Misgendering and abusive male pattern behaviour

[lisamuggeridge]

As far as I was aware all mothers had a legal responsibilit to identify and stand up to male pattern abusive behaviour. Its fairly well defined, the duluth wheel, intersectionality, case law, we know what abusive behaviour is. If someone is demonstrating male pattern abusive behaviour they are expressing their gender, so how can you be misgendering them by identifying and managing that risk? Are we not legally required to disregard identity when male pattern abusive behaviour is demonstrated? Has this changed?

Sex = male/female
Gender = masculine/feminine

Gender is a socially accepted set of behaviours, attributes and ways of expression seen to be masculine. I do not believe it is something innate in an individual.

Otherwise we need to accept that someone adopting socially conventional masculine behaviours makes you male; someone adopting socially conventional feminine behaviours is female.

I really think the nineteenth to mid-twentieth century power hierarchies you mean were (and remain) sex-based. Women were disadvantaged economically because they were the reproductive class, men were able to exert power over women because of the sexual division of labour.

I agree with you that the Duluth wheel demonstrates predominantly male pattern behaviour, but the thing which makes it male pattern is sex, that it is the penis bearers who are perpetrators in the main, not that they wear suits or hard hats (gendered clothes).

Isn’t that the crux of the matter? That we need to be able to analyse based on categories of sexual difference, not gender as the latter is mutable.

They have said they will consider it at the next office meeting

That is great news - happy to donate to the training costs if MNHQ is finding problems in funding this...when is the next office meeting?

I think its a great idea re: Freedom Programme doing Mumsnet training. Really.

TRAs make a big old fuss about misgendering.

As though it were an act of violence. As though it were an indicator of something that they call Transphobia.

As though it were a hate crime.

It is my understanding that is no such thing as a transphobic hate crime. It doesn't exist on the statute books. However, TRAs have persuaded the government that one should be created.

Not only that. They may have persuaded the government that transphobic hate crimes should be seen as 'aggravated' criminal offences. Magistrates and Justices would have to hand out heavier penalties for transphobically aggravated offences.

Until such time as there is a law against it, then we do not have to be brow-beaten into accepting that misgendering is a thing.

But here's the important bit. Since misgendering is a made-up tactic to gag unbelievers, we need to challenge the government's plans to introduce 'transphobic' crimes. There is a big difference between assaulting a transperson because they are trans, and calling someone 'Mister'.

Marking my place to read in the morning

So far I have ONLY seen transphobia used to silence those clearly being faced with male pattern abusive behaviour. Inclusion in equality legislation does ont get you dominion over other people, it is barely recognition equality is contested., this notion that it and gender recognition means women have to lose the ability to identify and manage male pattern abusive behaviour, that it means safeguarding is done and gives one group dominion over all others is batshit. The media debate on this is extraordinary, and yet here we are, a safeguarding debate requested, women now threatened routinely and a massive demonstration of male pattern abusive behaviour as activism with institutional backing. THAT is what will jeapordise trans rights, not mothers pointig out existing law and responsibilities and the context.

Oh hi Snappity you're back. You went a bit quiet, once the other thread called you out on describing sport that denoted women's sports as 'patronising as fuck' and your suggestion that women should look at new sports such as 'ducking under a bar'.

Nice to have you back, commenting on women's issues. I thought you'd decided to post a lot less, after the rational and overwhelming challenge to your points that followed.

But good to seeing you go after Lisa. Seeing as she's a familiar target for trans rights activistis, I'm really not surprised the kraken has been awakened!

As over 90% of care orders are made with the mother as the primary applicant(Cafcass website, national statistics, or I could send you the original research I have done repeatedly monitoring this, and as violent offending rates are similarly at 95-98% sex split am not entirely sure of the reason for the confusion and as the freedom programme, criminal law, public family law and private family law have been shaped around this and this is the core of intersectionality, in fact this IS intersectionality, I am confused as to why you would be confused by any of this. Are you sure its confusion cos those rates dont change year on year, the sex split doesnt change..

Oh wait, the word confusion wasnt what I was looking for. There is no confusion here because these things are static which is why wre have laws and systems that are shaped by this. There is no confusion here, because when you are discussing splits in offending rates and care application rates and the sex split is regularlt in the over 90% one way, then there cant be any confusion can there. That would be ludicrous. Male pattern abusive behaviour is the correct term, we do have sits of political responsibility for it and mothers are the bottom line of that political responsibility and htis is Mumsnet so every mother on here knows this bottom line. So I dont think it can be confusion at all, I think its something else much more familiar.

and an obscene level of obsession with sex.

I just wanted to mention the absolute truth of this. I'm sure a lot of transpeople are living quietly, etc, but those transactivists on twitter, those transwomen posting on hashtags like #GirlsLikeUs - it's all a porntastic obsession.

It's on a level that is of real concern to the safety of vulnerable children - especially when you see 10yr old grag queens paraded about. This is grooming. Male sexual rights - and women and children's boundaries and safety being eroded.

The level of influence from porn, the hyper sexualised avatars of little girls, using teenage girls as an expression of your internal sexual identity. Its extreme. That ois what jeapordises trans rights. THat that has been accepted and normalised and seen as synonymous. Not women discussing existing law and being able to recognise a dangerous male.

Placemarking.

Me too (place marking)

Can I clarify (as not familiar with Lisa and I can be hard of reading - Hi Lisa) that it is being said that a male may claim that their gender identity is 'woman' and try to demonstrate that fact by performing femininity, but that their behaviour clearly reveals their gender socialisation (and therefore sex) to be male.

