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?

I think the thing is most people who believe in gender ideology believe in a sort of internal essence, where people "feel" like a man or woman. It's not verifiable obviously.

But this woman doesn't seem to make any such claim, her gender identity, whatever that is, is female/woman.

It is true that definitions like stonewall's are very broad, but in practice they seem to be talking about possibilities for defining people in the abstract. A transvestite could count as trans, by that approach, in two ways. If they self-identify as such, or if you are talking about them as an abstract entity for political purposes. But if as an individual the person claims a gender identity in line with biological sex they'd not count as trans. (Though I think some people would be inclined to push it.)

It's not really very coherent, but the sense of internal essence seems like the defining factor to me in the way they are thinking.

Non of which helps protect the vulnerable!

I found it interesting that the police thought they were taking a teenage boy home but then "they realised her true identity." How did they realise her "true identity"? Did she tell them "actually, I'm not a horny 16yo, I'm an adult who's taken advantage of young girls"?! Who do the police think they are to be deciding someone's identity & outing them like that?! I wonder if anyone's going to campaign to "re-educate" those officers...

I did actually wonder at the reporting of this at the time. Presumably if the criminal had said "actually I identify as female" it would be an entirely different story, and the victims would be re educated?

No. Tricking people into sex is a crime, when it's as egregious as these cases it gets prosecuted (I'm sure many lesser cases don't). Of course if self ID comes in it will be very difficult to convict because the predators can easily get a piece of paper saying they are the opposite sex- in which case what is the deception?

At the same time there is quite a lot of discussion amongst the pro self ID lot that these laws against sex by deception are transphobic. That will be the next target after self ID.

The law may have different crime labels for under 16 and under 13 year olds, but does wider society?

It's not just a legal distinction, it's the definition used by medics and indeed dictionaries. The crucial distinction is not to do with the age but whether the child has reached puberty or not. Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children is a very specific disorder. It's a distinction worth preserving.

Without taking away from the seriousness of this crime against ubderage girls, it troubles me to think that if those girls were ovet 16 and hence no paedophilia involved, would it have been ok and forgivable to make them believe that they were having sex with a man whereas in fact it was a woman? There is no crime or violation here?

What makes someone trans?

What makes someone a 'pretend' transperson?

How can we tell the difference?

Mandala, a woman was convicted in 2017 for 'sex by deception' when presenting herself as male.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49127545

'There have been several prosecutions where women have impersonated men in order to have sexual encounters with other women, or where trans men have not disclosed their assigned gender to female partners. Notable cases include Gayle Newland, Justine McNally and Kyran Lee.'

Ultimately you can’t
Life’s complicated like that.

The law may have different crime labels for under 16 and under 13 year olds, but does wider society?

The law doesn’t define as Paedophile / Hebephile it just looks at age. Those terms come from psychological analysis and the study of sexual disfunction. Society uses the word paedophile incorrectly and it’s irritating. Whether anyone is a paedophile or hebephile is down to their sexual preference. Some offenders will abuse any child of any age or any adult person according to availability and circumstances. I would consider that opportunistic even if there was grooming involved. Eg grooming a child in the family because you have easy access to them and their parents trust you not because you particularly desire children of that age. It’s all abuse and not lesser because of it.

So who is going to let the Scottish Government know that people do pretend to be the opposite sex in order to carry out sexual assaults, and what is more, as fieldofgreycorn points out, you can’t tell who are pretending to be the opposite sex for nefarious purposes as opposed to being transgender.

Because she doesn't actually believe she is a man. She's just dressing up. Creepy story!

Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children is a very specific disorder. It's a distinction worth preserving.

Yes, I think this is really important and worth being careful about.

Attraction to pre-pubescent kids is an abnormal sexual attraction. These are young people without sexual secondary characteristics who have little or no defined sexual interests themselves.

Teenagers are a different story, they have adult sexual characteristics, are interested in sex, are generally fertile. It can be difficult to prevent them having sex in a lot of cases even though it's generally better for them to wait.

Preventing exploitation of teens is more about maintaining intellectual and social barriers because the biological ones are actually signalling that they are sexually mature. I think it's better to be clear about that rather than conflating sexual attraction to children.

I've never sat down and thought about the differences and implications.

I shall read and digest!

It's not by accident that when it comes to the law in the UK, 13 is a critical age:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-2-sexual-offences-act-2003-principal-offences-and

I agree that it should be an offense to have sex with 14-16 year olds because they aren't mature enough to understand the implications, there is often a power imbalance/ coercion involved especially when there is an age difference and they have more complications if they get pregnant.
A person having sex with a 14-16 year old though, particularly if the young teenager is wearing make up a physically mature and maybe trying to pass as older is a very different sort of person to the person who is attracted to and assaulting/ wanting to assault primary school aged children (and who is nearly always a much older male).

In 2015 a young woman pretending to be a man was jailed for eight years after her girlfriend realised this "man" was actually female. No violence, no intimidation, no coercion. First offence. Eight years.

When women step out of line, they have to be stamped on very hard.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eight-years-prison-duping-friend-having-sex

She is basically a lesbian who wanted to abuse girls, who pretended to be a boy to do so, as to self id wether it comes in or not a perv is still a perv.

This person is described as a woman on the bbc but they're as woke as fuck, right?

Is it at all possible that this offender is a trans woman?

I think the thing is most people who believe in gender ideology believe in a sort of internal essence, where people "feel" like a man or woman. It's not verifiable obviously.

And because it's not verifiable it's not something that should be enshrined in law. People can obviously declare their 'gender identity' to be whatever will give them the best result at any point in time, and it is impossible to know whether they are being honest or not.

What is surprising (or maybe not) is that it is the case of a woman impersonating a boy which has made Fieldofgreycorn realise that this could be a problem, not the many instances of men pretending to be women.

Those poor girls. Clearly one at least knew the perpetrator was female, and apparently the abuser got very angry when the victim suggested she wasn't a male.

I think it is clear that the only thing that definitely marks you down as 'not trans in any way' is if you a) masquerade as a member of the opposite sex b)to do bad things while simultaneously c) not believing you are a actually somehow a member of the opposite sex, or some kind of not sexed individual.

If a, b or c are not all present together, then you are likely to be accepted as trans and therefore perhaps deserving of the special rules. If they are, then only the most eager transactivist will defend you.

It seems Gemma Watts isn't trans at all, she was born female and lives her daily life as female. She only pretended to be male to plan and carry out sex-offences against young girls.

That isn't "trans", that's called being a sex offender.

That isn't "trans", that's called being a sex offender.

Like those 60-odd male sex offenders in prison who identify as women?

And if self ID happens it's going to be a gift to sex offenders of either sex.

IMO There's a difference. The woman in this article was only "Jake" when it was necessary for committing sex-crimes. For example she wasn't "Jake" when she arrived at court was she? No, she was her usual female self Gemma. She is not trans.

Trans-people, sex-offender or not, live their lives all day every day as their preferred gender, not just when it suits or when it's convenient.