Gender Identity Specialists warn of “ever increasing tide” of Transwoman Sex Offenders

[QueenStromba]

The British Association of Gender Identity Specialists have agreed with radfems about the transgender movement attracting sexual predators. They claim to have dealt with an increasing number of incarcerated sexual predators who they believe to be pretend transexuals who wish to transition to gain special privileges and access vulnerable women. They are also worried that they have lost the right to not treat individuals who they believe are not really transgender or who will pose a threat once transitioned.

The relevant excerpt of their testimony to the parliamentary committee looking into the GRA is here at Gender Trender and the whole testimony can be found as a PDF here and makes for interesting reading.

Commitment to some form of treatment programme (as ego mentioned earlier) is the obvious suggestion, isn't it? Would that be practicable?

Ego's solution was mandatory immediate hormones and surgery.

That would be contravening The Equality Act Irene. Trans is a protected characteristic and that protection kicks in as soon as someone says they are trans.

I see it as a bit like the Catholic priesthood. Obviously not all Catholic priests are paedophiles but it's a position that was attractive to paedophiles due to the access to children and the fact that the church would cover for you and move you on if you got found out (I say was because things seem to be changing at last). Trans is the same. Not all trans are sexual predators but it's something that would be attractive to sexual predators because it gives access to vulnerable women and the trans propaganda machine will protect you if you are found out (as long as you are deemed proper trans).

I thought that the Equality Act referred to trans people who were undergoing or had undergone a recognised course of treatment?

Right now in the UK the gatekeepers are the clinicians, I don't think that anyone can just declare they are a woman can they? I thought at least some treatment/therapy of some sort was required? (I'm not in the UK anymore so could be wrong about that).

By the way I wasn't downplaying the report, I think it's fascinating, worrying and not really too surprising. A bit naive of the clinicians not to realise that there might be trouble ahead. I just think that it wasn't entirely honest to say that there was a rising tide of Transwoman Sex Offenders, because the implication is that more and more sex offenders are transwomen, when the sex offenders were all bog standard men when they committed their crimes.

Of course if large numbers of men successfully become classified as transwomen and get out and commit more crimes (which is quite possible) then there would indeed be a whole new group of criminal transwomen.

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

My reading of this is that all you have to do to be classed as transgender and protected under the equality act is to tell a doctor that you are transgender and would like treatment.

I think there are three different groups defining trans - transactivists, HCPs, and the law.

As far as transactivists are concerned, anyone who says they are a woman is a woman and always has been. To disagree would be considered transphobic.

So these sex offenders are trans women, and certainly protected in law as transgender.

'Commitment to some form of treatment programme (as ego mentioned earlier) is the obvious suggestion, isn't it? Would that be practicable?'

Isn't a large part of the point raised in that document is that it isn't up to the patient to decide whether or not they should get to participate in a reassignment programme? As they point out:

"There are no other aspects of the National Health Service in
which patients need only to have their lack of insanity confirmed before being in a position to decide exactly what professionals will be obliged to prescribe to them and what surgical procedures they will be obliged to perform upon them."

And that doctors should not be put under political pressure to treat people where they think the treatment would cause harm, one of the reasons being given that:

"In practical application, the worrying prisoner described in the paragraph above would be in a position to oblige medical practitioners to advance a plan the basis of which is the facilitation of subsequent sexual assault."

Beachcomber mentioned an analysis by Janice Raymond upthread, has anyone got a link to that? My google-fu is failing me today.

Hey Fingles, I was talking about her book "The Transsexual Empire". I have a print copy but I'm pretty sure if you Google it as PDF it is online.

AFAIK, the Equality Act requires us to treat anyone as trans, who says they are trans. No medical treatment or diagnosis necessary.

Since "genuine" trans are about 0.5% of the population, they may easily be outnumbered by "fake" ones, gender trenders or much worse:
e.f. abusive men who pursue a female partner into changing rooms, or who would rather serve time in a women's jail than in a men's one.

These all just have to say "I identify as female". Their crimes & misbehaviour may soon seriously affect how most people regard trans.

Oops, gender benders

Thanks, Beachcomber - another one for my Christmas list.

You're welcome. It is an interesting book particularly because it is one of the first published analyses of transgenderism (and a book that is hugely criticised mostly by people who haven't read it). It is slightly dated now however, as it was written pre internet. One I haven't got round to reading yet but which is contemporary is "Gender Hurts" by Sheila Jeffreys - it is quite expensive so maybe worth trying to get from a library.

That is pricey, and the library here doesn't have it. I'll put it on the What To Spend My Christmas Amazon Vouchers On List.

but they are most likely not transwomen but men claiming to be trans. That is an important distinction

I'm another one here to say that this is currently no distinction at all. We are told again and again that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, and that we mustn't be gatekeepers.

If any of us referred in public, Ego, to "men claiming to be trans", we'd be ripped apart, have people call our employers, shunned on social media, etc, for our terrible, terrible transphobia.

The British Psychological Society's testimony is in and they've said pretty much the exact same thing. They also agree on 'informed consent' and the loss of the ability to turn down medical treatment.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19471.html

"Some transgender people in the criminal justice system have been unfairly discriminated against in terms of the provision of access to transgender related healthcare services. This should be addressed as a matter of Department of Justice policy.

Conversely, psychologists working with forensic patients are aware of a number of cases where men convicted of sex crimes have falsely claimed to be transgender females for a number of reasons:

As a means of demonstrating reduced risk and so gaining parole;
As a means of explaining their sex offending aside from sexual gratification (e.g. wanting to ‘examine’ young females);
Or as a means of separating their sex offending self (male) from their future self (female).
In rare cases it has been thought that the person is seeking better access to females and young children through presenting in an apparently female way. 

Such strategies in no way affect risk an indeed may increase it. Some people falsely believe that taking oestrogen and blocking androgen in males will reduce risk of offending, however this is not necessarily the case.

Consequently the Society recommends that the Government give appropriate assistance to transgender people within the criminal justice system; while being extremely cautious of setting law and policy such that some of the most dangerous people in society have greater latitude to offend."

Or as a means of separating their sex offending self (male) from their future self (female).

Oh, this makes sense - it seems to be very much like what is happening with the Sarah Nyberg case. "I was that person then, but I'm better now." Cue a torrent of validation and support for their "bravery".

"Some people falsely believe that taking oestrogen and blocking androgen in males will reduce risk of offending, however this is not necessarily the case."

Interesting.

Ok so Iv only read the first few posts so excuse me if this has been mentioned.

If a male is serving a sentence for something that would classify them as a sex offender (against a female esp), why should they be allowed to transition to a female.

To me that is like letting a child abuser adopt a child.

Sorry if that is a crude/glib response but given the fact they are proven to be a danger to females why should they have the right to "disguise" themselves as female.

I should state I am very supportive of people rights to change gender as the mother of a mtf son, so that's a not the issue for me I think the issue is that certain men are obviously (probably) lying to gain access to more victims, in the same way child sex offenders insert themselves in to vulnerable families for the same purpose and why should they be allowed to!

Sorry that should have read ftm son!