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?

CuriousaboutSamphire

I absolutely am here to have a discussion.

What I'm not here for is for posters like you to demand that I answer set questions like it's an exam. Have I done that to you? You all ignore any questions that I might ask but think it's fine to demand that I answer your questions.

The point about how the media report things may very well be true in other situations but I really don't think that you can use this case as an example of that. This woman hasn't, to my knowledge, stated that she is trans and so, like I've said repeatedly, this to me is a case about someone who has adopted a disguise in order to deceive. I don't see how that then becomes an issue about trans, how the media reports on sex Vs gender, nor on the safety of women around men. If anything this case is about the safety of girls around women.

I can't keep repeating myself endlessly. My position, on this case, is clear - this isn't a transman (unless the woman concerned changes her position) but a woman disguising herself in order to deceive girls.

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.

Ok. So how does that apply in this case? What caused a negative impact on the safety of girls in this case? Let's discuss that.

You all ignore any questions that I might ask...

Hooves are you actually serious here?

What I would like to know is how a case about a woman sexually abusing girls has anything at all to do with men.

Flip it on its head. If this were a case about a man sexually abusing girls and a poster came on to say "women do it too" you would all be up in arms. Accusations of derailing, whataboutery, etc would be flying. Yet somehow, a case about a woman committing sex crimes is spun to conveniently ignore what has happened and to focus on men and trans women.

Why aren't you discussing the salient points here - this was a woman who did this, she was disguised as a man. In every debate about safe spaces posters argue that trans men absolutely should have access to female safe spaces because they are female and don't pose a danger. The only relevant point here, for all of you shouting " but how do we know who is genuine and who isnt in relation to safety" should surely be how do we know if the trans man sharing our space is genuine? Maybe they are a woman, disguised as a trans man? Why are you all ignoring the fact that this was a woman who did this and not asking questions about how and why? Instead you are ignoring that and turning it around to "but men".

Why would a woman disguise herself as a trans man to predate on children in women’s spaces?

The reason this person disguised herself as a man was as part of an elaborate rouse to win girls’ trust over time. It would a waste of time and energy to dress up as a man, pass yourself off as a trans man, enter a women’s space just so you could corner a woman or girl in that space. Wouldn’t a person just, you know, corner the woman or girl in that space just as they are? Which of course is perfectly possible but highly unlikely given 98% of such offences are carried out by men.

Umm Hooves we are trying to discuss the OP (copied below), which you seem to have missed, but I’ll try again.

OP under discussion
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?

Your last post said;
In every debate about safe spaces posters argue that trans men absolutely should have access to female safe spaces because they are female...
Yes to transmen in female spaces
...and don't pose a danger.
No one has said this. Some females, trans or otherwise pose a danger, but it’s not at the level of risk as a male in a female space.

The only relevant point here, for all of you shouting " but how do we know who is genuine and who isnt in relation to safety" should surely be how do we know if the trans man sharing our space is genuine?
No one has said this, and whether a transman is genuine or not, is not relevant to transmen sharing female spaces.

Maybe they are a woman, disguised as a trans man?
See above.

Why are you all ignoring the fact that this was a woman who did this and not asking questions about how and why?
Not the point of the OP. Maybe start a thread?

Instead you are ignoring that and turning it around to "but men".
No one has done this.

Ok. So how does that apply in this case? What caused a negative impact on the safety of girls in this case? Let's discuss that. I think you'll find we have been discussing just that!

The salient point that the OP sets out, this being her thread and her train of thought we have all joined in on, included It sounds predatory and dysfunctional but I'm interested in the BBC's language here. which is what my posts have focussed on.

Add to that her next line: Why isn't this woman a transman and therefore special and her biological sex irrelevant and the teenage girls complaining terrible transphobes? See that bit... why isn't this woman described as a transman? Why are there none of the Twitter compaints, comments about transphobia? There would be if this was a man dressed as a woman... sadly there are lots of fairly recent examples of this.

So we can have: because she didn't say she was.
And we could (did) counter with: But Stonewall would say she is

And the discussion could go many ways from there. But mainly, for me, I agree witht eh OP in that the language used to discuss this is far, far different from any case where a man has dressed as a woman to commit a similar crime.

Again I ask, why judge a woman by her sex and a man by his gender?

I might have just had a 💡

Hooves, you believe TMAM, right? And I (and most of FWR) don’t.

So when I am talking about men and women or male and female, I am referring to biology only, or I’ll use the prefix trans***

If, in your last post when you say ”Instead you are ignoring that and turning it around to "but men" are you talking about transmen, without the prefix? If so, then we have a language problem because you are not using the language that’s generally used on FWR.

Or I’m overthinking this in an attempt to communicate lol

Interesting thought there GirlDownUnder

Hooves

Should all sexual partners have to declare relevant details and if so what is relevant?

Being the opposite sex clearly was here. Also for Gayle Newland and others, with partners fully able to consent. It's "sex by deception" and attracts quite a high sentence as mentioned by a pp.

