Kathleen Stock - Gender cannot be a get-out-of-jail card for violent men

Fabulous article!

Another brilliant article by Dr Kathleen so thank you for the link.

I have some concerns over government published stats. The MoJ report for 2022 states there was a 17% increase in the transgender population with a total of 268 (up from 230) by March 2023. Most were white and ‘legally male’. 225 reported their legal gender as male with 43 as female. 48 of these transgender prisoners were held in female prisons!! 41 self-identified as ‘transgender males’ and five as ‘transgender females’ the remaining two self-identified ‘in a different way’, ‘self-identified as ‘non-binary’ or ‘did not respond’ (it’s only 2 - which is it?). Clearly therefore there are still biological men held in the female estate!).

In addition, 13 prisoners had a GRC (up from 11 in the previous year) but these prisoners were NOT included in the above transgender prisoner totals. It is not stated what their current ‘gender’ is or whether held in male or female prisons.

(The above is from ‘Official Statistics HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2022-23). This report contains ‘the latest information on ….equality objectives, as stated in the EA10’.

Not contained in these figures (and can’t recall the source or where I read it) is that most prisoners claiming to be transgender when arriving in prison ditch this fiction when released!??

There are examples of Police Forces issuing public alerts about escaped prisoners or BOLO but do not approach wanted individual etc. in preferred identity and pronouns. They may even say ‘woman who is known to disguise self as a man.

I can’t find the exact examples that I’d like but these may be interesting.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3945089-Police-accused-of-political-correctness-after-issuing-an-appeal-for-a-sex-attacker-WITHOUT-mentioning-suspect-was-a-man-wearing-a-womans-clothes

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4271775-Woman-arrested-had-intially-been-mistaken-for-a-man

I've also wondered whether trans women are more easily identified or described by the victims, and so more likely to be caught. Rather than, "My attacker was medium height with nondescript hair and maybe a black jacket," they might say, "My attacker was a man with long blonde hair and a pink skirt." Much easier to track this one down. Then again, the attacker could just cut their hair or remove the wig, put on men's clothes and be anonymous. So I don't know.

Just read a powerful post from Kathleen in response to her article. Extract for those not on twitter:

https://x.com/Docstockk/status/1893632718665035787

"It is beyond time for those in relevant professions - health, social care, the police, prisons, etc - to start properly engaging in their own organisations, or at the VERY least actively feeding it into decisions about safeguarding vulnerable women and children. With everything we already know, this should be done already. Why isn't it?? Look at your policies in your professional bodies and workplaces. See how the myth of identity transformation/ personality transplant has infiltrated and changed established norms on safeguarding, and how this might affect women and children who can't defend themselves when chaotic, narcissistic, personality-disordered men are getting up close and personal with them, because your organisation put them there. Don't wait for a scandal. Gather evidence. Find allies. Get a group together and go to the most senior manager available. Write letters. Put it on the agenda at meetings. Whistleblow. Or whatever it takes. Persist until its sorted. Do it responsibly; do it with evidence; do it with care for language and many disclaimers if it makes you feel better; but just do it.
There are many women and some men who have been doing the heavy lifting on truth-telling about such matters for years now; and yet still - after court victories for free speech on gender, clarification of equality law, politicians humiliated for putting savage, disordered men in female prisons, and ample AMPLE evidence of what I am saying below - so many professionals that could be having robust conversations with colleagues, or back up the people that do talk about it in public, stay silent and embarrassed. I don't care if your best pal's daughter says she is a boy; I don't care if your brother-in-law or someone at your church cross-dresses; I don't care what your reasons are. Yes not all trans. Yes not all men. But SOME men.
And safeguarding policies by definition are supposed to deal with the few in order to protect the many. For gods sake, stop being so cowardly and relying on people like me to say what is obviously true and take the flak....."

Milli Hill's substack was quite interesting this week in that it wasn't just a list of where the word woman has been erased and can no longer be used, as usual, but also included examples of where the word woman is front and centre:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-156726895

[I'll give you a clue: in court accused of rape. It's absolutely fine to use the word woman then]

It's not even so much about the violent predators , it is more about the narcissitic, boundary pushing, cross dressers who use women and women's spaces to validate their fantasies and delusions.

Yes - along with the bench book guidelines. I know they're had to roll back on some of the trans extremist aspects in an embarrassed fashion having allowed the self interested to write them for their own ends. But there's still some room to go in terms of stopping all the male paedophiles and sex offenders demanding to be called she in court.

Basically I don't want a system where criminals are gaming it to avoid the (rightful) negative consequences of being a convicted criminal.

