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

Sweden did for all FtM who transitioned since 1989 as did the US and U.K. studies.

I made no such assertion that “men are no more violent than women”
@OldCrone has made it up.

Sorry you are new to the terms patriarchy and matriarchy. I’d love to discuss the differences and complexities of various examples but that would be a derail of the thread. If you start a new thread, it would be fun to go over the many historical examples and their similarities and differences.

Lol chances of any evidence appearing on this thread are zero.
It's the modern way...

1. Make unsubstantiated assertions on the internet.
2. Tell people they need to go educate themselves when they ask for evidence.

I think it’s pretty well established in numerous U.K., US anc Swedish studies that females socialised from birth to be placid and nonviolent (be kind) and then transition as FtM will retain the female pattern of criminality.

That's not actually what the main Swedish study found. FTM adopted a male pattern of criminality.

"By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls...but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in male-to-females. The same was true regarding violent crime"

Quote from the study included in this analysis:

https://mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/mbm-briefing-on-dhjene-et-al.-april-2021-1.pdf

You asked
“But is there anything in our biology which inherently makes men more violent than women? That's the important question.”

I answered that with a no.

You didn't. You answered it with:
I have seen no evidence that men are forced to be violent due to their minor biological differences from women.

I didn't say anything about men being 'forced' to be violent. Of course they're not. Lots of men aren't violent at all.

But you now say that you meant to say that you don't believe there's anything biological about men's greater propensity to violence.

If you believe that men being bigger and having more muscle actually drives them to be violent while women being able to be impregnated makes us not violent, then that’s a belief as it bears no relation to anything in the current scientific understanding of the causes of violence.

If I'm on my own and get into an argument with a man, and he seems to be getting angry and looks as though he might hit me, I'll back off, start to try to placate him and try to get away from him. This is because he is likely to be bigger than me and almost certainly much stronger than me and if he hit me I'd get hurt. I can't imagine such a man reacting to me in this way if it was me getting angry (he might even try to get me more riled, just for the fun of it). If you can't see how this size and strength difference changes human interactions, I can only assume you're either male or you've led a very sheltered life.

It’s not a coincidence that rates of violence are virtually the same in other patriarchal societies but the cause of it is not inherently biological, it is psycho-social whereby early life socialisation plays the primary role in creating violent men.

So why do you think virtually all societies everywhere in the world and throughout history have socialised their males the same way? Why did it start and why has it continued?

Trouble is GuanYinShanxi you've made so many wild assertions in every one of your posts, none backed up by evidence. The idea that you have the answer on the complex nature / nurture, sex based differences debate is risible.
But you are keeping this important issue at the top of the board which is good.

It's long overdue that women question the issue of serial sex offending & paedophilia and how this intersects with our powerful trans movement.

@RebelliousCow
You cannot pick and choose which violence you think is inherent, and which you think is not because it doesn't suit your ideological framework.

Human instincts have been well studied and documented, and they are very few in number. Self-preservation is one such instinct that can lead to violence of a self defence nature. There aren’t really any instincts that compel humans to attack other humans that are not of an immediate threat to them. There is no instinct that compels men to rape women and girls. This is scientific fact.

Sorry for being thick, but you were the one who brought up the Kush Empire and stated that women there were as violent as men. Given that most patriarchies subjugate women, how , with my small brain was I suppose to not infer the same of matriarchies towards men, especially the ones with really nasty violent women.

If I didn't laugh at the absurdity of it all I think I would go insane.

Sorry, I can’t help that. Try rereading what I posted?

Most matriarchies were more egalitarian than the patriarchies so it’s inaccurate to call it “subjugation”. Sorry quick Google didn’t give you all the answers in 10minutes, you might need to actually read a history book.

No they don’t play an important part at all in our behaviours.

I rather think that the ideology of biological essentialism is more damaging because if, as you imply, men truly cannot help being more violent due to their hormones or whatever, then why are they being punished for something they cannot control? We should abolish all prisons and just give rapists and murderers some HRT to calm them down.

That is where this nonsense that excuses men of their agency leads to.

There have been matriarchal societies in Africa where women were just as violent as men. The ancient Sudan is one such example (Kush empire).

Having quickly googled the Kush Empire, I can't find any immediate evidence of a matriarchal society. Can you post some links to this society where women subjugated men?

That’s absolutely what it sounds like to me.

Sex hormones and hormone fluctuations play a very important part in people’s behaviours. To claim that all behaviour is just down to socialisation is at best naive, and at worst damaging to the reality of our physical bodies.

No of course not. It sounds like nothing of the sort.

Yes so this would imply they're not
'Real' trans people in the sense they've been living that way for a while, but they are 'trans for the stay' in prison

I’ve not posted anything even remotely implying that.

Are you saying that only poor Black people become criminals? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Im not arguing anything of the sort. The whole what prison where is entirely not what we were discussing at all. You asked
“But is there anything in our biology which inherently makes men more violent than women? That's the important question.”

I answered that with a no. You then went on about physical differences.

If you believe that men being bigger and having more muscle actually drives them to be violent while women being able to be impregnated makes us not violent, then that’s a belief as it bears no relation to anything in the current scientific understanding of the causes of violence.

It’s not a coincidence that rates of violence are virtually the same in other patriarchal societies but the cause of it is not inherently biological, it is psycho-social whereby early life socialisation plays the primary role in creating violent men.

Presumably because sex offender prisoners get a hard time in the male estate from the other prisoners.

@GuanYinShanxi

If you really believe that men are no more violent than women, can you post some evidence?

It seems unlikely that there is any, given the enormous amount of evidence that men are much more violent than women.

We're in Orwellian territory at this point. Insisting that what we see and can evidence is really not the case:
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"