However, as she hadn't, as far as I know, claimed to be transgender, then, to me, this is a case of a woman disguising herself as a man in order to commit a crime.

Well you surely think the woman who is the subject of the OP should have declared this "relevant detail" so make your mind up. Why wouldn't that also apply to trans people?

Why aren't you discussing the salient points here - this was a woman who did this, she was disguised as a man.

Would you say the same if she had said she identified as a man? THAT is the salient point. That is what the thread is about. It's not your thread.

Would you say the same if she had said she identified as a man? THAT is the salient point. That is what the thread is about. It's not your thread.

The salient point is she has not said she is trans. There hasn't been the slightest suggestion of that.

Many of you have adopted the argument that by the Stonewall definition she must be a trans man. By the Stonewall definition many of you would be "cis" but not one of you would accept that.

It has not been reported as her being trans because she isn't. I really don't know what some of you are finding this so difficult to understand.

As has been pointed out already - people pretending to be something that they're not is very problematic. It's deception isn't it to pretend to be a police officer? We all know that deception is wrong from a very early age.

Sure, I identify as a horse, but deep down I know I can never be one and if there is anyone out there who genuinely believed that I truly was of the equine persuasion then I apologise unreservedly.

There was that poor soul who had loads of surgery to make him look like a cat but I don't think he really fooled anyone.

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.

This is just like the spousal veto thread again. But I'll explain how an analogy works, since you don't seem to understand that aspect of my posts.

This is about risk management. We take steps as a society to manage risk, so that high risk individuals are to some extent removed from environments which makes it easier for them to have access to potential victims.

Stopping people with a history of violent behaviour from having access to children or other vulnerable people is one way in which we do this. Under some circumstances, women might be seen as the vulnerable group, for example in changing rooms when they are undressed. Keeping men out of these places is another way in which we attempt to mitigate risk.

Analogous does not mean 'the same in every single respect'. It means that there are some similarities and some differences. But looking at the similarities can aid understanding. So in my analogy, we keep men out of women's spaces for the same reason as we keep violent criminals away from children - to protect the vulnerable group.

A woman who has committed sex crimes against children is clearly a danger to children and should not be given access to them. This says nothing about other women.

The salient point is she has not said she is trans. There hasn't been the slightest suggestion of that.

I didn't say there was. And I don't agree that is the salient point. We know that if this woman did identify as a man, different things would be said about the deception involved in these crimes. That's the salient point.

What is it precisely that you are trying to achieve by labouring the point that she might be trans?

I don't think I've even said that once, let alone laboured the point.

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?

No, that is not my argument (but I'm sure you know that). We are constantly being told that we should accept without question people who claim to be the opposite sex. These are posters from university toilets which say don't question anyone because they have every right to be there.

You said you can tell whether or not someone is genuinely transgender. Most of us cannot, but we are told we have to accept that people have every right to go wherever they please. How do we stop the people who are not genuinely transgender from taking advantage of rules and laws which are in place to help those who are?

And what is the definition of a person who is genuinely transgender?

By the Stonewall definition many of you would be "cis" but not one of you would accept that.

By the Stonewall definition I don't think anyone is 'cis'.

The salient point is she has not said she is trans. There hasn't been the slightest suggestion of that.

There has. Stonewall include cross dressers under their all-encompassing trans umbrella. She was cross dressing, therefore according to Stonewall she is trans, whether she identifies as such or not.

By the Stonewall definition I don't think anyone is 'cis'.

Stepford wives maybe? Or surrendered women?

Being generous.

The salient point is she has not said she is trans. There hasn't been the slightest suggestion of that.

So in your view, trans people have to 'out' themselves, otherwise they're not really trans?

I can't keep repeating myself endlessly.

Many here will be positively counting on that.

I’m confused, it’s ok to trans dead people like Marsha P Johnson and Frida Kahlo under Stonewall’s definitions but we can’t apply the same logic to alive people?

NotBad

It's translogic. Translogic is logic in the same way as transwomen are women and transmen are men.

Translogic is logic in the same way as transwomen are women and transmen are men.

And tomorrow Humpty will tell us that it never was, or maybe it will be.

Cheers OldCrone NotBad

If, in your last post when you say ”Instead you are ignoring that and turning it around to "but men" are you talking about transmen, without the prefix? If so, then we have a language problem because you are not using the language that’s generally used on FWR.
No, I'm using "but men" because this is a thread about a woman and yet all people seem to be going on about are transwomen and men potentially getting into female spaces and the danger that may pose on a thread about a crime committed by a woman. Hence my "but men" comment.

I don't see s problem with the language used by the media when discussing this. she was a woman in disguise, not a transman. Post 7/7 one if the suspects was reported as having left the country disguised as a woman in a burkha. No one described him as a transwoman. He was very clearly described as a man disguised as a woman. This case to me is no different.

Then Hooves can you please apply your same logic to poster NotBadConsiderings post re “it’s ok to trans dead people like Marsha P Johnson and Frida Kahlo under Stonewall’s definitions but we can’t apply the same logic to alive people?”

I’m failing to see the difference?