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?

Because more people are willing to be in a hetero relationship than one involving a trans person... especially young teens.

It makes not a jot of difference whether she meets a definition of transman. She did self-ID as a man/boy to those girls, whether or not she ‘meant’ it.

I find it shocking that we are contemplating whether it would help her defence/provide mitigation if she did declare herself to be a transman. Why would that make any difference?

I find it shocking that we are contemplating whether it would help her defence/provide mitigation if she did declare herself to be a transman. Why would that make any difference?

Only in as much as if she were a transman then I would have expected it to have been mentioned in court ie it wasn't a disguise done to trick the girls but an honest representation of how this person identifies.

I don't think ultimately that it should have made any difference to the outcome of the trial but I think it would have been used in mitigation if it were true.

I still see a difference between self ID and a disguise used to con people.

Of course there is a difference, but not from the perspective of those girls.

Well quite. Which is why I find this thread a bit off really. I don't see why people are so eager to state that the perpetrator is a transman.

The fact is that they've stated she is female and I see no reason for others to try and argue any different.

They are not saying that she is a transman, they are questioning how we tell the difference. I am questioning why it matters.

They are also saying that the definition of transman is so loose/variable that she might well count as a transman under some interpretations. She certainly counts as transgender. They are questioning all of this and we are all exploring why it matters z

If Bunce is dressed as Pippa Bunce..

Jeans? T-shirt? Trainers? I know lots of men and women who dress like this.

What then?

I fucking love it when the "logic" of it all comes back and bites on the arse.

Well quite. Which is why I find this thread a bit off really. I don't see why people are so eager to state that the perpetrator is a transman. You've misunderstood the OP... as have many others.

The eagerness is just continued questioning of the Stonewall ethos and its 'Trans Umbrella' - that's Stonewall's own name for their re-defining the meaning or Trans, under which every single human being can be included - go have a look!

Such responses are partly irony, lots of sarcasm and a lot of "Fucking hell, here we go again!"

So very many times we are told that a man is a woman because he says so, dresses as such or may have done so on a Tuesday! The BBC and most other media outlets fall over themselves to refer to such men as she, all the time, every time, even when the pictures included show men with beards - we mustn't judge by looks, apparently. And we have to rememebr that beg trans is so hurtful that, whilst not being a MH issue, it is a reason to feel some sorrow for the transwomen who transgress the law!

OP has asked why this is not the case when a woman poses as a man/boy for similarly nefarious purposes. Why is she simply a deceptive sex predator? Why are men who do exactly the same given a new name/label and a possible 'out' for their crimes?

You may not agree with OPs question. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that there is no difference in the reporting of such crimes and that those differenes rely on the sex of a woman and the gender of a man.

OP is aksing why is that?

What's the difference between a transman and a woman who impersonates a man (or a teenage boy)?

How do we tell the difference?

For me, personally, it's how the person defines themselves.

So in this case, had she said that she is a transman or gender fluid and was at the times of the incidents then I would accept that and get crimes would be those of a transman committing sexual assault or whatever she was convicted of.

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.

But hooves, if she was a transman, or claimed to be, would that remove that element of deception from the crime?

Anyone trying to make out that this person would not come under stonewall's trans umbrella needs to take it up with that organisation. It's them they have issues with, not anyone here.

Pip, Pip, hooray!

So in this case, had she said that she is a transman or gender fluid and was at the times of the incidents then I would accept that and get crimes would be those of a transman committing sexual assault or whatever she was convicted of.

So if someone claims to be something, we should believe them?

Let's take the example of a man impersonating a woman in order to gain easier access to victims. A man who is simply a rapist or paedophile. If he claims that he is a transwoman or gender fluid, we should believe him?

Please hooves read that last question and give it some serious thought! Let us know what you think ...

But that would form part of her defence wouldn't it?

Why? This is exactly the point I was making above. According to Stonewall the gender a person identifies with is the gender they are, in all respects. #nodebate.

