Miranda Yardley calls out the predator

[Nudibranch]

mirandayardley.com/en/jonathan-yaniv-is-a-predator

Transexualism is a medical issue.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding protocols.

It doesn't matter whether one is a man, a woman, a transsexual, a transgender person. It's not relevant to anything at all. Under safeguarding, all persons with access to vulnerable adults or children - including women in prison - should be subject to the same levels of scrutiny and scepticism and also to risk management. You, me and everyone else. Nobody is a special case. Nobody is taken on trust. Regardless of any medical diagnosis.

Are you suggesting that people with a medical diagnosis should not be subject to the same safeguarding protocols as everyone else? Any other medical diagnoses you'd like to include? Or just the one?

R0wantrees that argument of the hysterectomy is old and straw man like. No one is saying that anyone who has female sex chromosomes, who had the capacity of producing large gametes and dozens and dozens of other female exclusive biology is less of a woman due to a sensitive and often devastating medical issue. It's a completely separate issue to a man who has male sex chromosomes running through him with his male biology trying to eliminate what he can of that (which is very little in the grand scheme of it)

Scientistagainsttranscult

As someone who was diagnosed with gyny cancer I am not 'constructing' arguments (straw man or otherwise), I also know males who have had cancer treatments which have dramatically affected their testosterone levels.
Those women who have had their hormone levels dramatically affected due to neccessary surgical or medical interventions do not become less female any more than men become less male.

I think maybe we have a similar point then apologies. That's my point also, no one can become less female by that happening or less male, they are merely suppressing what little male hormones they can that contribute to male biology, doesn't mean they aren't a male. It irritates me when people use women's medical conditions to validate trans women so I'm probably a bit quick to defend.

I find it very telling the huge number of people identifying as TG but have no desire whatsoever for hormones and blockers. Surely you would want to be rid of the hormones that define that hated maleness ?
There is some confusion over what I am saying here.

I am not saying that hormones define gender, what I'm saying is that if someone identifies as the opposite gender why would they not want to be rid of them. The absence of testosterone creates in effect chemical castration which if someone was dysphoric would be something you would want.

I'm not at all saying suppressing male hormones makes someone less male... simply that if someone was genuinely trans they would want to suppress something that is a factor in their behaviour.

Are you suggesting that people with a medical diagnosis should not be subject to the same safeguarding protocols as everyone else? Any other medical diagnoses you'd like to include? Or just the one?

Nice of you to jump down my throat because you dont agree. And there was me thinking this forum was an opportunity to discuss.

You are taking one of my statements and shoehorning it into something else.

If transsexualism is maintained as a medical issue this has a massive impact on safeguarding.

1. The 99% who are self identified get nothing. No free passes for their behaviour.
2. Those who are diagnosed are getting professional psychiatric and psychological support
3. All TS people are treated for a medical condition rather than making a lifestyle choice.

How can Betts say that JV’s obsessions aren’t characteristic of TW, when if JV is a TW, and JV says they are, which is the only criterion, then those obsessions by default are a characteristic of at least one TW that we all now know of. Ditto Jess Bradley’s obsessions with exposure being a characteristic of at least one TW; Karen White’s raping and assaulting being a characteristic of at least one TW; similarly Dana Rivers’ mass murder of a lesbian family and Dana McCallum’s rape of their wife.

Being a characteristic suggests a link between transgender identity and other behaviours and that can be a tricky connection to make. I dont think you can say that because person X is transgender this explains sexually deviant behaviour. I do think you can spin it around though and say person X is a deviant predator and is therefore choosing to coopt a transgender label because it benefits their agenda.

The people you quote are perverted deviants who use the TG label to suit their own ends. They claim TG because they are perverts.

This is obviously why only the transsexualism label should remain as a medical condition.

The problem now with requiring a trans identity protection to apply only to those with a diagnosed medical condition is this: diagnosed by whom? In what way?

The current system requires two diagnosis letters of gender dysphoria from medical professionals one of whom must be a gender specialist. The GIC does seem to be impartial.

I do think you can spin it around though and say person X is a deviant predator and is therefore choosing to coopt a transgender label because it benefits their agenda.

I don't understand this argument. Is it not possible for someone to be trans and a "perverted deviant"?

Is it that they identify as not being deviant predators, and you can only have one label at a time?

Seriously though, anyone who thinks that deviant predators shouldn't be allowed under the trans umbrella should have a chat with Stonewall, because the "anyone who says they're trans is" stuff is coming from them, not us.

The absence of testosterone creates in effect chemical castration which if someone was dysphoric would be something you would want.

givenupcaring This is a big statement and a contentious one.

It seems a very specific perspective on the nature of gender dysphoria both in terms of sex (m/f) and focus. Many people who are trans have talked of their dysphoria and it seems much more complex and variable than you imply.

Terms such as 'chemical castration' are very loaded and I am not sure of the accuracy or appropriateness.

