Why is the 21 year old woman posing as a boy not trans?

[2Rebecca]

The BBC news site has a story about a 21 year old woman "disguising herself" as a boy to have relationships with underage girls that involved sexual assaults. It sounds predatory and dysfunctional but I'm interested in the BBC's language here. Why isn't this woman a transman and therefore special and her biological sex irrelevant and the teenage girls complaining terrible transphobes?

And working out why many posters are repeating themselves, adding different info, to try and help you understand.

Hooves has been doing exactly the same thing on the spousal veto thread.

CuriousaboutSamphire

I have a different opinion. That doesnt make it wrong, just because you don't like it not does you continuously badgering me mean that I will change my opinion.

I find it quite easy to differentiate between someone who identifies as a man and someone who pretends to be a man.

DBS checks are there in order to try to stop predatory individuals from gaining access to vulnerable people before they have the chance to commit a crime.

That is actually the very opposite of what DBS checks do. DBS checks will only flag people up once they have been convicted of committing a crime. If you've never been caught then a DBS will come back clear - it won't stop you from committing a crime or raising suspicion.

How do we know whether they actually believe that they are the opposite sex/identify as the opposite sex or if they are just pretending?

That is a different discussion. To use the age old FWR retort - if you'd like to discuss that then start a thread. This thread is about this woman - who isn't claiming to be a transman so there is no discussion to be had about how we can differentiate between her and a genuine transman. She isn't pretending to be a transman.

And working out why many posters are repeating themselves, adding different info, to try and help you understand.

There is nothing to understand about this. This woman is a criminal who disguised herself as a man in order to commit crime. What more is there to.understand?

hooves I suspect you are wilfully missing the point, but I'd love you to address the points being raised. Here are some new variants on mine. Part of the seriousness of the crime was that the girls were deceived into thinking this woman was a man. If the woman was in fact a transman would this mean that there was no deception? Should society feel differently about the crime knowing that it was a woman disguised as a man than if it had been a transman? Should the abused girls be allowed to describe the assailant and the deception using any words they like, even if she identified as a transman?

DBS checks are there in order to try to stop predatory individuals from gaining access to vulnerable people before they have the chance to commit a crime in that role.

Is that better Hooves?

This is similar to keeping all men out of women's spaces, regardless of how they identify, rather than letting men in if they identify as women and only removing them if they commit a crime.

I find it quite easy to differentiate between someone who identifies as a man and someone who pretends to be a man.

Are you Layla Moran irl??

If not, can you share how you can be so sure? If it’s easy, I’m sure we can all learn.

Can you also do the inverse and differentiate between someone who identifies as a woman and someone who pretends to be a woman?

I find it quite easy to differentiate between someone who identifies as a man and someone who pretends to be a man.

In what sense?

This is similar to keeping all men out of women's spaces, regardless of how they identify, rather than letting men in if they identify as women and only removing them if they commit a crime.

No it isn't. A DBS check by your own admission, is to stop people already found guilty of a crime from gaining access to vulnerable individuals. By banning all men from anything you are in fact banning innocent people. Now, that may be your intention. You might consider it a price worth paying but it is most definitely not the same as barring convicted criminals from something.

PaleBlueMoonlight. I'm not willfully doing anything. This is a discussion board, not a court of law. I'm not compelled to answer questions, regardless of how much you might demand that I do. I am answering points as I see them.

My opinion on what you've posted - I think that people should disclose to sexual partners, I think. I'm not entirely sure though. Should all sexual partners have to declare relevant details and if so what is relevant? In regards to trans status I think it is likely to become quickly obvious within the confines of a sexual relationship so I'm not sure what being secretive about it is likely to achieve but I'm not trans so I don't know how individuals feel about it. This is simply my opinion

GirlDownUnder

I'm talking about the concept of a transman and a person disguising themselves as a man. The difference between the 2 seems very clear to me.

I'm talking about the concept of a transman and a person disguising themselves as a man. The difference between the 2 seems very clear to me.

The difference in the concept is clear, but how do you tell the difference in practice? And can you also tell the difference between a genuine transwoman and a man who is impersonating a woman?

By banning all men from anything you are in fact banning innocent people. Now, that may be your intention. You might consider it a price worth paying but it is most definitely not the same as barring convicted criminals from something.

Men commit 90% of violent crimes, 98% of sexual crimes and 100% of rapes. Even though most men never commit any of these crimes, we have some sex-segregated spaces for the safety of women. Most decent men have no problem with this. Why do you?

I'm talking about the concept of a transman and a person disguising themselves as a man. The difference between the 2 seems very clear to me.

Your answer is in no way related to your original statement

I find it quite easy to differentiate between someone who identifies as a man and someone who pretends to be a man.

Maybe you are Layla Moran, it’s a politician’s answer for sure.

Men commit 90% of violent crimes, 98% of sexual crimes and 100% of rapes. Even though most men never commit any of these crimes, we have some sex-segregated spaces for the safety of women. Most decent men have no problem with this. Why do you?