So, male sex offender who identifies as female, off to the women's prison. This has happened (see Karen White etc), it has been campaigned for by powerful lobbyists (to the detriment of women).

Female sex offender identifies as male, off to the men's prison, or expose the inherent misogyny and hypocrisy of everyone who parrots TWAW at every opportunity. To the huge detriment and risk to that female.

You still think a lawyer would see her identifying as a trans man as a good thing for her defense?

I wasn't going to come back to this thread as all any of us know is what the papers have reported. And as we know papers only report what they want.

However one report said that when asked why she did it the woman concerned said something along the lines of "I wanted to make them happy".

Obviously you could interpret that any way, but what it said to me was that she couldn't make friends with young / younger women is because they were interested in boys. So she disguised herself as a boy to be friends with them. But obviously being friends does not mean being sexual or coercing someone under age into sex ie that's rape / sexual assault.

I dont think there is any part of any report that talks about trans.

And I suspect Stonewall and others will not want to claim her as such.

Whatever her motives or thought process what she did was wrong and a crime.

This police press release lists the crimes she was convicted of news.met.police.uk/news/woman-jailed-for-grooming-and-sexually-assaulting-young-girls-391421

What is more worrying is that she could have been represented in the media as a lesbian and perpetuated the myth that both lesbians and gay men prey on underage children.

Let's take the example of a man impersonating a woman in order to gain easier access to victims. A man who is simply a rapist or paedophile. If he claims that he is a transwoman or gender fluid, we should believe him?

I don't see why this is difficult. If anyone is trying to get access to victims because they are a rapist and a paedophile then they should be stopped. Presumably you know that's what they're doing be side you have stated that is their aim.

If an individual is not known to be a risk then they should be treated as any other individual because that is how our society works isn't it? DBS is a prime example of it. If no convictions or concerns are flagged by DBS then the individual is allowed to have access to potentially vulnerable individuals. If however you know them to be a danger then they are barred.

Why should thus be any different? If you know that someone is a danger due to past actions or the way they are acting currently then they should be stopped.

This woman committed crimes as a woman pretending to be a man in order to gain access to girls. There have been no suggestions that she is transgender. As I said upthread if someone pretends to be a police officer in order to commit a crime do you all insist that they must be a police officer?

If you know that someone is a danger due to past actions or the way they are acting currently then they should be stopped Well, you see, many posters here can, and probably will, now point you to the statistics about transwomen, sex crimes and being housed inthe female estate.

Mainly because your logic, whilst utterly logical, 100 % common sense, is not actually the law and HMPO DOES house males convicted of sex crimes in the female estate purely because that man says he is a woman Can you guess what has happened next?

We don't know why this is any different. That's why OP asked ...

As I said upthread if someone pretends to be a police officer in order to commit a crime do you all insist that they must be a police officer?

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I don't believe that anyone should be able to identify as anything that they are not when this self-identification has implications for other people. This includes someone who identifies as a police officer (when they are not), or a child (when they are an adult), or a woman (when they are a man).

Mainly because your logic, whilst utterly logical, 100 % common sense, is not actually the law and HMPO DOES house males convicted of sex crimes in the female estate purely because that man says he is a woman Can you guess what has happened next?

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the case in hand, nor even the op.

1. this woman has not identified as trans, do discussing what may or may not happen to her or anyone else in.prison us irrelevant to this case.

2)I've already stated, clearly, that if you know that someone is a danger then you take steps to stop them, so any transwoman who is known to be a danger to women should not be placed in a female prison. I have already answered that point in my earlier post after you demanded that I respond.

Ah! It might help if you read posts as a whole.

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

I can only say that I have had enough. It is too much like trying to nail blancmange to the ceiling!

I don't see why this is difficult. If anyone is trying to get access to victims because they are a rapist and a paedophile then they should be stopped. Presumably you know that's what they're doing be side you have stated that is their aim.

You didn't answer my question. 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?

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. It would be useful to have a way to tell who is a predator who is pretending to be the opposite sex and who has a genuine opposite sex 'gender identity', before a crime is committed.