Misgendering and abusive male pattern behaviour

You have expressed your gender. Rape is expressing your gender, sexual abuse is expressing your gender, domestic abuse is expressing your gender … The only confusing thing is why some people have internalised this system as theur identity

Firstly, rape is sexual assault. I have been raped, it was nothing to do with my 'gender' or the perpetrators' genders, it was to do with their sex, they possessed penises.

Domestic abuse is about power hierarchies between the sexes (male/female) which sociologists and others have called gender-based hierarchies because they are about socially constructed hierarchies, if you want to distinguish between what is socially driven and what is biological difference. But the point is that gender hierachies are based on sexual function in society and the way male/female people are socialised.

The whole system of hierarchy which was in place in the nineteenth century was based on an understanding of biology which posited that women were enfeebled by the flux of menstruation, reproduction and their bodies - and literally the 'weaker sex'. In other words, gender hierarchies were based on sex differences and the perception of sex differences. Feminists and sociologists used the language of gender to show that these were socially constructed and malleable.

To your point about not seeing why people then take on this system as their identity, by saying male perpetrators are expressing 'their gender', you are ascribing them that identity as 'gender' - you cannot express a gender if you don't have one. That is my point. In other words, your argument presupposes that male abusers are expressing their gender, whereas I would say they are positioned/acting within a socially sanctioned range of behaviours (gendered behaviours), which are socially sanctioned because they are male, that is based on sex difference. They are expressing gendered behaviours, not their gender, because they have a sex, not a gender.

I am not disputing that gendered hierarchies of power existed in the nineteenth century, and still exist now. I am saying that they are based on sex difference, and that gendered behaviour is masculine/feminine attributes, not male/female which is sex.

red tooth brush

Excellent post.

Stonewall centre Trans Adults their ideology.

'Trans Children' are merely a prop to support the position of Trans Adults. They are a necessary part to normalise the presence of trans adults in society. They are a necessary tool with which to justify agressive behaviour against women; calling them Terfs and trying to silence them by intimidation.

This is why we the idea that children who may be trans child must be supported in all circumstances without any nuance. Against what the Tavistock are saying when they express concerns and highlight desistance rates.

Desistance delegitimises the Stonewall position because it give power to parents; and in particular women, to challenge or to question the narrative or to stand up to pressure to comply.

The importance of desistance in children, is relevant to children and young people - it follows a particular pattern which should be studied. Its not relevant to grown adults in their 30s and 40s and beyond who present late. Its like comparing Type 1 diabetes with Type 2 diabetes.

Stonewall support a position based on junk science. The crap they have about suicide is about as good as science backing up homopathy. They use the power of statistics as against women and children by peddling this level of absoluete rot. It is difficult to challenge institutions when 'trusted' bodies combined with state institutions are lined up against you.

At no point is the central needs and issues relating to children first ever come up in Stonewall's doctrine.

Children being trans without question is also central to those lobby groups who deal with children. Organisations which have a high proportion of parents with children who are trans running them. The idea of desistance, raises questions about their own responsibilities and actions. Preventing questioning about desistance isn't about new children presenting as trans. Its about justifying historic actions and the best way to do that is to normalise those actions by making others take the same steps.

Whether this is the right decision for that particular child becomes a secondary point to the overall ideology. They are not treated as individuals they are treated as part of the trans community. Questioning whether this particular child might have different needs and issues, is viewed as an affront to the entire community. This lack of ability to see children as individuals with unique circumstances in every case is bordering on cult like, because it is about supporting the position of leadership of the group.

Children who are not able to consent are placed in a position where access to information is restricted. Only one option is presented. Together with a community which does not acknowledge desistance as an option.

The term 'undue pressure' is one which pops up in medical ethics. Patients should not be placed under 'undue pressure'. The same goes for guardians of patients who are minors.

The reason for this, is to ensure decisions are made in a healthy environment which allows people to make properly informed decisions.

The targetting of children particularly, with the suggestion that its 'support' whilst also having extension lobbying interests and funding from adult trans fund raisers, raises some concerns about a healthy environment.

The issue where parents live in fear and can not challenge relationships which would look suspect for any other child, also put trans children at particular risk of being targetted or groomed for nefarious reasons.

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.

Lisa puts it in a different way and in language relevant to her occupation but the same thing holds true.

Look at the lines of power and where women and children fall. Their importance is devalued and sidelined in comparisons to children who are not trans.

This is important. It is not hysteria. Children who being identified as trans should have equal protection to any other child. If it is quite obvious that is not the case, this in itself should raise alarm bells about frameworks.

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.

I am completely lost with your argument that domestic abuse IS gender, I am afraid.

Demanding women do not notice or comment on dissonance between how someone sees themselves and how they behave is setting women and kids up to be unable to protect themselves.

This. You’ve expressed it here Lisa from the more legal/sociological point of view (which is not my area of expertise at all) but this is what I have spent hours on here banging on about in a medical context.

The pushing of such things as: confidential disclosure, parental alienation, direct YouTube ‘marketing’ to minors sets up that disconnect.
The medicalisation of children then institutionalises it. When things like puberty blockers are being pushed with incorrect and potentially damaging misinformation we have a huge problem. Parents are not being given accurate medical information and/or they are trying to push for watch and wait in an environment where people are telling their kids to ‘get new parents’ and ‘find your rainbow family.’ How can those parents make evidence based choices?

If we then have the law on conversation therapy go through including gender, we set up a situation where it becomes illegal to deny affirmative treatment.