You stated that banning men from women only spaces was the same as DBS checks. I pointed out the difference so stop trying to insinuate that I'm saying things that I'm clearly not. I made no further point other than saying your comparison was wrong.

DBS checks are not the same as a blanket van on all men, regardless of whether decent men accept it or not. That is immaterial as regards what you stated. DBS checks are not the same as a blanket ban on all men.

How do we know whether they actually believe that they are the opposite sex/identify as the opposite sex or if they are just pretending?

See, I used to reply to that sort of question on here before realising no matter what you say, you;ll get jumped on/personal attacks for questioning.
Just started to type out a response and deleted it.
From what I've heard, this female nowhere, anywhere, has said they identify as trans.
So why are so many trying to say she is trans? Surely if she was she'd have said that in court?

I'm talking about the concept of a transman and a person disguising themselves as a man. The difference between the 2 seems very clear to me

Same

Actually they seem to have been disguising themselves as a boy, not a man.

You stated that banning men from women only spaces was the same as DBS checks.

No I didn't. I said there was a similarity. Banning all people who have committed certain types of crimes from working with children, for example, is similar to banning all men from certain spaces which are reserved for women. Not the same.

The reason I say there's a similarity is because the people who want everything to be mixed sex always say 'if anyone acts inappropriately it can be dealt with' - in other words allow crimes to be committed then deal with them rather than try to prevent them.

Actually they seem to have been disguising themselves as a boy, not a man

OK, still disguising as the male form whichever age.. Where has it been said that identified as trans though?

Ahh I see we’re now at ground hog day.

Deep joy.

OK, still disguising as the male form whichever age.. Where has it been said that identified as trans though?

Well that's the whole point, isn't it. If we see someone who is attempting to appear like the opposite sex and even convinces some people to treat them in that way, how do we know if they 'identify as trans' or if they're just impersonating the opposite sex? And why should it matter to anyone else what's in their head?

Banning all people who have committed certain types of crimes from working with children, for example, is similar to banning all men from certain spaces which are reserved for women. Not the same.

But it isn't similar. Banning people who have been found guilty of a crime is not similar to banning everyone who shares one characteristic, even innocent people.

Take this case - she is female and has committed sex crimes against children. Maybe we should ban all females from working with children then in order to prevent crimes from happening? Obviously that would be similar to DBS checks in your mind.

If we see someone who is attempting to appear like the opposite sex and even convinces some people to treat them in that way, how do we know if they 'identify as trans' or if they're just impersonating the opposite sex? And why should it matter to anyone else what's in their head?

They're different arguments though. This woman hasn't said that she is anything other than a female who adopted a disguise in order to commit crime.

The fact that other people are trans is immaterial to me. What is it precisely that you are trying to achieve by labouring the point that she might be trans? The point is that she is a criminal. If your point is that we can't know what someone's intentions are, well, that is true. In this case a woman, or a transman if we follow your argument, was untrustworthy and had criminal intent, so using your argument how could we in future know that any female is trustworthy and not danger? Is that your argument?

Thanks hooves. Not trying to compel you do so anything, just really frustrated that you keep saying the same thing without seeming to understand what people are saying back to you (or if you do understand you are not addressing it head on), which makes it difficult to have a discussion. People on this thread generally do not disagree with you (that there is a difference between transmen and women disguising themselves as men), rather than that distinction is being deliberately muddied where it suits an agenda but not if it doesn’t, and that even if the distinction might be clear socially/legally, that makes no difference to the experience of someone interacting with a female who purports to be male. Anyway, sorry if I riled you.

I have a different opinion. That doesnt make it wrong, just because you don't like it not does you continuously badgering me mean that I will change my opinion.

OK! So you're not here to discuss anythng then!

What is it precisely that you are trying to achieve by labouring the point that she might be trans? I have stated that REALLY CLEARLY, as have others, in quite a few different ways. Which should at least intimate that there is an issue!

OPs original point, which underlies all of the others is that there is a difference in how media outlets report

And that difference relies on the sex of a woman and the gender of a man.

All most GC women want to do is discuss WHY that is and HOW it could, and already has, had a negative impact on the safety of women and girls.

All your increasing NAMALTing does is highlight the need for that discusssion, out loud, in public, without women being threatened, shouted down, doxed and physically hurt - which has also already happened!

I’m hopeful* this thread will give us an answer to the Holy Grail of the whole debate:

How do you tell the difference between those who are genuinely trans who want to live their lives and those who are only impersonating the opposite sex as part of predatory behaviour?

(*not remotely hopeful.)

I’m hopeful this thread will give us an answer to the Holy Grail of the whole debate

Yes, the way Hooves quite confidently stated ”I find it quite easy to differentiate between someone who identifies as a man and someone who pretends to be a man.” I was positively doing a little dance at finally unlocking achievement level ‘Holy Grail’.

I’m sad now.