Miranda Yardley calls out the predator

[Nudibranch]

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

I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a girl or a vulnerable woman, givenupcaring. Why should a girl assume that the male person undressing alongside her is no threat simply because they say they are gender dysphoric? Why is safeguarding suddenly unimportant?

It's also interesting that you think changing the definition of woman and the consequences are not important to women.

A psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder was a significant factor in Lawson’s claimed loss of control following provocation before the killing.

transcrimeuk.com/2017/10/30/karen-lawson/

Been diagnosed with a mental illness isn't generally considered a bar on criminal behaviour.

You theorised that men who couldn't get an erection (chemical castration) aren't as much of a problem. When clearly they are.

Chemical castration is not simply about getting an erection. Sexual desire is removed quite considerably. Aggression is drastically reduced also.

"Safeguarding" doesn't mean "decide on who can access which spaces depending on whether or not we feel sorry for them".

HTH.

givenupcaring the one long term study looking at crime rates of transsexuals (who had SRS) that exists, finds that MtF transsexuals retain male crime patterns and male violent crime patterns.

So your statement unthread that there is no Indikation.... is not correct.

Chemical castration is not simply about getting an erection. Sexual desire is removed quite considerably. Aggression is drastically reduced also.

But not, it appears, the desire to ignore women's boundaries and consent.

Indication (thanks autocorrect)

I'm also curious about what the "but what about the nice gentle ts" stuff has to do with the subject of this thread, a person who is clearly neither nice nor gentle and who self describes as transgender.

I also do not quite get the turn of this thread. But be that as it may, the whole discussion of who belongs under the umbrella and therefore should get access is totally upside down.
As long as not even for the most narrowly defined trans-cohort of males, transsexuals with SRS, a violence and sexual violence pattern that is not significantly greater than that of females can be established, the whole point is mute.

*I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a girl or a vulnerable woman, givenupcaring. Why should a girl assume that the male person undressing alongside her is no threat simply because they say they are gender dysphoric? Why is safeguarding suddenly unimportant?

It's also interesting that you think changing the definition of woman and the consequences are not important to women.*

Thats a big leap to say that I have said that!

Safeguarding is the priority.

I have said all long that the first order of business in my view is remove the idea of a transgender umbrella. Unless you are medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria you get no consideration at all.

Within GD I personally only consider onset in childhood to be valid. AGP and ROGP in adulthood should be separate conditions which equally get you nothing. The law does not indulge fetishes.

Diagnosis is of course an issue because right now we seem to have the ability for anyone to acquire themselves a diagnosis over the Internet.

What is left is probably 0.5% of who we have now - those with GD since childhood. For those people we provide psychological and psychiatric support to investigate gender issues and hopefully reconcile.

Only then, as a last resort where transition is deemed medically appropriate and supported by at least 2 professionals should the person be able to transition, requiring suppression of testosterone and the taking of female hormones. Only than after a period of time would I say that then there should be SOME consideration given to that person.

I am reminded of my mother and her attempts to get a blue badge for the car. Even with her medical problems she was turned down because she did not satisfactorily demonstrate that her condition sufficiently warranted the privileges afforded by that badge. Is not GD the same ? Just because you have GD doesnt automatically give you the right to any special favour.

Again, not sure what any of this has to do the the predator who must not be named.

That confuses the right of people to transition, which few people object to; and the right of women to have women only spaces and services.

People can have the right to transition, medically or socially, without the right to access services for the opposite sex.
Once you make services mixed sex you cant legally keep any men out, because you can't legally (or safely) challenge them.

Yeah, that too, deep. Prove that there's no added risk and then we can talk. Assuming that there must not be any because sympathy and other wibbly feelings is not compatible with safeguarding principles.

That confuses the right of people to transition, which few people object to

By definition the right to transition comes with it an expectation of being treated as a member of the opposite sex. It is not a solitary activity.

Should being able to transition be a right ?

Transition is only ever one of two things:

1. a managed process as a final option for a medical condition
2. a sexual fetish / an act of dominance

Is it really enough to say that transgender people who transition are socially acceptable as long as single sex spaces are preserved ?

