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

It’s 40 years since I did 8 weeks in the psychiatric unit of my training hospital, and we were taught not to collude in people’s delusions, it was probably Lesson 1 Day 1. There were a couple of patients with such precise, detailed, convincing delusions that I started to wonder if they were the sane ones, it all made such perfect sense!

Strangely enough (for that time, early 1980s) the charge nurse on that ward was a trans woman, full genital reassignment, the lot, and years before I became a student nurse. She certainly “passed” but being from southeast Asia probably helped with that.

This all reminds me of when I worked in psychiatry many moons ago.

I met a woman who believed that she was married to Perry Como, and was at pains to emphasise that she meant the REAL Perry Como, not the one on the TV who was pretending to be the REAL Perry Como.

Exactly.

I don't know why we should be expected to believe that there are genuine trans (anything) people. There are people who hold a deluded belief about who they actually are, or what sort of body they think they should have had. The only 'genuine' thing about them is that they are genuinely deluded.

If I'm understanding you correctly @PorcelinaV, you're saying that a "genuine trans person" (transgender/transracial/transabled/transspecies etc) is anyone who has a genuine belief that they are that thing. Is that right?

So if Rachel Dolezal genuinely believes that she's a black person, she is a "genuine transracial person". If Chloe Jennings-White genuinely believes he's both a woman and disabled he's a "genuine transgender transabled person". If a man genuinely believes he's a unicorn, he's a "genuine transspecies person" (or perhaps a "genuine transunicorn" because he doesn't believe he's a person at all).

Where do you draw the line? Do you draw a line at all, or is it that if anyone genuinely believes anything about themselves then they are a "genuine trans... person"? Are there also "genuine trans Napoleons" if people genuinely believe that about themselves?

But how can we ever know if they genuinely hold these beliefs about themselves? Since it's all in their heads, we can never know that, can we? So we can never actually know if anyone genuinely believes what they say about their identity. So how do we know that there are any "genuine trans people" at all?

There are enough cases of "trans racial" people to suspect it's a real identity they have.

If it became a widespread thing, and if say they were suffering discrimination in housing, in theory sure you may need to recognise them to give them some legal protections.

Should a white person that identifies as black, be allowed leadership in a black organisation? Well they certainly shouldn't have that "right", just as trans women shouldn't have a "right" to leadership or participation in women’s organisations.

We certainly need to recognise "transabled" people for medical treatment. Even if you aren't cutting off their limbs, we need to recognise them to give them therapy.

So yes, there are genuine "transabled" people.

That doesn't mean they are actually disabled with the disability they identify with.

@Bosky

Let's leave out the next bit where you contradict yourself and, "for the sake of argument",you imagine a"mysterious sense"in which men"really are" women.

What on earth? That's logical nonsense.

A real contradiction would be: "they aren't women" combined with "they are women".

Not: "they aren't women", but let's imagine the hypothetical for the sake of argument.

That's just having a mind flexible enough to imagine hypotheticals! 🙂

I gave an example above in the thread already.

I'm imagining if a man has a male partner before surgery then they are both gay - and getting surgery to resemble a woman is not a credible solution.

Imagine that they don't have a partner at the time. They are thinking of future partners.

A heterosexual man in never going to be satisfied long term with a neo vagina

Let's assume that. It would be a limitation on modern surgery, not that someone shouldn't want surgery in theory.

I'm responding to your statement:

"If someone is genuinely something they do not require surgery to make them resemble that something more"

You can't defend that by bringing up the limits of existing surgery.

Anyway i asked if you could give some practical examples of how a person may be "treated differently". You have offered the one scanario of better resembling a woman for a sexual partner. Is that it? Any more examples?

Easier to socialise (friendship) with women perhaps. As in meeting new people.

Also, you may be seen as less threatening in a women's space. They can have this motivation whether or not they should be allowed to be there.

I think what we're being asked to consider is accepting someone's self definition of themself as if it is true ( post-modernism/social justice theories expect us to bow to people's 'truth' and not question it) - even if we, personally, don't believe in or subscribe to it. I think this is so that we are not guilty of "denying someone's existence". Why can't we"just accept that there are actual, genuine trans people" ( by the terms of their own self definition).

I was hoping that @PorcelinaV would explain why we should believe that there are "genuine trans[gender] people", but we don't have to believe that there are genuine transracial/transspecies/transabled people.

What is special about transgender people that means we should accept their transness as "real", but we don't have to accept as real all the other varieties of "trans"?

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!"

Let's leave out the next bit where you contradict yourself and, "for the sake of argument", you imagine a "mysterious sense" in which men "really are" women.

Let's go straight to:

"they want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier."

Now let's leave out this bit: "So whether they are a woman, or just have a belief that they are a woman" and go straight to:

"So . . . why not get surgery?"

What we have left, if we cut out the bits where you contradict your opening statements is:

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!

They want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier.

So why not get surgery?"

Now, let's get some clarification of who you are talking about: who are "they"?

(Don't double back on yourself and answer "men who think they are women" because you don't need to conjure up that imaginary scenario "for the sake of argument".)

When you have clarified who "they" are . . .

Why do "they" "want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman"?

(No, not because they are "men who think they are women" - think of another reason or reasons why some men "want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman".)

Go on, you can do it. It will help you to avoid these mental contortions where you say you don't believe something but then, ironically, keep constructing imaginary worlds where the thing you don't believe is true. Try imagining a world that is congruent with your opening statements:

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!"

You seem to believe in the existence of "genuine trans people". Can you explain what you believe makes a person a "genuine trans person"?

"Why are so many transgender prisoners sex offenders"

Or rather "what does a male sex offender have to do to be able to access female prisons".

Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!

But actually, let's imagine that in some mysterious sense they really are a woman. So "trans women are women" for the sake of argument.

It still seems to possibly make sense for them to get surgery. For example, they want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier.

So whether they are a woman, or just have a belief that they are a woman, why not get surgery?

How about...

You genuinely believe you are a woman.

But you also suffer from gender dysphoria, so transition for that reason.

Or you transition in the hope that people will treat you differently.

So, when someone detransitions, or turns out to be a sex offender - the allies cry " but you were never really, genuinely trans at all"

That's not my position.

It may be that some pathways to being trans result in less stable identities, and should be treated in a different way medically perhaps.

But if you use the criteria of "genuine belief", they can be trans, even if they detransition.

I don't see any clear argument here for why "multiple pathways" is really a problem.

We can say multiple pathways are all valid. We can say that some pathways aren't valid if we wanted (if we thought that they weren't producing a trans identity at all). You could maybe speak of some pathways being less valid in a certain sense.

If it's one pathway or more, that all seems fine.