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?

NB hoping Lang will chime in

Lisa is right when she characterises this is as transactivism requesting a safeguarding debate. With regard to children, the question transactivism is asking is:

What is the best way to protect the wellbeing of a trans-identified child at school?

And the best pithy response I can come up with is:

The answer to that question is not to remove all the safeguarding measures that make children vulnerable to abusers.

This is completely separate to the stuff about competing rights and accommodating trans-identified children at school should be achieved without compromising the rights of other children. Which obviously also needs addressing.

I am so angry at the way that 'gender' as in gender roles/ gender socialisation/ gender stereotypes, has been co-opted to mean 'gender identity' and 'gnder expression' in the trans way of having a feeling or belief of being the opposite sex and expressing that superficially.

It is yet another thing that makes it very difficult for women (and children) to articulate their experiences. Funny that.

Some trans people knew that the goal of changing sex could never be won (obviously) and so went after gender; abusing and 'transing' the meaning of word itself to suit their purposes. As with the word woman, and the meaning of biological sex. Grr. Is there nothing that some people will not subvert, convert or manipulate.

Laws were fought for by women who were never protected from that behaviour before and they had to emancipate themselves and their children without those laws, we have social policy systems that still havent caught up and we have media and politics institutions using terf to threaten us with violence because they dont want to recognise these laws. THAT is also gender.

I cannot see how an identity which requires subordination of women, dissolution of safeguarding, and which cannot feel valid unless women are forced to validate it can be seen as ANYTHING but masculinity. To demand that that behaviour be deemed enough that women lose ability to even name an recognise abusive behaviour is extraordinary. You are damn right that is a gender identity right there. And women should take note.

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... Rape is expressing your gender, sexual abuse is expressing your gender, domestic abuse is expressing your gender.

This is such an important point, Lisa. So many people, even many feminists, seem to think 'expressing gender' is primarily about clothing and other external markers.

Hence David Bowie was regularly described as 'gender non-conforming' simply because he sometimes dressed in feminine clothing and wore make-up. Whereas a truly gender non-conforming man is one who consciously seeks to unlearn patterns of dominance and entitlement towards women and children.

And this lazy assumption carries over into trans politics, whereby most people assume that male people who identify as trans are rejecting masculinity and taking on femininity simply because they adopt feminine appearance norms. Whereas within femininity there is a whole host of sex roles that have nothing to do with appearance, such as doing the bulk of the care work, the housework, and subordinating one's own needs to others', which most men who adopt a 'woman identity' don't seem interested in at all.

In the same vein, putting on lipstick and demanding to be called 'she' doesn't mean that a man has rejected male-dominant behaviours, as the behaviour of many trans activists shows. (And I'd argue the latter behaviour is male dominance in action.) At base, gender is not about eyeliner and pronouns. Gender is about male entitlement to women's bodies, labour and lives.

Okay, I am checking out now. I do not understand what you mean by gender. And I am getting more puzzled by the minute. When I was being raped, when I was abused by my husband, I was not expressing my gender, in one case I was asleep, it was my female body, I could not express anything. I inhabit a female body, it is not my gender. Gender is what people call the power structure I have to navigate in my female body and the attributes which are regarded as masculine and feminine.

Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.

Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.

I agree. I prefer the term 'sex roles' for that reason.

At some point feminists started using 'gender' instead of the earlier term 'sex roles', and then the rest of the world started suing 'gender' as a synonym for 'sex', and now it has a double meaning.

Things would be a lot clearer if feminists returned to using sex (for bio sex) and sex roles (for gender).

Sorry for the abuse you suffered Katara

I didn't mean to talk over your experiences.

I can understand if you want to leave the thread.

‘Gender obfuscates, it does not clarify anything.’

I agree, it is better to do away with the word altogether, just use male pattern behaviour. It is the behaviour of males that is the issue. I agree with Sheila Jeffery’s that when we use the word ‘gender’ to describe the abusive behaviour patterns males use to control women, it muddies the waters and make thing far less clear. She suggests using the words sex role to refer to stereotypical behaviours, and I think using male pattern behaviour to describe their dominance behaviour is much better and clearer.

Also you get men who say ‘I do not express that behaviour, therefore I must have a female gender’, it is sex that matters not gender.

I am so sorry if you thought I was saying you were expressing something. No you werent. Thats the point with abusive male pattern behaviour, it creates power relations that only one party chooses. I am so sorry if I upset you. I am ill and half crabby and looking at screen and watching stuff and I would not wish to. x

lisamuggeridge

I believe that the identification of the systemic failures in the prison system are demonstrating many of the central issues.

The difference in male / female offender profiles has been long recognised and was highlighted in recent Govt report.

Correlation with women prisoners who have experienced DV, MH, male pattern abuse, low literacy, former LAC etc

Consequences of cutting funding to specialist supportive services (both statuatory and voluntary sector).

Highlights the catastrophic consequences of private management of the prison service. (see also treatment of refugees Yarls Wood etc)

Disregard of whistle-blowing by prison governors, officers, unions & prison reform charities & the impact of austerity on those employed.

Highlights the consequences of political involvement, lobbying and how judicial decisions have contributed.

The prison system is broken and there have been systemic failures in safeguarding vulnerable adults and the duty of care in both male and female estates.

Its the sheer callous disregard. I know Newhall prison and the profile of prisoners there is terrible, its short sentences, breaches of orders, drugs, and bloke offences and the need to understand this here is immense and clearly there was just no regard for it at any level. I dont know what newhall is like now but they were not a good prison to begin with, the callous disregard for prisoners there was awful compared to places like Ashkam Grange, these are not women who are believed and protected at all. This is beyond awful.

