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?

Domestic abuse and sexual abuse used to be hidden and accepted modes of control in a family unit where women and children were OWNED. It is onlt the late seventies where we have really, as a society, broken that and with that comes legal and social policy reflection of power dynamics inherent. It is MALE pattern abuse and is about subordination of women. Always has been. Gender is bollocks, a system of subordination, THIS system of subordination. Women in the twentieth century organised to generate systems. Domestic abuse IS gender. The sex split is right and consistently demonstrated because the behaviour is gender and gender is a system of subordination. Its why the idea of it being an internal identity is so stupid. Its the violence and systemic backup. This is new. Very new. That we can call this deviant. It used to be just how you control women and kids. Women did that.

Demanding women do not notice or comment on dissonance between how someone sees themselves and how they behave is setting women and kids up to be unable to protect themselves.

Demanding women do not notice or comment on dissonance between how someone sees themselves and how they behave is setting women and kids up to be unable to protect themselves.

THIS.

And that includes, I am sorry to say MNHQ, demanding these patterns are not remarked upon on this message board, even when they are actually happening on here let alone elsewhere.

Please, please have the mods do the Freedom Progamme. Perhaps then you might understand what so many of us have been trying to tell you and why we have all got so angry and upset about it.

Demanding women do not notice or comment on dissonance between how someone sees themselves and how they behave is setting women and kids up to be unable to protect themselves.

This. You’ve expressed it here Lisa from the more legal/sociological point of view (which is not my area of expertise at all) but this is what I have spent hours on here banging on about in a medical context.

The pushing of such things as: confidential disclosure, parental alienation, direct YouTube ‘marketing’ to minors sets up that disconnect.
The medicalisation of children then institutionalises it. When things like puberty blockers are being pushed with incorrect and potentially damaging misinformation we have a huge problem. Parents are not being given accurate medical information and/or they are trying to push for watch and wait in an environment where people are telling their kids to ‘get new parents’ and ‘find your rainbow family.’ How can those parents make evidence based choices?

If we then have the law on conversation therapy go through including gender, we set up a situation where it becomes illegal to deny affirmative treatment.

That then creates a direct conflict between a parent who wishes to protect their child vs lobby groups pushing for earlier medicalisation.

When you add that to the push to erode boundaries (entering female spaces, no you have no right to challenge, you’re the one with the problem, lesbians must have sex with penises) it just gets worse.

It’s absolutey chilling. this needs to be talked about very plainly in public there are things I’d like to say about this on here but I’m fairly sure they’d result in reporting, so I shan’t, but the above sums it up in more measured terms I think.

Why are adults pushing for demedicalisation for adults, early medicalisation for children and reduced sexual and personal boundaries for everyone?

It absolutely does. Once you remove the consideration of identity from the centre and focus on demands and behaviour what you have is a group of people who are biologically male, demanding we teach kids to ignore their own boundaries, teach kids to doubt the material reality of their own bodies and hand their perception of this to adults(???!!!NO), teach children their bodies may be wrong and should be fixed to fit not their needs but the needs of adult actvists to feel depathologised, we have demands that women's perception is subordinated, that women noting the dissonance between what you sayu and do be treated as hatespeech, discussing existing laws protecting women and kids as hatespeech deserving of violence, demands that women do not have freedom of assemly or even the freedom to discuss matters on a parenting website, we have demands that lesbians overcome their sexuality and that not only should lesbians be abused for refusing to do dick, that other women are required to kick them out of feminism or face attack. This is policed with violence, threats, threats to livelihood which are acted on, defamation, targeting, harassment and abuse. We are simultaneously told that prolific and extreme violent offenders are now the most marginalised women and the actual most marginalised women, mental health patients and prisoners, who are likely to have a history of trauma from male bodies have to be sacrificed to this altar. Funny how things look once you wont get caught up in someone's identity and you say actually we will look at your demands nad behaviour in context of other people. And the only thing poster(s) like Snappity can see is their own identity. Which is why every conversation has to be derailed into that identity. Actually your identity as an adult is not anyone elses to manage and these demands are disturbing. I dont know who on earth has told these people that these demands are about womanhood but they certainly are not and the number of people wishing to be seen as virtuous supporting this is terrifying.

