever talks about how terrible pip is as a system for managing dependencies, or how the 2.x to 3.x migration was terrible implemented.

I think discussing how terrible JavaScript is pointlessly biased. Why focus specifically on JavaScript?

Bad logic right there. You can have a conversation about one topic, by itself - you don't need to bring in adjacent, yet not entirely relevant, topics in order to justify the first one.

That’s a really contrived analogy. More like:

“Blue-eyed people being unable to afford housing is a national emergency.”

“Why focus specifically on blue-eyed people? Other people are also affected by the housing crisis.”

“Don’t distract from the topic!”

Eye color is a trivial phenotypical variation that has nothing to do with anything. Like programming languages.

A woman’s biology, by nature of being physically weaker, is a relevant distinction in the context of violence, where physical strength is relevant.

I suppose if someone says ‘In America, the average black family has 25% of the wealth of a white family’ faulty logic might say ‘why leave out the fact that the average white family has 50% of the wealth of an Asian family?’

So, what - the plight of the average white family is the same as the average black family? No, it’s not - so it’s reasonable to discuss that plight in a separate context.

This is a very important issue. And I also have a weird dystopian sense when I read this article embedded in the context of options to buy shelving units on Temu, barefoot shoes that "Leave Neuropathy Experts Baffled", walk-in tubs, and gutter guards for my house.

It's almost like the ad world's lack of contextual awareness is an echo of the problem decried in the article itself: "We need... a whole-system approach to violence against women and girls."

I just don't understand someone writing an article like this and not making any attempt at explaining WHY things are getting so bad in the last 10 years.

Animal Farm dystopia.

The article is pretty clear about the root cause, for whoever is in the know:

>Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.

:)

Noticing is racist. Simple as.

It sounds good that they're making more effort to address this, though I only recently read about the Baird enquiry on Greater Manchester Police in which some women reporting abuse to the police were being arrested, strip searched and left in solitary confinement if they annoyed officers. There was some speculation that it was related to trying to fill arrest quotas.

https://news.sky.com/story/greater-manchester-police-report-...

> A damning report has found officers at Greater Manchester Police are abusing their power - making unlawful arrests, unlawful and demeaning strip searches, sometimes treating victims as perpetrators, and traumatising those who have suffered sexual abuse or domestic violence.

...

> She says: "Each case illustrates a gross and perplexing imbalance between the police response to the complainant's behaviour and the response, if any, to the perpetrators abuse."

You get what you vote for and you deserve what you tolerate.