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?

Does anyone else remember Dick Emery?

Ooh! You are awful.

Does anyone else remember Dick Emery?

I kind of recognised the catch-phrase so looked him up. Interesting life!

His real name is amazing - Lancelot Orpington Penrose

No.... he was born Richard Gilbert Emery.

Lancelot was the 'real name' of one of his characters, a rather refined tramp who went by the street name of College!

Interesting life!

I was thinking about this the other day. If you look at the entertainers who have now died or are now on their last legs their lives have often been incredibly diverse with all kinds of experiences in them. Today there seems to be a bland and standard route of drama school and the chosen career. An adventurous route these days involves there being a switch between cinema and theatre.

This world of freedom and diversity seems so much narrower in some ways, so standardised. (But maybe I'm just getting old.)

When I heard this story my first thought was that this was person was clearly not 'woke' or she would have been able to claim she was a trans man at the time of the offences, then on being caught could revert back to being a woman to avoid male prison. If it's good enough for this Bunce person.... (I do of course agree that what she did was terrible)

Well HorseWithNoTimeForThis I always associated "ooh you are awful" with the sitcom set in the department store. I can't remember what it was called but I remember Mrs Slocombe (sp?) with the blue/purple hair. I was just a kid so probably have my wires crossed.

On a more serious note:

How is this not self ID?

This person presented themself as male, used a male name (not even a gender neutral one such as Charlie, Ashley or Morgan). Undoubtedly used male pronouns while in contact with their victims. They have technically self ID as male by doing these things. Internal gender feelings have nought to do with it. They themself have taken these actions...ergo self ID.

I hope they are locked up for a very long time.

Yes I've just done the prounoun doe see doe. Yes I've probably misspelled the dance 💃.

She’s not transgender - she’s a disturbed young woman who disguised herself as a boy to fool children.

She’s not transgender - she’s a disturbed young woman who disguised herself as a boy to fool children.

My thoughts exactly.

I agree with Dana. If it looks like self ID and, er, quacks like self ID, then it probably is self ID.

Mrs Slocombe was the Pussy woman; I don't know if she had a catch phrase. It's ages ago.

I agree with Dana. If it looks like self ID and, er, quacks like self ID, then it probably is self ID.

Surely the clue is in the title though - self ID? Has she stated anywhere that she IDs as a man, apart from when tricking girls into having sex?

I agree with Hooves "self- ID" would require her to say so. There's nothing reported to suggest that. From what we know the motive was to have sex with girls.

Why are people here so keen to label this person a transman? Is it because you can't beat to accept that a woman could commit a sexually motivated crime like this and so it's easier if you can label them a transman?

I think you are right there Hooves.

So self ID when chooses to.

Phillip Bunce territory.

The very worst kind.

Re HorseWithNoTimes point about Philip/Pippa Bunce and the comment by Tigers ”I agree with Hooves "self- ID" would require her to say so.”

It’s an interesting point because does Pippa have to tell everyone they see on a Pippa day that they are ID’ing as a trans woman, or would the people who meet / interact with Pippa assume they were a trans woman that day because of clothes, pronouns, etc?

If Pippa didn’t tell you they were ID’ing as trans woman that day, and you assumed, would you be misgendering to say “she”?

And if you referred to Pippa on a Phillip day, would you be dead-naming?

If Bunce is dressed as Pippa Bunce is she and if Pip - he.

I don't see any comparison with the situation here.

She’s not transgender - she’s a disturbed young woman who disguised herself as a boy to fool children

I agree with the above.

Are you now going to spin what I'm saying into my being transphobic as you've tried with Hooves?

Tigers - say they are wearing a black suit. Which name are they dressed as?

If Bunce is dressed as Pippa Bunce is she and if Pip - he.

I don't see any comparison with the situation here.

Why not? This woman might be gender fluid like Philip Bunce.

She might want to be seen as a man when she wears male clothes and uses her male name and a woman at other times.

She might want to be seen as a man when she wears male clothes and uses her male name and a woman at other times.

Then she needs to state that is what she is doing. I don't think it's right for other people to go around labelling someone. If she is trans or gender fluid then why didn't that form part of her defence? That at the time when the contact and then sex took place she was identifying as a male, she wasn't just pretending to be a man in order to trick young girls into having sex

Then she needs to state that is what she is doing.

So when Philip Bunce is dressed as Pippa, does he wear a badge with his name and pronouns to make sure that everyone knows he's temporarily changed his identity and his sex? Because otherwise people might just think he's still Philip but doing a bit of cross-dressing.

He must have informed people that this is who he is. He has been nominated/accepted awards intended for women hasn't he so has clearly made it known what his status is.

The woman that we are talking about does not appear to have declared this. I would have thought that had she been trans then it would have been used as a mitigating factor in her trial or when she was posing as a man on line she was actually identifying as a man and when the assaults took place she was again identifying as a man. Instead they've said that she is a lesbian who was too ashamed to seek sex with women and so disguised herself as a man. I think we have to take this at face value in the absence of any other information.

For me this is where ‘true trans’ becomes an issue where you’re looking to open traditionally female or male only spaces to trans women and trans men. And it’s worth more than #nodebate

If I’m using a traditionally female space, and someone IDing as female enters that space, because of self ID I cannot question them. If they subsequently assault me, but categorically do not state they are a trans women to everyone they meet during the trial, or to all of the news reporters (who have to then actually report the fact), etc blah then it’s no ‘true trans’ and women cannot hold that incident up as an example of why opening up traditionally female spaces could be problematic.

If she is trans or gender fluid then why didn't that form part of her defence?

If she is gender fluid, she can ID as she likes on any given day. See Pip / Phillip above. And you cannot ask someone’s ID as you might out them.

If she’s a trans man (MN My use of ‘if’ is used to indicate a second point in the argument; I’m not trying to deny her ID, and only using female pronouns because that’s what the thread is going with) then Bearsinmotion has made a very good point already.

If she is gender fluid, she can ID as she likes on any given day. See Pip / Phillip above. And you cannot ask someone’s ID as you might out them.

But that would form part of her defence wouldn't it? And just as you say we can't ask people what their identity is I also don't think that we should presume to label them either. It's up to the individual concerned and so far all that we know is that she is a lesbian woman. How can you read anymore into that? I think it is wrong to presume that someone is anything other than what they themselves have chosen to declare.

What happens when you identify the person in front f you as a man, and he swears blind he's not a man? Despite him being very obviously a man?

I would not want such men in single-sex spaces for women and girls, for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity, for women and girls.

And that also goes for the men who have had extreme feminisation surgery. We can still tell. You're still men, despite feminisation surgery. After all, you've only had to have feminisation surgery because you're not female but wish to appear female!

"59OccasionalKite

What happens when you identify the person in front f you as a man, and he swears blind he's not a man? Despite him being very obviously a man?"

You just committed violence.