Wolf in sheep's clothing wrt abuse?

Therefore it is not 'misgendering' to name anyone showing male abuse patterns that show (prove) them to be male underneath clothing and make up. (Actions louder than words/ pronouns/dresses)

Therefore it is not 'misgendering' to name anyone showing male abuse patterns that show (prove) them to be male underneath clothing and make up. (Actions louder than words/ pronouns/dresses)

*name them as man not woman, I meant to say

and that we need to be able to name the abuse and shine a light on it to see it for what it is.

You cannot misgender someone expressing male pattern abusive behaviour and flying more red flags tan a Royal Wedding has bunting, cos thats them expressing their gender in every way you are required to notice. Not only do you have a legal responsibility, but for your own safety you cant do that and normal relations and abusive relations cannot co-exist, if male pattern abusive behaviour is being demonstrated there is no expectation that someone will pay attention to your inner feelings or identity. The only role identity has in that equation is that it is in that case driving male pattern abusive behaviour. There is NO confusion over what male pattern abusive behavioour is, I don't have to clarify #notallmen, but I do have to clarify that when male abusive behaviour is being demonstrated it is a termination of ALL other relations until it is addressed. Its like cork in wine. You cant have a normal relationship with someone who 'occasionally' likes to place boundaries on it with violence. The abusive act defines the relationship and the abusers identity is irrelevant when that behaviour is demonstrated. Male pattern abusive behaviour didnt become unchallengeable womanhood. Its not.

If someone is demonstrating male pattern abuse and you have to manage it you have correctly identified their gender, the dissonance between how they see their behaviour and how you see it is just not yours to manage. No law is going to make it so, so the question is why is the debate in certain institutions not aware of this.

Thank you Lisa. I only meant to simplify for me becasue I have difficulty readig sometimes. I wasn;t meaning to criticise you/ your views.

Yes I agree completely agree. Any special courtesy that a person might request shoud be denied if they reveal themselves to be an abusive person. The truth of their actions defines them more than anything else, especially anything they might define themselves as. I find it so offensive that women are asked to accept behaviour that has been used to oppress and control women as being female. It is another kick in the guts.

With regard to certain MH conditions, as well as misogyny-based abuse, I am concerned that some may have the need to try to idenitfy away from certain behaviours or thoughts they possess, but that superficial transtition does not remove the underlying problem.

I agree with all you say Lisa and what disturbs me profoundly is the censoring on here of discussion about sex offenders and the current plus potential abuse of self Id by them - wannabes and as well as.convicted - as being uncivil and anti-trans- WTF.

Who gets to ducking make one's identity above the safeguarding of women and children? Informed discussion is what's needed that isn't derailed every second comment by whataboutery enabled by the Stonewalled mod policy

Something is very wrong when safeguarding is subjugated and perverted to identity politics and a male's entitled ego and behaviour.

I keep saying the Wolf in Red Riding Hood was dressed as Grandma - why is it such an issue to talk the Grandma Wolves and safeguarding against them?

Suddenly we're supposed to adopt a stance that all those who believe they can change sex are unchallengeable and that none of them would or have ever abused a child or woman when we can see they display all those dangerous behavioural red flags. We have to take them at their word and believe all of them? It's insane.

My point is that to manage male pattern abusive behaviour, you have to correctly identify someone’s sex, not their gender because gender is a make up concept.

You said the sex split in abusive behaviour is something like 90%. That is right, it is a sex split. Talking about gender when you mean sex confuses matters. They can identify as female, but if they are demonstrating male pattern behaviour and are a natal male, it is their sex and sex based socialisation which is the determinant. That is the whole entire problem with taking gender as the category for recording offences, it does not mean anything if you can identify as the other gender. At least it does not mean anything in terms of analysing sex based differences.

I get that you did not post for word confusion but it is one thing I struggle with. Domestic abuse is now referred to as gender-based violence, which means that anyone identifying as female will be seen through the victim lens, whereas we know based on sex, male people are more likely to be perpetrators. So do we mean gender-based or sex-based violence?

Is domestic violence an expression of gender or sex? I would have said both, but if a perpetrator identifies as female, is natally male, is that person really expressing their female gender or reverting predominantly to male sex role behaviours/masculinity (dominance, power and control)?

That is all. The language of gender and misgendering muddies the waters, which i think is your point, that you cannot misgender. But it muddies the waters because the determinant is sex and sex based (male/female) socialisation.

Snappity new to you? Context you were not aware of? Children Act updated 2005, women can lose their kids for failing to properly recognise MALE pattern abusive behaviour and can be mandated by law to attend courses learning how to. Freedom Programme comes to mind. This is 100% correct. I was on the Freedom course after I went to women's aid for help Of the 20 women on the course 1 had had their 4 children removed by SS because they were still with their (male) abuser and 3 because SS thought there was a risk that they would take their abuser back. Living in a household where a father abuses the mother is a abuse of a child even if the child is never directly physically or verbally abused themselves

I assume team snappity are busy discussing which of them has expertise to field this thread. I’m guessing none of them. One of them could benefit from doing the freedom programme though.

PS I knew myself and my children were being abused. It was never physical. I didn't understand why (as in the Duluth wheel and male pattern abuse) until I did the Freedom program. All the tactics are so clearly displayed by TRA (note I said TRA not trans people)