Mary Harrington - Why are so many transgender prisoners sex offenders?

True that this thread started in 2023, but I wouldn’t dismiss it as a zombie because it’s still a very relevant live issue.

I see zombies as those where a woman asked for help with a problem she was struggling with or a threat that was imminent years ago. We can’t help her by answering now!

But even then, when it’s a problem others are likely to encounter, I think it’s useful if you can add to, or update, the information PP have posted. Because people often look up existing threads on a topic before taking the step of posting their own.

The answer to OP’s question is very simple when you think about it.

Trans-identifying men are living out their sex fantasy, or paraphilia. Paraphilias tend to occur in clusters, and men who get a thrill out of breaking taboos need to keep escalating as the thrill at each level wears off.

So if a man can get away with parading one paraphilia in public, why wouldn’t he try the others? There’s no longer any penalty for breaking boundaries of women’s rights or common decency. So there’s very little to stop men sliding from what’s legal to what’s illegal.

I mean, a simple argument could be they are particularly targeted and isolated in male prison so they are more motivated to find a way out.

But tbh I think the main reason is as said above, those paraphilic clusters - those are a real thing with some offenders.

I agree, and read this in a Swedish study.

Two year old zombie walking.

Of course it’s biology. The socialisation argument doesn’t explain the huge disparities between the sexes. I’d say your biology influences most things in life down to what job you get (assuming you are free to choose)

Feminists have been pushing the socialisation argument because they don’t want to be constrained to some jobs by their biology. Fact is women’s biology is capable of a huge range of jobs - being evolved to be expert child carers and managers is no simple task, in many ways more complex than if you evolved to merely hunt.

To respond to the question of the thread -

I read an interview (which frustratingly I now can't find) from an American investigator about the deliberate memory-holing of the links between transvestism and crime. She said, when she was training in the 1980s, they were taught that if certain markers of a rape or murder were identified, they knew they were probably dealing with paraphilic clusters and that transvestism was likely to be involved too.

She said that when the term transgender became popular, it then became verboten to raise this link. She said, it wasn't a case that new research disproved the link between paraphilias and lust murders, but that there was top down guidance to no longer focus on those elements in the recordings of crime.

In some cases it could be. Especially in long-ago times when lesbianism was really restricted and lots of women were compelled to marry. Plus very religious people would probs feel a similar ideological pressure to marry a man.

As for political lesbians, from what I've read most had either always been at least somewhat bisexual, or had relationships with women without much if any enthusiasm/attraction, or didn't do so at all. There is no evidence that Sheila Jefferys has ever dated a woman, to name one famous political lesbian.

That's an overstatement - lesbians are only attracted to women, otherwise they'd be bisexual.

But I don't accept that a lesbian has to be a woman who has NEVER been attracted to me. Lots of women don't start out being lesbians, partly because it has never occurred to them, or because there weren't many lesbian opportunities in their milieu, or because they were brought up in a homophobic setting. Or they just haven't met Ms Right
I've known a number of women who used to be sufficiently attracted to men to pass as heterosexual, because that's was available, and it was 'the done thing', but later realised that they were very much more attracted to women, and would have been from Day 1 if their circumstances had been different.

They then became lesbians for the rest of their lives; it was a realisation, not a deliberate choice or decision.
Just 'deciding' to become a lesbian seems a strange thing to do:' I don't really fancy women but I'm going to call myself a lesbian to make a political statement'? That doesn't make sense. And would go down like a lead balloon in a dating scenario🙁

Before being lesbian got swept up into a sort of 'anything goes' separation of sexual identity from sexual activity, there used to be an element of the 'political' [in a very broad interpretation of the word] in choosing to make women rather than men the centre of your emotional and domestic life.

But it's possible to be woman-centred without calling yourself 'lesbian' and being sexually involved with the women you live with/socialise with... unless I'm missing something about the WI and convents😁

I think it means that they were ordinary men who were sex offenders but once arrested opted to be trans to get better conditions.

A lesbian is a woman who has NEVER been attracted to men. Completely different experience to these women, and deeply unhelpful to say otherwise.

That's the issue though : a lot of these women had a history of attraction and sex w men, a very different experience from actual lesbians. And a lot just adopted the label and didn't have lesbian relationships. Sheila Jefferys for one. A lot of the political lesbian discourse in fact desexualised lesbians by saying that lesbianism could just be about supporting and only being friends with women.

Surely it's transgenderism which is the unproven belief - like the existence of God. So not believing in transgenderism is like not believing in God.

But I suppose it depends on what you mean by transgenderism.

Do some people wish they were the opposite sex? Yes.

Do some people hate their sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics? Yes.

Do some people believe they are the opposites sex? Yes. But a belief that you are something you are not is commonly called a delusion.

Do people exist who have gender dysphoria (which is usually described as a hatred of their sexed body and/or the stereotypes which are imposed on them because of their sex)? Yes.

Are people literally "born in the wrong body"? No.

The issue isn't whether they, "show signs of misogyny".

The issue is where, for example, someone has had gender dysphoria as a child, so they went to doctors at a young age. They then later take hormones and have their dick cut off.

They may also be a misogynist, but I would personally doubt that misogyny can explain all this.

So the issue is whether something like, "misogyny and being a self-hating homosexual is the best explanation for their behaviour", in claiming to identify as a woman.