I am completely lost with your argument that domestic abuse IS gender, I am afraid.

Its not an argument. Up until the twentieth century women were owned, in a system of subordination and had few rights. At the beginning of the 21st we have laws and systems reflecting the abuse and harm that used to be hidden within that family unit. Gender is external constructs, a system of subordination which keeps women down with abuse, and women emancipated themselves from it/ If you demonstrate male pattern abusive behaviour you are demonstrating your gender by showing women you are a risk which they have to manage and they have legal responsibility to manage and they no longer are to consider your identity. Its not my argument. If you are attempting to subordinate women and get access to their kids you are expressing that you are dangerous, and they are not responsible for whatever you are telling yourself. You have expressed your gender. Rape is expressing your gender, sexual abuse is expressing your gender, domestic abuse is expressing your gender.

The only confusing thing is why some people have internalised this system as theur identity and now appear to believe the systems protecting from violence and abuse are a threat to their identity we must dissolve to appease them. Except thats not confusing either...not even new.

Here you go. Crenshaw is more eloquent than I. www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf Please note how old the paper is. Its not new.

Stonewall centre Trans Adults their ideology.

'Trans Children' are merely a prop to support the position of Trans Adults. They are a necessary part to normalise the presence of trans adults in society. They are a necessary tool with which to justify agressive behaviour against women; calling them Terfs and trying to silence them by intimidation.

This is why we the idea that children who may be trans child must be supported in all circumstances without any nuance. Against what the Tavistock are saying when they express concerns and highlight desistance rates.

Desistance delegitimises the Stonewall position because it give power to parents; and in particular women, to challenge or to question the narrative or to stand up to pressure to comply.

The importance of desistance in children, is relevant to children and young people - it follows a particular pattern which should be studied. Its not relevant to grown adults in their 30s and 40s and beyond who present late. Its like comparing Type 1 diabetes with Type 2 diabetes.

Stonewall support a position based on junk science. The crap they have about suicide is about as good as science backing up homopathy. They use the power of statistics as against women and children by peddling this level of absoluete rot. It is difficult to challenge institutions when 'trusted' bodies combined with state institutions are lined up against you.

At no point is the central needs and issues relating to children first ever come up in Stonewall's doctrine.

Children being trans without question is also central to those lobby groups who deal with children. Organisations which have a high proportion of parents with children who are trans running them. The idea of desistance, raises questions about their own responsibilities and actions. Preventing questioning about desistance isn't about new children presenting as trans. Its about justifying historic actions and the best way to do that is to normalise those actions by making others take the same steps.

Whether this is the right decision for that particular child becomes a secondary point to the overall ideology. They are not treated as individuals they are treated as part of the trans community. Questioning whether this particular child might have different needs and issues, is viewed as an affront to the entire community. This lack of ability to see children as individuals with unique circumstances in every case is bordering on cult like, because it is about supporting the position of leadership of the group.

Children who are not able to consent are placed in a position where access to information is restricted. Only one option is presented. Together with a community which does not acknowledge desistance as an option.

The term 'undue pressure' is one which pops up in medical ethics. Patients should not be placed under 'undue pressure'. The same goes for guardians of patients who are minors.

The reason for this, is to ensure decisions are made in a healthy environment which allows people to make properly informed decisions.

The targetting of children particularly, with the suggestion that its 'support' whilst also having extension lobbying interests and funding from adult trans fund raisers, raises some concerns about a healthy environment.

The issue where parents live in fear and can not challenge relationships which would look suspect for any other child, also put trans children at particular risk of being targetted or groomed for nefarious reasons.

Everywhere you look, trans children come last in terms of how they are considered. Everywhere you look, the role of women is systematically put to one side and the child separated from their influence and protection.

Lisa puts it in a different way and in language relevant to her occupation but the same thing holds true.

