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

Well they may want to claim "transphobia" if you call it an ideology, because they don't like criticism and want to evade having a proper debate.

So at the level of the activists, they probably don't want to admit that it's an ideology.

If you polled trans people, I don't know how many would admit, "it's an ideological belief that could be wrong".

"A man/ or a woman with a trans identity" best describes the reality - whilst also acknowledging the person's chosen 'identity'.

OK, so you recognise the existence of trans people then. "Trans identified male" is fine. "Trans woman" is also common. I'm not going to worry about the best term here.

Identity at this level is something you negotiate with your nearest and dearest - not something you impose on everyone.

I agree it shouldn't be imposed on the whole of society as an ideology, or when it comes to claimed "rights".

But as mentioned, it does need to be recognised in medical and legal contexts. Maybe prisons as in a trans wing of a prison. Private clubs or organisations can also recognise them of course.

That's nonsense. That has nothing to do with recognising they exist in the sense I was talking about.

But do you agree with what I said?

Can you recognise the existence of trans women without needing to go down the TWAW path?

Is it a good approach to just say, "there are no genuine trans people"?

They need to be able to recognise things like gender dysphoria and trans identity for the purposes of medical treatment like therapy or medical transitioning.

If you are saying, "in what way do they need to be recognised other than this?", then you accept that they need to be recognised for certain legal purposes.

This is what happens when you 'recognise' transwomen rather than just treating them as the men they are.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4899215-mind-your-prostates-ladies

“You can recognise trans women, without believing that TWAW, or believing in various "trans rights" claims.”

Well, I recognise that some men lie about their sex and try to force other people to lie about it too. They sometimes get extremely angry if you contradict them with the truth.

Some women do this too.

I’m yet to be convinced that it is legitimate to lie about something so fundamental and insist on the silence or feigned belief of others.

Having a think again about the available stats on trans sex offenders in prison . . .

There is evidence from sentencing, reported in the press, that judges sometimes consider "struggling with gender identity", "gender dysphoria" and concerns about "vulnerability" in prison to be factors in opting for a non-custodial sentence.

Should this apply equally, or more so, to non-sex crimes committed by trans people then it might account, at least to some extent, for the disproportionate number of sex crimes as a reason for imprisonment of males who are recorded as "transgender", ie. as compared to other males.

That is, that once "trans mitigation" sentencing leniency for other offences is taken into account, it is possible that the difference between trans and non-trans male prisoners convicted of sex crimes might disappear.

(IIRC the prison figures do not include any males with GRCs who might have been imprisoned for sex crimes, as they would be recorded as "female" and not as transgender. The figures for all males are of course wildly in excess of those for females, even if the "female" number includes some males with GRCs.)

However, assuming for sake of argument that it could be proved that "sentencing leniency" had no effect and that Signalbox and OldCrone are correct in their calculations, and that "transwomen are nearly 3 times as likely as other men to be sex offenders" what would be an appropriate response to that information at a societal level?

I would suggest that it bolsters the argument for all males to be excluded, as they were traditionally, from settings in which women expect to be free from male predation, voyeurism, coercion and exploitation for sexual gratification.

Secondly, that males who claim to be women, whether they seek to present in a "feminine way" or not, should be acknowledged to be a higher risk as a group than other males, rather than being downgraded to the same risk level as females.

I am not sure if the latter is necessary for safeguarding reasons but it might open up the public conversation about the strange situation whereby pubescent girls are bracketed with middle-aged and elderly men as "trans", supposedly having commonality of experience and being part of the same "community".

I recognise that there are men who identify as transwomen. I don't believe that they are fundamentally different from any other men. I don't believe that transgenderism is anything other than a belief system.

The degree to which a man believes he is a woman, whether it's just 'a little bit, since I got convicted' or whether it's 'since I was four and preferred playing with dolls' really doesn't matter.

He is never a woman, no matter how fervently he wishes he was one.

And yes, delusions are common and nobody cares so long as they don't impact on society. (I would say 'others', but we also generally care if a person's delusions damage them. To the extent they may try to self harm, for example. People with BIID, who try to blind themselves, we generally don't hand them a prescription for drain cleaner.)

But delusions certainly don't entitle anyone to avail themselves of the rights and protections that belong to that thing-they-identify-with.

Why do they need to be recognised for medical treatment? It's only important for medical professionals to know their sex.

Transgenderism is protected in the EA under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In what way do they need to be 'recognised' other than this?

The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the Christian faith. I recognise that people exist who hold these beliefs. Their beliefs are protected in law. In general, people who hold these beliefs don't try to force me to hold those beliefs as well (this was not always true in the past).

I also recognise that people exist who identify as transgender. I recognise that there are men who identify as transwomen. I don't believe that they are fundamentally different from any other men. I don't believe that transgenderism is anything other than a belief system.

What do you mean by "recognise transwomen"? Isn't this the equivalent of requiring me to believe that Jesus is the son of God?

