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?

If someone cross-dresses to commit a serious crime they are not trans even if they state they are. If someone cross-dresses for any other reason they are trans even if they state they aren't.

@Strongmummy
That’s what you need currently need to do to gain a GRC. How living as the opposite sex manifests itself though is not made clear or how that should be assessed.

However self ID does away with that & although self ID is not legal most organisations are behaving as if it is. So if someone says they identify as a man or as a woman than that is what they are

I’m pretty sure that one of the TW who represented women for Labour was not assessed in any way, did not make any medical changes prior to taking the position to represent women and then being lauded all over the media for stunning bravery in their transition — that person simply declared themselves a woman, had shoulder-length hair, wore lipstick, and skirts with a pink cardigan. I believe eventually that person began taking female hormones, but that was certainly not a first or immediate step.

So, really, yes — mere change of clothing and self-assertion as being a member of the other sex is ALL it takes to actually be considered the opposite sex.

It would seem to me that this offender did precisely that.

The only difference is the personal rewards pursued in doing so. One achieved fame and political prominence by shitting on women, the other achieved criminal status by shitting on young girls. But the objective changes in material reality that enabled them to achieve their ends is EXACTLY the same.

There may be a reasons someone cross dresses and yet they may not actually be trans. One problem is that Stonewall has extended the definition of trans to include part-time cross dressers, which I think has been very unhelpful to trans people.

Yes, the real question of definition isn’t “what is a woman”? It’s “what is a transwoman or transman?”

Secondarily to that question: “what is gender identity”?

The definitions are all over the place, but if rights in law are going to be granted based on these definitions, there actually does need to be a definition — and one that can be falsified in court.

The definitions are all over the place, but if rights in law are going to be granted based on these definitions, there actually does need to be a definition — and one that can be falsified in court.

'Gender identity' does need a clear objective definition if laws are to be made which include this term. I have yet to see any such definition. And that definition can't just be a 'feeling', because that cannot be falsified in court.

Thank you for proving my point by spectacularly missing the point.

@Kit19 thank you for this.

@BickerinBrattle totally agree

@Italiangreyhound agreed. In my view if you are trans you are essentially in the wrong body. It’s basically black and white. Otherwise you’re cross dressing. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean I’m law your gender changes.

In law not I’m law 🙄

So if she had said she "really truly believed" she was a boy to the judge etc then she would be true trans and just a hebephile and the young girls who believed they were having sex with a boy would just have got the age wrong, because they would be having sex with a male because if you really truly believe you are male then that's what you are? You can't identify in to being 16 when you are 21 though because that's obviously impossible where as male or female is just a state of mind.
It does sound as though she got stuffed by the legal system for believing in biology rather than pseudoscience and magical thinking.

How many genders are there now? (I haven't looked for a while.)

I only ask because some posters here seem to believe there are only two and there's loads more than that.

Yes?

Genders only exist in relation to sex. That's what gender means, social or cultural practices that are associated with one sex or another. If there was no sex and we were all just divided like amoebas, we wouldn't have gender, we'd just have a bunch of personal preferences.

Individuals may choose to flout gender norms and in any case our culture has a lot of things that aren't strongly associated one way or the other. But that doesn't make for another gender.

Strongmummy personally, I don't think it's very black and white at all.

I believe the inclusion of cross dressers under the trans umbrella was the choice of Stonewall. The issues around self Id have made things very complicated for people who are genuinely gender dysphoric, IMHO.

I thought the origin of the word 'gender' was in language (talking about language) so three, feminine, masculine and neuter - as in French,Greek etc.

But I do understand it's adoption into talking about people so as Goosefoot says it should be about describing sex.

But I should say it's pointless to try and describe a gender because it just relies on stereotypes, which many younger trans people seem to wish to avoid!

This woman is a paedophile and predator who deceived young girls and assaulted them

Suggesting she is transgender is completely not the point

And I say this as a GC feminist

a quick google gives this nonsense:

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender..

Etc. Et fucking cetera. and that's just about half the sodding list. My point is that the people who refuse to use the word "sex" and conflate it with this gender nonsense themselves boil it down to just two.

Let me put it this way, men never transition to pangender it's always to women ie the opposite sex

Mad!

Suggesting she is transgender is completely not the point

For the third time, and as it says in the OP, the point is that she is not transgender, or at least not reported as transgender, and the question is how can one tell whether any person is or is not transgender when they claim to be the opposite sex and dress as such, etc, etc.

I actually think it’s more than that popehilarious, it’s about the fact that it is not in her interests to declare herself as trans, indeed doing so could put her at an unacceptable risk in a male prison.

If a biological male is convicted of sexual assaults against under age girls declaring himself trans could mean he is placed in a female prison. Who is placed at an unacceptable risk in that scenario?

@popehilarious basically there needs to be a legal definition of trans with specific criteria to be met to determine how you would be tried / which prison you’d go to if convicted. Eg. Assessed as being born in the wrong body, live permanently as the opposite sex, full operation complete, passport amended.

If they changed ID and had surgery they should go in a secure section in a men's prison.
Their own ideology would make it a women's section but it would prevent anyone taking advantage to gain access to vulnerable women.

bears yes that's an important point.

strong people on this board have been asking for suggestions of a legal, measurable definition of transgender for years. Trans rights activists usually refuse to engage or discuss. I've repeatedly asked the question "how would you legislate for who is allowed in single-sex spaces in a way that includes trans women but excludes men?". I have literally never seen an answer, which leads me to conclude there is no way.

Your suggested definitions wouldn't work, I don't think - no-one could be assessed as being "born in the wrong body" - which correct body would be the comparison?
How does one "live permanently as the opposite sex"? We've had many threads about this and it seems to rely on what clothes you wear and your appearance, or whether it should count to change your name on a utility bill.
Most trans people don't have surgery or would claim they intend to but haven't yet or can't for medical reasons.
Anyone can amend their passport, not only trans people.

@popehilarious - it’s an incredibly complex topic isn’t it. There is a guy who works in the City who is biologically male but sometimes dresses as a woman. He has given a talk at my work before. In my view that’s his prerogative, but he isn’t trans and he isn’t a woman. In my view He enjoys cross dressing; that’s it. He may feel he’s a woman on particular days , but legally he could not be defined as a woman (under my rules 🤣) and should use Male toilets when at work. In fact he sits on a “women in IT” industry forum which I find atrocious.

Now I say this as someone who feels strongly that it is possible for someone to be born into the wrong body. It’s incredibly nuanced

Surely the simple answer in this case is that the woman is not trans because she doesn't identify as such.

What she did was to disguise herself as a man in order to commit crimes. Plenty of people do that - wear a disguise in order to hide their identity and commit crimes. People disguise themselves as drs, nurses, police officers in order to gain access to victims. It doesn't make them a Dr, a nurse or a police officer.