Look at the lines of power and where women and children fall. Their importance is devalued and sidelined in comparisons to children who are not trans.

This is important. It is not hysteria. Children who being identified as trans should have equal protection to any other child. If it is quite obvious that is not the case, this in itself should raise alarm bells about frameworks.

This isn't saying that trans people are a threat to children. Its saying the frameworks that advocates for trans people are creating are deeply flawed. Its saying that children are at the bottom of the pile in terms of thought processes and power dynamics and this in itself creates risk.

The flouting of existing ethics protocols and safeguarding structures to almost make a 'special case' exposes those children to unethical behaviour and potentially unsafe situations, whether it is unintentional or not.

red tooth brush

Excellent post.

You have expressed your gender. Rape is expressing your gender, sexual abuse is expressing your gender, domestic abuse is expressing your gender … The only confusing thing is why some people have internalised this system as theur identity

Firstly, rape is sexual assault. I have been raped, it was nothing to do with my 'gender' or the perpetrators' genders, it was to do with their sex, they possessed penises.

Domestic abuse is about power hierarchies between the sexes (male/female) which sociologists and others have called gender-based hierarchies because they are about socially constructed hierarchies, if you want to distinguish between what is socially driven and what is biological difference. But the point is that gender hierachies are based on sexual function in society and the way male/female people are socialised.

The whole system of hierarchy which was in place in the nineteenth century was based on an understanding of biology which posited that women were enfeebled by the flux of menstruation, reproduction and their bodies - and literally the 'weaker sex'. In other words, gender hierarchies were based on sex differences and the perception of sex differences. Feminists and sociologists used the language of gender to show that these were socially constructed and malleable.

To your point about not seeing why people then take on this system as their identity, by saying male perpetrators are expressing 'their gender', you are ascribing them that identity as 'gender' - you cannot express a gender if you don't have one. That is my point. In other words, your argument presupposes that male abusers are expressing their gender, whereas I would say they are positioned/acting within a socially sanctioned range of behaviours (gendered behaviours), which are socially sanctioned because they are male, that is based on sex difference. They are expressing gendered behaviours, not their gender, because they have a sex, not a gender.

I am not disputing that gendered hierarchies of power existed in the nineteenth century, and still exist now. I am saying that they are based on sex difference, and that gendered behaviour is masculine/feminine attributes, not male/female which is sex.

Great post, Red.

Its about justifying historic actions and the best way to do that is to normalise those actions by making others take the same steps.

This is a very distressing thought.

Greats posts Red & Lisa

Everywhere you look, trans children come last in terms of how they are considered. Everywhere you look, the role of women is systematically put to one side and the child separated from their influence and protection.

This isn't saying that trans people are a threat to children. Its saying the frameworks that advocates for trans people are creating are deeply flawed. Its saying that children are at the bottom of the pile in terms of thought processes and power dynamics and this in itself creates risk.

The flouting of existing ethics protocols and safeguarding structures to almost make a 'special case' exposes those children to unethical behaviour and potentially unsafe situations, whether it is unintentional or not.

So how does this sound as a summary using my terminology? NB hoping Lang will chime in:

The frameworks used by trans advocates are directly at odds with the child centred safeguard frameworks already established in law and policy.

Three major flaws are immediately apparent with their approach: firstly the “one size fits all” approach recommended by trans advocates is directly at odds with the existing child centred approach of the safeguarding frameworks. Secondly parents are excluded from any discussions about what’s appropriate for their child or have undue influence applied to them, again in sharp contradiction to the recommendations of the existing frameworks. Thirdly, the multi-agency and cross skill and experience integration, that forms the heart and basis of best practice for child centred safeguarding, is also discarded in the approach advocated by trans advocates.