I think givenupcaring is confusing the safeguilding of the medical process for transgender people with safeguilding women and girls.

givenupcaring

I'm not being funny, but you sound confused. Feminists are more than happy for men to dress in clothes traditionally associated with women. Is that what you mean by transition?

But it doesn't, and can never mean, that they are women.

You can't stop men wearing feminine clothing, whether they have been diagnosed with a mental illness or not.

Only than after a period of time would I say that then there should be SOME consideration given to that person.

Why? Assuming you mean access. Why? What on earth has their mental state got to do with the women who find them uncomfortable?

For me, there are always two sides to this. There is the conceptual notion of what should constitute trans, or transitioning. And I'm sure lots of people have different opinions.

And then there is the idea that that should be the foundation on which we base access. That's the part that I don't get.

Partly because nothing can turn a man into a woman, so it can't be a question of degree. But mostly because it's completely unworkable. So to the trans person themself, the distinction might be important. But in terms of access and women, it's meaningless.

Safeguarding not safeguilding

What I am interested in is safeguarding women and girls. Anyone expecting me to work diligently to safeguard men's right to access hormonal treatment and surgery designed to make them look a bit more like women is barking up entirely the wrong tree, especially on a thread that, again, is about a predator whose behavior is escalating right now and who needs to be stopped before he causes harm to women or girls.

I mean, context, yeah? It's important.

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.

Karen Jones is a transsexual.
There is extensive testimony by James Barrett (one of UK's foremost gender experts at the time) which was very significant in the succesful appeal against the Home Office which enabled Jones to move to female prison estate prior to obtaining GRC.
The case set significant precedents.

It is important to be aware of the case.

So to the trans person themself, the distinction might be important. But in terms of access and women, it's meaningless.

Precisely. The various arguments among male humans about which of them ought to count as a True And Honest Woman Now are I'm sure fascinating to those involved, but the very fact they're having those discussions among themselves and don't seem to care much about women's opinions on the matter is rather the core of the problem.

It's two separate lines of difficulty with the agenda:

1. For people who are transgender, most often people who are transsexual with a gender dysphoria who have made the most medical path to transition over time: if anyone at all can be counted as trans, it trivialises, erases and distorts the very reality of the people these laws were originally created for. While stamping all over the credibility and patience of society which will affect these most vulnerable people who never wanted or pushed for this.

2. For women: the right to be a woman, to name your biology, to have single sex spaces, to safeguarding, to even exist as a recognised group under law, is under purposeful attack in a way it has never been in modern history. These rights must be preserved and retained solely for biological women, with spaces solely for biological women that are not confused with or muddled up with the needs of others who are not biological women, regardless of what those needs may be. Those issues need to be considered separately.

Both of these separate lines of concern are valid and need pursuing with MPs and anyone else we can get to listen.

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!

givenupcaring Are you suggesting that people who want to keep women's spaces female-only are comparable to racists?

There's also the fact that Rosa Parks sat down on a bus rather than punching a person over twice her age in a park.

We can argue over the semantics and minor details and assumptions until the cows come home but the bottom line is this. Women fought long and hard, were arrested, tortured, incarcerated and killed you gain even a fraction of the rights that men have always had. They did this not only for themselves but their future generations. What they will not have envisaged is that at some point men could come and claim back those rights for themselves. These are OUR RIGHTS, OUR SPACES, OUR SPORTS, OUR ORGANISATIONS, OUR CHOICES, OUR SAFETY, OUR BOUNDARIES. Women OWN these, it is our choice if we allow these spaces to open up and when the overwhelming majority of us say NO it means NO. Who the hell do people think they are to override that, especially men. This is not their RIGHT to invade and demand it is our RIGHT to say no. We don't need to justify why we don't want men in, it's our right just not to have them there. END.OF.STORY.

1) For people who are transgender, most often people who are transsexual with a gender dysphoria who have made the most medical path to transition over time: if anyone at all can be counted as trans, it trivialises, erases and distorts the very reality of the people these laws were originally created for.

The history of policies and laws made for people who are transgender is more complex than often portrayed / believed. So too the perspectives of the lobbyists and advocates involved

Current thread worth reading:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007