But I think this blindspot has always been the case and it needs correcting, and I think this is a natural extension of a political culture who only know how to protect identity and dont want to acknowledge any of this. Out of sight out of mind.

Absolutely (I have some relevent background too).

I'll try to find, it but there was a pretty robust interview on R4 this week which pushed the point with regards the systemic failure. It was in the context of consequences of failure to answer cell bells but has wider relevence.

I think some media are asking increasingly searching questions.

The focus is (I think) increasingly on those whose motivation is identity & personal gain.

That 4 women are alleged to have been sexually assaulted at Newhall is beyond sickening. The warnings were made explicitly.

But I think this blindspot has always been the case and it needs correcting, and I think this is a natural extension of a political culture who only know how to protect identity and dont want to acknowledge any of this. Out of sight out of mind.

Spot on - the lack of of practical coal face experience is so systemic now and is one reason I have doubts about anyone who is assessing the input for the GRA consultation, never mind about knowing how to reform nor operate welfare, justice, prison services, education and health etc - has anybody looked at the credentials of the GRA assessors?

Spot on - the lack of of practical coal face experience is so systemic now

Absolutely!

Spot on - the lack of of practical coal face experience is so systemic now.

Yes. Nobody can even see their service users, let alone understand what their needs might be.

That debate is basically trans activists demanding that conversation, cos this us just too far. This is just too far. I have never seen anything like this, its both ridiculous and terrifying.

As you say, the extremist transactivists are the ones demanding a safeguarding debate.

But I think the actual problem is that the diffusion of services under neoliberalism and austerity combined with the pomo-takeover in elite social closure, mean that the people in charge of safeguarding don't know what safeguarding is.

the people in charge of safeguarding don't know what safeguarding is.

Yes, and what concerns me now are the credentials of the assessors of the input to the GRA consultation - do they know what safeguarding is? I haven't had a chance to look at who they are and their experience or even whether their identities are known.

What brought it home to me was really thinking about those demands of WPUK after listening to the video of Judith Green at Newcastle recently - those demands are actually so undemanding because all of what they ask should already be embodied in the protocol of any process and review. The fact that they aren't is a shocking lack of duty of a care and would inevitably lead to poor decisions and hence a huge waste of the public purse in expenditure to implement bad decisions. I wonder who is responsible in PM's dept for governance and project management as they ain't doing their job.

press release Fairplay for Women:

'Sex attacks: MPs must investigate risks of transgender prisoners'

"MPs on the Commons Justice Committee must investigate the management of transgender prisoners in female prisons after the latest report that a male-born inmate has been accused of sexually assaulting four vulnerable women behind bars, a women’s rights group has said.

The call was made by Fair Play For Women, which has repeatedly revealed disturbing evidence of the dangers posed by some transgender prisoners in the female prison system.

FPFW’s comments follow a report in the Sun saying that “The inmate was sent to a women’s prison despite not having had gender reassignment surgery”. “The first of the alleged attacks took place within days of her arriving at New Hall jail”.

The report is just the latest example of the risks raised by allowing criminals with male bodies to be housed in female prisons with vulnerable women.

FPFW earlier last year revealed that up to half of male-born trans prisoners are likely to be sex offenders or violent criminals.

The group has urged the Justice Select Committee to hold a special hearing on transgender prisoners, as part of its current inquiry on the prison system.

Ministers are currently consulting on a change in the law that would make it much easier for people born male and retaining full male anatomy to be legally recognised as female. Women’s groups say that would erode women’s legal rights to say No to sharing intimate spaces with people who have male bodies.

Nicola Williams said: “The evidence shows that allowing criminals with male bodies to have access to vulnerable women can pose a real threat. Experts have been warning about this for years but no action has been taken and women are suffering fear and abuse. MPs should be asking why the prison system is turning a blind eye to the abuse of women in its care.”

The report in the Sun is just the latest worrying sign about the risks posed by some transgender prisoners.

Senior figures in the criminal justice system have been warning of those dangers for some time and FPFW said MPs can no longer ignore the evidence." (continues)

fairplayforwomen.com/sex-attacks/

I agree with the earlier points I steamrollered over about describing male pattern abusive behaiour. We knew this risk. Maria Miller was explicitly warned about this, and that subsequent offending NOT in the prison system was also the goal, ignored. We KNOW that this is the bottom of line and however politically invisible someone is, law is supposed to protect them from risk we have a line of political responsibility for. I do not understand how feminism can be demanding the most vulnerable women in the country be exposed to rape and sexual abuse and the same goes for mental health wards. this is supposed to be the rule of law and it was just ignored.

Give me a years data to show offending rates and types of offences differ between the population of trans women and male population who dont identify as women. Is there a difference in offending rates? Are these different populations? Its not exactly a complex statistical test and yet it was just easier to expose vulnerable women to rape and harm. easier than saying actually we need data.

Justice Commitee:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/role/

R0wantrees

Thx R0wantrees - I'm pleased they are speaking out - and why did it take 4 assaults before anything happened? I hope some are listening as there are enough experts now speaking out.

I just commented somewhere else about why aren't women's prisons single-sex segregated under the Equalities Act? And poor women not having safeguarding in the hands of those who have their best interests at heart - after that debacle with John Worboys I have little faith in the prison review processes - that was such a failure of duty of care and so obvious the guy is a psychopath. He employed a psychologist or the like to say he was rehabilitated and the deception worked until some of the victims spoke out. So much for risk assessment- WFT!!