To be continued later.....

yes Katara it is. That sexual assault, the domestic abuse, the routine subordination of women, the reason it is STILL supported in many ways by our system is because it is what gender is. Power relations between the sexes and the gender is the behaviour, the violence, the abuse, that shapes womens lives in a way it does not shape mens lives. So routine that we have theorretical frameworks laws and commonly understood systems, so alien to men that in this debate they were ont considered. Yes. Gender is male pattern abuse. thats what gender has always been and what it remains. When someone rapes you they are shaping your gender and expressig theirs in a way that cannot be undone for you, but can apparently be undone if they say they are now a woman.

And when we have laws and systems that protect against abuse that are more than a generationish old, we can pretend its not gender. It is. That is exactly what gender is and there is no right of an abusive male to express their gender that way and then have you cobsider their inner identity. Cos thats not lawful.

Gender is male pattern abuse. thats what gender has always been and what it remains. When someone rapes you they are shaping your gender and expressig theirs in a way that cannot be undone for you, but can apparently be undone if they say they are now a woman.

how are they shaping my gender? I don't have a gender, I have a sex.

Gender is a power dynamic which deliberately places women at the bottom below men.

[Biological] Sex is a neutral term. You are either one or another.
Gender because it favours one sex over another is not neutral.

Replacing sex with gender is fucking with power dynamics.

It is reimposing power structures which laws against sexual discrimination outlawed.

I dont know. How many ways is your life shaped by managing the risk of male violence? I can name hundreds of ways mine is, I can tell you which way I walk, I can tell you what I hold in my hands, the paths I avoid after certain times of night, the dates I avoid, the red flags I look out for, I assess all partners in terms of risk to my daughter first and foremost, I have to manage the risk of male violence like a fish swimming in water, so much so that only when I reflect on it do I realise it is odd. You ask a man how many ways his life is shaped by it. He wont be able to tell you. The sex split with offences is that women manage and are put on trial for failing to manage male pattern abusive behaviour. THat is in fact gender. When you beat a woman, rape her, threaten her, attempt to subordinate her you are expressing your gender. Gender is reflected in our laws and systems by marking out abuse and its further expressed in the complete lack of awareness of these systems by anyone but women, which has been revealed in this madness. Thats what gender is. A system of subordination were that violence was upheld as a right and the ONLY reason women of our generation can do anytthing outside gender roles is our mothers, grandmothers, and great grandmothers emancipated themselves from that violence and fought for the laws that we have. If we dont have those laws, those systems, and the ability to managae that risk we are owned again. THAT is gender. Men do not have to worry about that. Women do. Which is I think partly at the root of this. The last days of that and all of a sudden I am to respect males who have made gender their identity and want to use it to express male pattern abuse and not be noticed for it.

That is my point, red, I will no longer use gender to try to describe power dynamics, which happen because of sexual differences and the way sexual difference is understood by society.

Male-pattern behaviour means of the male sex.

I understand gender in the way Lisa speaks about it. Rather than a set of sexist stereotypes and behavioural tropes in and of itself, it is the wielding of the power relationship that results in those sexist stereotypes and behavioural tropes. So "gender" is the wielding of power inequality (or the inability to wield it). This power structure is sex-based.

Its not just behaviour though is it Katara? The reason women in the 20th century could emerge into the world is that we started to learn to free ourselves and others from that, we developed laws, laws which many countries dont have yet and you cant separate out rape, domestic abuse, child abuse from gender and say they are behaviours because its the legal protections from that that allow us to live freely, work, study, be who we can be and protect our kids. When they are undermined that is gone and we are back to a century ago. Done. Dusted. That easy.

The frameworks used by trans advocates are directly at odds with the child centred safeguard frameworks already established in law and policy.

Yes. Because they (deliberately) ignore the needs of girls without a trans identity. And because they (not deliberately) place a child with a trans identity at risk of abuse (by an adult of any identity, trans or otherwise) by creating safeguarding blindspots, such as confidential disclosures and no checks and balances provided by multi-agency teams. And because they encourage parental alienation. With regard to SEND children in particular, some of the school guidance provided by trans lobby groups may actually be unlawful.

Women lack the power to use the law that protects them to protect them.

Laws govern behaviours, that is what they exist for. But those with power can avoid, manipulate and change the law. Also behaviour.