That then creates a direct conflict between a parent who wishes to protect their child vs lobby groups pushing for earlier medicalisation.

When you add that to the push to erode boundaries (entering female spaces, no you have no right to challenge, you’re the one with the problem, lesbians must have sex with penises) it just gets worse.

It’s absolutey chilling. this needs to be talked about very plainly in public there are things I’d like to say about this on here but I’m fairly sure they’d result in reporting, so I shan’t, but the above sums it up in more measured terms I think.

Why are adults pushing for demedicalisation for adults, early medicalisation for children and reduced sexual and personal boundaries for everyone?

Demanding women do not notice or comment on dissonance between how someone sees themselves and how they behave is setting women and kids up to be unable to protect themselves.

THIS.

And that includes, I am sorry to say MNHQ, demanding these patterns are not remarked upon on this message board, even when they are actually happening on here let alone elsewhere.

Please, please have the mods do the Freedom Progamme. Perhaps then you might understand what so many of us have been trying to tell you and why we have all got so angry and upset about it.

PS I knew myself and my children were being abused. It was never physical. I didn't understand why (as in the Duluth wheel and male pattern abuse) until I did the Freedom program. All the tactics are so clearly displayed by TRA (note I said TRA not trans people)

I assume team snappity are busy discussing which of them has expertise to field this thread. I’m guessing none of them. One of them could benefit from doing the freedom programme though.

Snappity new to you? Context you were not aware of? Children Act updated 2005, women can lose their kids for failing to properly recognise MALE pattern abusive behaviour and can be mandated by law to attend courses learning how to. Freedom Programme comes to mind. This is 100% correct. I was on the Freedom course after I went to women's aid for help Of the 20 women on the course 1 had had their 4 children removed by SS because they were still with their (male) abuser and 3 because SS thought there was a risk that they would take their abuser back. Living in a household where a father abuses the mother is a abuse of a child even if the child is never directly physically or verbally abused themselves

My point is that to manage male pattern abusive behaviour, you have to correctly identify someone’s sex, not their gender because gender is a make up concept.

You said the sex split in abusive behaviour is something like 90%. That is right, it is a sex split. Talking about gender when you mean sex confuses matters. They can identify as female, but if they are demonstrating male pattern behaviour and are a natal male, it is their sex and sex based socialisation which is the determinant. That is the whole entire problem with taking gender as the category for recording offences, it does not mean anything if you can identify as the other gender. At least it does not mean anything in terms of analysing sex based differences.

I get that you did not post for word confusion but it is one thing I struggle with. Domestic abuse is now referred to as gender-based violence, which means that anyone identifying as female will be seen through the victim lens, whereas we know based on sex, male people are more likely to be perpetrators. So do we mean gender-based or sex-based violence?

Is domestic violence an expression of gender or sex? I would have said both, but if a perpetrator identifies as female, is natally male, is that person really expressing their female gender or reverting predominantly to male sex role behaviours/masculinity (dominance, power and control)?

That is all. The language of gender and misgendering muddies the waters, which i think is your point, that you cannot misgender. But it muddies the waters because the determinant is sex and sex based (male/female) socialisation.

I agree with all you say Lisa and what disturbs me profoundly is the censoring on here of discussion about sex offenders and the current plus potential abuse of self Id by them - wannabes and as well as.convicted - as being uncivil and anti-trans- WTF.

Who gets to ducking make one's identity above the safeguarding of women and children? Informed discussion is what's needed that isn't derailed every second comment by whataboutery enabled by the Stonewalled mod policy

Something is very wrong when safeguarding is subjugated and perverted to identity politics and a male's entitled ego and behaviour.

I keep saying the Wolf in Red Riding Hood was dressed as Grandma - why is it such an issue to talk the Grandma Wolves and safeguarding against them?

Suddenly we're supposed to adopt a stance that all those who believe they can change sex are unchallengeable and that none of them would or have ever abused a child or woman when we can see they display all those dangerous behavioural red flags. We have to take them at their word and believe all of them? It's insane.

Thank you Lisa. I only meant to simplify for me becasue I have difficulty readig sometimes. I wasn;t meaning to criticise you/ your views.

Yes I agree completely agree. Any special courtesy that a person might request shoud be denied if they reveal themselves to be an abusive person. The truth of their actions defines them more than anything else, especially anything they might define themselves as. I find it so offensive that women are asked to accept behaviour that has been used to oppress and control women as being female. It is another kick in the guts.

With regard to certain MH conditions, as well as misogyny-based abuse, I am concerned that some may have the need to try to idenitfy away from certain behaviours or thoughts they possess, but that superficial transtition does not remove the underlying problem.

and that we need to be able to name the abuse and shine a light on it to see it for what it is.

Therefore it is not 'misgendering' to name anyone showing male abuse patterns that show (prove) them to be male underneath clothing and make up. (Actions louder than words/ pronouns/dresses)

*name them as man not woman, I meant to say

Can I clarify (as not familiar with Lisa and I can be hard of reading - Hi Lisa) that it is being said that a male may claim that their gender identity is 'woman' and try to demonstrate that fact by performing femininity, but that their behaviour clearly reveals their gender socialisation (and therefore sex) to be male.

Wolf in sheep's clothing wrt abuse?

Therefore it is not 'misgendering' to name anyone showing male abuse patterns that show (prove) them to be male underneath clothing and make up. (Actions louder than words/ pronouns/dresses)

Me too (place marking)