Misgendering and abusive male pattern behaviour

lisamuggeridge

I believe that the identification of the systemic failures in the prison system are demonstrating many of the central issues.

The difference in male / female offender profiles has been long recognised and was highlighted in recent Govt report.

Correlation with women prisoners who have experienced DV, MH, male pattern abuse, low literacy, former LAC etc

Consequences of cutting funding to specialist supportive services (both statuatory and voluntary sector).

Highlights the catastrophic consequences of private management of the prison service. (see also treatment of refugees Yarls Wood etc)

Disregard of whistle-blowing by prison governors, officers, unions & prison reform charities & the impact of austerity on those employed.

Highlights the consequences of political involvement, lobbying and how judicial decisions have contributed.

The prison system is broken and there have been systemic failures in safeguarding vulnerable adults and the duty of care in both male and female estates.

‘Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.’

I agree, it is better to do away with the word altogether, just use male pattern behaviour. It is the behaviour of males that is the issue. I agree with Sheila Jeffery’s that when we use the word ‘gender’ to describe the abusive behaviour patterns males use to control women, it muddies the waters and make thing far less clear. She suggests using the words sex role to refer to stereotypical behaviours, and I think using male pattern behaviour to describe their dominance behaviour is much better and clearer.

Also you get men who say ‘I do not express that behaviour, therefore I must have a female gender’, it is sex that matters not gender.

Sorry for the abuse you suffered Katara

I didn't mean to talk over your experiences.

I can understand if you want to leave the thread.

Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.

I agree. I prefer the term 'sex roles' for that reason.

At some point feminists started using 'gender' instead of the earlier term 'sex roles', and then the rest of the world started suing 'gender' as a synonym for 'sex', and now it has a double meaning.

Things would be a lot clearer if feminists returned to using sex (for bio sex) and sex roles (for gender).

Okay, I am checking out now. I do not understand what you mean by gender. And I am getting more puzzled by the minute. When I was being raped, when I was abused by my husband, I was not expressing my gender, in one case I was asleep, it was my female body, I could not express anything. I inhabit a female body, it is not my gender. Gender is what people call the power structure I have to navigate in my female body and the attributes which are regarded as masculine and feminine.

Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.

Gender is external constructs, a system of subordination which keeps women down with abuse, and women emancipated themselves from it/ If you demonstrate male pattern abusive behaviour you are demonstrating your gender... Rape is expressing your gender, sexual abuse is expressing your gender, domestic abuse is expressing your gender.

This is such an important point, Lisa. So many people, even many feminists, seem to think 'expressing gender' is primarily about clothing and other external markers.

Hence David Bowie was regularly described as 'gender non-conforming' simply because he sometimes dressed in feminine clothing and wore make-up. Whereas a truly gender non-conforming man is one who consciously seeks to unlearn patterns of dominance and entitlement towards women and children.

And this lazy assumption carries over into trans politics, whereby most people assume that male people who identify as trans are rejecting masculinity and taking on femininity simply because they adopt feminine appearance norms. Whereas within femininity there is a whole host of sex roles that have nothing to do with appearance, such as doing the bulk of the care work, the housework, and subordinating one's own needs to others', which most men who adopt a 'woman identity' don't seem interested in at all.

In the same vein, putting on lipstick and demanding to be called 'she' doesn't mean that a man has rejected male-dominant behaviours, as the behaviour of many trans activists shows. (And I'd argue the latter behaviour is male dominance in action.) At base, gender is not about eyeliner and pronouns. Gender is about male entitlement to women's bodies, labour and lives.

I am so angry at the way that 'gender' as in gender roles/ gender socialisation/ gender stereotypes, has been co-opted to mean 'gender identity' and 'gnder expression' in the trans way of having a feeling or belief of being the opposite sex and expressing that superficially.

It is yet another thing that makes it very difficult for women (and children) to articulate their experiences. Funny that.

Some trans people knew that the goal of changing sex could never be won (obviously) and so went after gender; abusing and 'transing' the meaning of word itself to suit their purposes. As with the word woman, and the meaning of biological sex. Grr. Is there nothing that some people will not subvert, convert or manipulate.

NB hoping Lang will chime in

Lisa is right when she characterises this is as transactivism requesting a safeguarding debate. With regard to children, the question transactivism is asking is:

What is the best way to protect the wellbeing of a trans-identified child at school?

And the best pithy response I can come up with is:

The answer to that question is not to remove all the safeguarding measures that make children vulnerable to abusers.

This is completely separate to the stuff about competing rights and accommodating trans-identified children at school should be achieved without compromising the rights of other children. Which obviously also needs addressing.

Laws govern behaviours, that is what they exist for. But those with power can avoid, manipulate and change the law. Also behaviour.

Women lack the power to use the law that protects them to protect them.

The frameworks used by trans advocates are directly at odds with the child centred safeguard frameworks already established in law and policy.

Yes. Because they (deliberately) ignore the needs of girls without a trans identity. And because they (not deliberately) place a child with a trans identity at risk of abuse (by an adult of any identity, trans or otherwise) by creating safeguarding blindspots, such as confidential disclosures and no checks and balances provided by multi-agency teams. And because they encourage parental alienation. With regard to SEND children in particular, some of the school guidance provided by trans lobby groups may actually be unlawful.

I understand gender in the way Lisa speaks about it. Rather than a set of sexist stereotypes and behavioural tropes in and of itself, it is the wielding of the power relationship that results in those sexist stereotypes and behavioural tropes. So "gender" is the wielding of power inequality (or the inability to wield it). This power structure is sex-based.

That is my point, red, I will no longer use gender to try to describe power dynamics, which happen because of sexual differences and the way sexual difference is understood by society.

Male-pattern behaviour means of the male sex.

Gender is a power dynamic which deliberately places women at the bottom below men.

[Biological] Sex is a neutral term. You are either one or another.
Gender because it favours one sex over another is not neutral.

Replacing sex with gender is fucking with power dynamics.

It is reimposing power structures which laws against sexual discrimination outlawed.

Gender is male pattern abuse. thats what gender has always been and what it remains. When someone rapes you they are shaping your gender and expressig theirs in a way that cannot be undone for you, but can apparently be undone if they say they are now a woman.

how are they shaping my gender? I don't have a gender, I have a sex.

Greats posts Red & Lisa

Everywhere you look, trans children come last in terms of how they are considered. Everywhere you look, the role of women is systematically put to one side and the child separated from their influence and protection.

This isn't saying that trans people are a threat to children. Its saying the frameworks that advocates for trans people are creating are deeply flawed. Its saying that children are at the bottom of the pile in terms of thought processes and power dynamics and this in itself creates risk.

The flouting of existing ethics protocols and safeguarding structures to almost make a 'special case' exposes those children to unethical behaviour and potentially unsafe situations, whether it is unintentional or not.

So how does this sound as a summary using my terminology? NB hoping Lang will chime in:

The frameworks used by trans advocates are directly at odds with the child centred safeguard frameworks already established in law and policy.

Three major flaws are immediately apparent with their approach: firstly the “one size fits all” approach recommended by trans advocates is directly at odds with the existing child centred approach of the safeguarding frameworks. Secondly parents are excluded from any discussions about what’s appropriate for their child or have undue influence applied to them, again in sharp contradiction to the recommendations of the existing frameworks. Thirdly, the multi-agency and cross skill and experience integration, that forms the heart and basis of best practice for child centred safeguarding, is also discarded in the approach advocated by trans advocates.

To be continued later.....

Great post, Red.

Its about justifying historic actions and the best way to do that is to normalise those actions by making others take the same steps.

This is a very distressing thought.