Rather than:

"The best explanation for their behaviour in claiming to identify as a woman, is that they genuinely did suffer from gender dysphoria and genuinely have a belief something like that they are a woman and were born in the wrong body".

I would doubt prison cases, and the modern explosion of cases.

But to generally start doubting if transgenderism is a real thing, as I say, I think it comes off like:

"There are no real atheists, it's all just rebellion against God".

To me it's just a straightforward, "let's recognise an actually existing medical condition".

Rather than taking a position that would come off like, "there are no real atheists, it's all just rebellion against God".

Can you say that about all trans women?

My reply about this to @PorcelinaV was deleted (apparently for the crime of making generalisations - I thought the whole point of the question was to make a general statement).

But I agree with this:

I don’t know how a man can claim womanhood without being a misogynist.

@PorcelinaV could you give some examples of prominent males who identify as transwomen who show no signs of misogyny?

I don’t know how a man can claim womanhood without being a misogynist.

In order to do it in the first place he clearly subscribes to sex based stereotypes, has no respect for the dignity of women and girls, sees women as objects for male arousal, thinks of womanhood as a costume he can put on and take off at will, doesn’t appreciate that we can’t identify out of our oppression anymore than he can identify into it, has no respect at all for women as human beings, as mothers, daughters and sisters and all that our biology means for us, thinks his desires and feelings take precedence over the feelings, safety and inclusion of women and girls, I could go on.

Can you say that about all trans men?

Transmen tend to be driven by internalised misogyny and/or internalised homophobia.

What about transabled people? If they can persuade a surgeon to amputate their limbs should this be considered a genuine "transition"?

If you wanted to call it that then it's fine. It's maybe not the language I would use, but I don't see a problem with it.

A transabled "transition" is more real than a "sex change operation". You can't really change sex. You can become disabled.

So yes such a person would be a genuine "transabled" person, and you could call it a "transition" if you wanted.

I can say with some certainty, looking at the reports of multiple prominent males who identify as transwomen that their behaviour is consistent with being misogynists and/or porn addicts and/or self-hating homosexuals.

Can you say that about all trans women?

You have good evidence to suspect that about everyone? You can look at some reports, and reach conclusions about the whole group?

Can you say that about all trans men?

With genuine transgender, I have given the example of someone that (1) genuinely believes, (2) has that identity in the longer term, (3) has made a decision to embrace it and "transition".

So should people who are transracial or transabled also be considered 'genuine'? If Rachel Dolezal has her skin and hair permanently darkened should this be considered a genuine "transition"?

What about transabled people? If they can persuade a surgeon to amputate their limbs should this be considered a genuine "transition"?

As I understand it, you consider a "genuine" transgender, transracial or transabled person to be someone whose delusion is so strong that they "genuinely believe" it and that they have undergone some sort of physical modification to make them more physically like the person they think they should be.

If you believe this is true for "gender" but not for race or disability, can you explain what you believe the difference to be?

So while we can't strictly know if you want to be a hyper skeptic about it, in practice we would look at multiple people's reports, and then consider if their behaviour is consistent with it. We could also consider whether they have a reason to lie.

I can say with some certainty, looking at the reports of multiple prominent males who identify as transwomen that their behaviour is consistent with being misogynists and/or porn addicts and/or self-hating homosexuals.

They have all sorts of reasons to lie if their aim is to gain access to unconsenting women and/or children to play out their fantasies or if they are mediocre sportsmen who want to win for a change.

But what do you think they might be lying about? A man might genuinely believe that he wants to be his porn-soaked idea of what a woman is. That doesn't mean that I should recognise him as anything other than a man with a paraphilia.

Well I personally think that when it comes to young children, the first thing, is that we should be trying to cure them of gender dysphoria. It's not something you want to encourage.

Now when using pronouns, or surgery...

As I said above, I think transgender identity is a borderline case, in that not all false beliefs are "mental illness".

While I would say it's a mental health issue, it's probably not on the same level as the Napoleon example. A transgender person could be well functioning and in some cases perhaps happier that way. It's also something that could cause someone a lot of distress and impairment.

With religious people that want to handle poisonous snakes, I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of belief system, but sure give them special permission to import deadly snakes.

There are genuinely people that have wild delusions, and we need to recognise them for medical treatment, but we don't really need to use the term, "trans Napoleon" in that case. We maybe wouldn't for "transabled" either, although they may sometimes be trying to live out the role of the disability.

I'm talking about recognising a condition for medical or other purposes, where you reasonably need to. What language is appropriate for the condition is then another question.

With genuine transgender, I have given the example of someone that (1) genuinely believes, (2) has that identity in the longer term, (3) has made a decision to embrace it and "transition".

How do we know that any such people exist? Well how skeptical do you want to get?

Assume you have never personally suffered from serious anxiety. How do you know it's a real thing? You can't guarantee that people's reports are accurate can you?

So while we can't strictly know if you want to be a hyper skeptic about it, in practice we would look at multiple people's reports, and then consider if their behaviour is consistent with it. We could also consider whether they have a reason to lie.

So I can't "know" if a particular lesbian is really attracted to women or not. But if they only sleep with women, and spend years in a relationship with a woman, if I don't have my skeptical hat on, I'm probably just going to assume that they are telling the truth about their feelings.