It’s the creeping pushing of boundaries by TRAs that has hardened where I draw the line on males in female spaces and made me see that if we are to truly safeguard women and children there can be no exceptions. I used to think a few gender dysphoric transsexuals in ladies loos etc was ok if they’d had surgery. After all, it’s a penis that is used to rape women isn’t it so surely it’s fine to allow a few transsexuals in? But since falling down the transgender rabbit hole I see this is no longer the case. It’s not just a penis that’s the problem, it’s the nature of the —man— person it belongs too. Some AGPs will have “bottom surgery” in order to fulfill the ultimate part of their fetish and there is no way I want to share intimate spaces with an AGP, bepenised or otherwise.
In addition to this, TRAs have co-opted the word woman, so we changed our wording from “women only” to “female only.” Now female is being claimed too (see Sarah Brown) so that we have no way to define ourselves as separate from males. They will never allow us to define ourselves as different from them, whatever words we use they want it for their own, for validation. Women were not consulted for the 2004 GRA but I think many of us have since gone along with it because we didn’t see the harm in it, even if we felt a bit uncomfortable. So much has changed since 2004 both in terms of the TRA actions and in how we think about safeguarding. The only way now to properly maintain safe spaces and protect the vulnerable is to say no males at all, even dysphoric ones, and no, you can’t have the wors “woman” and “female” either. We won’t give up our hard one spaces and we will not allow you to harm our children. I’m sorry that that will likely have a negative effect on genuine transsexuals but I see no alternative. Anything else accepts women and children as collateral damage.

The problem with sorting access into those who are dysphoric or not, yet again, takes no account of the women.

For want of a better word, many women are triggered by men. They don't give a fuck if those men have an illness. In fact if you asked them to give access to men with a mental illness, that could be even worse.

Some women are violently triggered, others are uncomfortable, however much that man thinks access should apply to him. It is very discomforting knowing that the man standing next to you yearns to be you. To the extent that you must accommodate it.

And, of course, gender dysphoria does not give men a pass in terms of behaviour. Karen Jones actually blamed their gender dysphoria for attempting to rape a woman. The fact that they couldn't get an erection, was neither here nor there. The woman said she thought she was going to die.

Jones tied her up, shoved a lemon in her mouth and attempted to rape her. The 'chemical castration' meant fuck all.

There is nothing to suggest that gender dysphoric men commit crime, sexual or otherwise, at a rate less than any other man.

The problem with sorting access into those who are dysphoric or not, yet again, takes no account of the women.

Yes. Removing sex segregation and replacing it with an undefined gender segregation disregards the wants and needs of women and girls in favour of male people.

There is nothing to suggest that gender dysphoric men commit crime, sexual or otherwise, at a rate less than any other man.

And nothing to suggest the opposite!

Bit unfair to assume guilt in the absence of evidence.

Women were not consulted for the 2004 GRA

This seems to be an often used argument but one I dont think is a good one to use. Women didnt ask men's permission when the suffragette movement began. Rosa Parks didnt ask permission from a white person when she made a stand over racial segregation. No group claiming oppression has over asked permission for those they believe are oppressing them because the wouldnt get it!

The issue here is about safeguarding pure and simple and the unreasonable demands being made.

And, of course, gender dysphoria does not give men a pass in terms of behaviour. Karen Jones actually blamed their gender dysphoria for attempting to rape a woman. The fact that they couldn't get an erection, was neither here nor there. The woman said she thought she was going to die.

Jones tied her up, shoved a lemon in her mouth and attempted to rape her. The 'chemical castration' meant fuck all. *

There was no chemical castration. Karen White was not medicated and undiagnosed. I beleive there may be a half arsed diagnosis now but the reality is this was a blatant attempt to manipulate a system.

I do have absolute sympathy for TS people. It is the TS people who are being screwed by the TG mob and their sexual fetishes. Sadly quite a few TRAs claim to be TS which puts everyone in together.

Bit unfair to assume guilt in the absence of evidence.

I haven't assumed guilt. The only thing is the man in my space is guilty of, is ignoring my boundaries. Of that I can be certain.

Karen Jones and Karen White are two different (male) people.

There was no chemical castration. Karen White was not medicated and undiagnosed. I beleive there may be a half arsed diagnosis now but the reality is this was a blatant attempt to manipulate a system.

As far as I'm aware, Karen Jones blamed their gender dysphoria for the crime, as they wanted to be fast tracked for surgery. Indicating a genuine condition.

But whether they were diagnosed or not, is irrelevant. You theorised that men who couldn't get an erection (chemical castration) aren't as much of a problem. When clearly they are.

Yes, I'm talking about Jones.

No group claiming oppression has over asked permission for those they believe are oppressing them

How are women as a class oppressing trans people as a class?

Karen Jones who was asked by Lord Patel to address the houses of Parliament about their prison experience.

A killer who attempted to murder a woman in an underwear shop.

Sorry, rape her.