Which leaves my point; why does having a penis make rape more likely? It doesn't. Almost as many men per year are forced to penetrate as women are forcibly penetrated.

If you're too lazy to read the whole thing, the key points in the study find:

• More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
• More than half (51.1%) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance, while men on the other hand, half (52.4%) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a strange (men are more likely to be stranger raped!)
• 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime
• An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact. Again, about equal.

There are a shit ton more points in there, but almost all of them are within 10-15% of each other. So yeah, it really is almost the same. It isn't disengenuous at all if you actually take in what the CDC has to say about it, and also factor in population as a whole. It is really, really close.

You are on par with something, though - Across all types of violence, the majority of female victims reported that their perpetrators were male. Transgender women are not male. They are not categorized as male. So, even more a point that transgender women are not very likely to do jack and shit to anyone, is it?

All people are capable of rape, regardless of their junk. The fact that this needs to be said at all is sad.

The Toronto Sun is a TABLOID. You understand that, right? Does that mean Bat-Boy is real, too?

You are taking something that is an astronomically low chance (predators pretending to be trans women) and using that as a sweeping justification to laud and say that keeping trans women from using the facilities that fit their presentation. That same argument can be used in ways very simply that make it obvious how biased it is:

Statistically, people who are of African descent commit more crimes - we should ban all people of African descent from places where they could commit that crime.

A teacher could be a predator - it has happened in the past. We should never allow less than one teacher be around children at any time.

Women have murdered their children in the past. We shouldn't let mothers be around children, or places where they could potentially murder their kids or other peoples' kids.

See how that sort of logic sounds when you use a different group? It sounds shitty and wrong, because it is.

Is it possible that someone could hurt someone? Sure. But ANYONE of ANY gender can hurt someone, rape someone, murder someone. Literally anyone. We can't just go, "Ya' know, it COULD happen - BAN 'EM!" because that doesn't work, and more so than that, it is just stupid. It is utterly dumb to sit and try and justify banning any type of person based on something they they cannot choose and didn't ask for because YOU are afraid that they could hurt someone. Especially since it is based off of some illogical fear that because there is a potential for someone being fake, that all people of that actual subtype should be banned or not allowed somewhere just in case.

Do we ban all guns because someone can be shot? No, because that's a reactionary bullshit way to deal. Do we ban all men from schools because men HAVE abducted children from schools? No, because it is reactionary bullshit. Do we ban all dogs across the board because there isn't a single dog breed that hasn't attacked people? No, because... well, you probably get the drift.

Your argument is flawed. To ban people because of the potential for being an ass and using that law for a shitty purpose in this instance means we'd have to start banning a whole lot of different activities because "something COULD happen".

Everyone, transgendered individuals included, deserve safety and protection under the law. At no point did I insinuate otherwise. Take your alarmist, straw man bullshit someplace else.

How can you sit there and say that transgender people deserve protection and safety while saying that people who are transgender shouldn't even be allowed to use a changing room or restroom because there is an iota of a possibility someone will use transsexualism as an excuse to rape or molest or harm someone? I mean, really. Transgender people are murdered at a rate that is approximately 50% higher than the normal population (findings start around page 8), but you're okay with segregating them further and setting them up for more potential violence?

I'll take my "alarmist strawman BS" somewhere else when you actually dredge up real factual information and not just tabloid posts, dear. :)