What is the definition of a transwoman in your opinion? I need to know this in order to know why I should 'recognise transwomen'.

"nobody would care how they identify, and whether or not they were faking."

They still need to be recognised for things like medical treatment or protecting their legal rights, say discrimination in housing.

Saying that we need to recognise that there are transwomen means that we are obliged to believe in this 'religion'.

We need to recognise that Christians exist, to protect their legal rights, and well because it's just reality that they do exist.

You don't have to believe in the Christian religion however.

You can recognise trans women, without believing that TWAW, or believing in various "trans rights" claims.

RMW stated they didn't have a grc so, not even as a legal fiction.

We've recently had some pretty high profile trans activists saying that they think TW are AHF. RMW is a good example of this and has recently claimed that RMW is an AHF. Do we honestly think for a minute that RMW actually believes that RMW is a AHF? The most likely scenario is that they are trolling or lying.

I doubt they are claiming to be biological females in the normal sense.

I'm guessing it's just a form of "TWAW", where they also want the word "female" on the basis of identity.

Sure it messes up the language and confuses everyone.

Why do we need to recognise that there are transwomen, if transgenderism is just a belief system that we are not obliged to believe in?

Saying that we need to recognise that there are transwomen means that we are obliged to believe in this 'religion'.

What is a transwoman (in your opinion)?

Whether someone is or is not a genuine Christian (or any other religion) doesn't affect anyone except themselves and other members of that faith. It's only when someone's declared religion starts to impact on others that it's important to anyone outside that faith, as in the case of the prisoners identifying as Jewish because kosher food was better than standard prison food, but also cost twice as much, so the prison service was keen to establish which prisoners were genuinely Jewish and which ones were fakes.

If men who claim to identify as transwomen weren't trying to get into women's sports, changing rooms, toilets and prisons, and trying to convince everyone else that they are real women, nobody would care how they identify, and whether or not they were faking.

Transgenderism isn't just a belief system, it's one that we are all required to believe in, regardless of our own true beliefs.

Yes, but that's a distinct issue.

We still need to recognise that there are trans women, to maybe send them to a trans wing of a male prison, rather than sending them to a female prison.

The difference between all these beliefs and transgenderism is what is expected of other people.

Nobody is expected to go along with a deluded person's belief that they are Napoleon or Jesus.

People of various religions may try to convert others, but nobody calls you a Mormonphobe or a Jehovah's Witnessphobe if you choose to politely say "No thank you" and close the door when they call.

MPs don't get all tongue-tied if you ask them "Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God?" - they just answer according to their own beliefs, and nobody who answers "No" to that question is called a Christianphobe. Even if they confirm that they are an atheist and don't believe in God at all.

Transgenderism isn't just a belief system, it's one that we are all required to believe in, regardless of our own true beliefs.

Question is what is a trans belief and what does "going off the deep end" with belief actually look like and what does faking it look like?

We've recently had some pretty high profile trans activists saying that they think TW are AHF. RMW is a good example of this and has recently claimed that RMW is an AHF. Do we honestly think for a minute that RMW actually believes that RMW is a AHF? The most likely scenario is that they are trolling or lying. RMW is not daft and I find it unlikely (in view of the fact that they are a working barrister) that have any serious mental illness that would lead them to believe that they are actually an AHF. So at what point does a claim to be a TW or an AHF become so patently untrue that you are considered to be faking it? Does India Willoughby's claim to have a cervix mean India is faking it? Does Isla Bryson only IDing as a TW 10 minutes before his trial mean that he is faking it?

Does that make them a 'genuine' Jesus?

I suppose it makes them a genuine trans Jesus rather than a fake trans Jesus. And around and around we go!

If you wanted to know if someone is a genuine Christian, you would look at their beliefs, and maybe something like church attendance or whatever.

You wouldn't ask whether their beliefs are correct.

Now of course, some people want to insist that, "trans women are women".

But that's not my position.

Do you want to insist that we define "trans" as they really are the opposite sex in some sense?

Then we would just need to come up with a new term yes?

I think it's borderline. As I used the word, I just meant it's a false belief.

At least some religious beliefs are going to be false.

Now holding to a religion doesn't mean you have a mental illness, even if the beliefs are false.

Let's say with Mormonism as an example, it's not only false, but a lot of people would think it's obviously false, and you're going to be highly irrational to believe it. It's still not regarded as a mental illness.

However, people can certainly "go off the deep end" with religious beliefs. You can cross that line where it starts to look like a mental health issue.

I would say trans identity is a mental health issue, but it's probably not on the same level as the delusions you mention.

So a trans person could be well functioning. They could be genuinely happier that way in some cases. Or it could cause them a lot of distress and impairment.

You can join a religious cult because you genuinely believe, or join because it's a way to get a wife.

In either case, you may end up leaving, because, "yeah, bit of a mistake, I joined a cult".