The Sentencing Guidelines should be amended to say that being trans in and of itself is not something which allows for any mitigation in relation to sentencing. If there is a vulnerability there which could allow for mitigation, separate to identifying as trans, then that's different, but should be supported with expert evidence. IMO, anyway.

Drawing the distinction is particularly helpful when you have men adopting a trans identity before a court case so that the crime and reporting of the crime is linked to a name and identity that will be dropped as soon as they are released from prison. There was a recent case of a "trans woman" turning up to court, unshaved, men's clothing, men's haircut etc, but with a pink hairband and a female name!

The genuine trans criminals are likely to continue with that identity after release from prison so that it becomes easier to investigate their background.

Basically I don't want a system where criminals are gaming it to avoid the (rightful) negative consequences of being a convicted criminal.

I don't really think drawing a distinction between genuine and non genuine trans identities is helpful. Among those who are genuine - by which I mean truly believe they have a trans identity, we have:

• gender non conforming people who believe in the concept of gender identity
• autistic people who have fixed ideas about gendered rules and norms
• people whose trauma leads them to want to reject their sexed bodies
• people with a paraphilia
• people with personality disorders

I think rather than seeking to categorise by 'vulnerable v not vulnerable', 'harmless v harmful', 'genuine v not genuine', we should recognise that. (I) access to SSS need to be determined by natal sex (ii) there needs to be different treatment pathways for different people with trans identities according to the underlying cause.

I know people don't like to make distinctions and don't like this "genuine" vs "non-geniune", but it is the case with criminals.

We don't have statistics for men who claim a trans identity AFTER being charged with a crime. There have always been cases of men with a variety of fetishes (including cross-dressing) committing crime, but with recent cases it is definitely a case of men assuming trans status just before the court case.

A simple solution would be to prevent men from changing their identity (name/ documented sex etc) after being charged and throughout the whole legal process.

Once that is done it is easier to look at the real numbers and percentages.

Probably, but the last stat I saw was that just under half of all trans identified convicts are in prison for sexual crimes. That’s a huge difference compared to the male prison population as a whole.

Awareness has been helped by greater statistical clarity about reality: for instance, that, according to recent figures, 70 per cent of trans-identified prisoners are incarcerated for sexual assault or violent crime, compared with about 19 per cent of the male prison population generally.

from Stock’s article.

Any man who wants to violate women's boundaries is a bad man, it doesn't matter the reason.

Yes, a good question. What's the difference between a cross dresser and a transwoman? Can a cross dresser become a transwoman? Like Eddie Izzard, for example? How would anyone know? Let me guess, is it 'Because they say so'?

That data's stark isn't it? The chilling impact of #nodebate and the refusal to allow for research has likely set society back by a number of years in terms of being able to assess the level of risk these men present to women and children.

She is brilliant. Such a clear writer and so good to see this being published in a broadsheet.

Archive version https://archive.is/Yqb57

KS says it’s 70% of convicted trans prisoners have crimes involving sex or violence when comparable figure for general male prison population is @ 20%.

Great article, as you’d expect from an exceptionally clear thinker and writer.

That 70% total is really shocking. Over the last 2 years on MN, a graph and explainer has been posted frequently, showing that 48% of trans, versus 18% of the genera prison population are there for offences of a sexual and / or violent nature against women and children.

Are the ones making up the difference of more general violence?

Even Stonewall itself dithers about who is "genuinely trans".

Up until 24th June last year Stonewall had crossdressers in its list of transgender categories. As from that date, they are not included.

Were genuinely trans then but aren't now? Never were genuinely trans? I'd love to know.

We really need to ditch this idea of 'genuine' trans (especially given that the whole thing is about pretending to be something that you're not to begin with). Making that distinction is basically saying that some men claim trans identities in order to commit sex offences and how you tell the real from the fake man pretending to be a woman is a criminal record.

But we cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility that men who claim trans identities are also more likely to commit sex offences.

It is. Still frustratingly tentative though. Despite it becoming more and more obvious.

More discussion of what constitutes a paraphilia would be good. How they cluster and how the public can participate unwittingly, etc. Breezily handing women only spaces over to these men will suddenly seem a lot less about rights, and a lot more about men.

Those stats don't quite answer the question of whether trans identified men are a greater risk to women than the general male population as a whole. It only compares men with convictions. It hints that the gen pop of TW may be at a greater risk of committing violent offences, but does not answer it conclusively. It could be that many claims a trans identity after the fact.

For that to be done we would need to know the % of the male population claiming a trans identity. (I think the last census made a total balls up of that question.) And then look at the conviction rates for this group and compare with the conviction rates for men who are not claiming a trans identity.

This is the stuff that should have been asked and answered before there was any move to have TW in our spaces. But as we now see, women don't really matter. So in they came.