Male abuser transitions and released from prison.

[Gingerkittykat]

Story here

Male abuser who has harmed up to 15 children freed early because transitioning to a woman and lowering testosterone lowers the risk of reoffending.

Nope, transitioning will never be abused by dangerous motives and we should accept this person into our female spaces.

Poor behaviour is caused by ‘unmet needs’ and it is the fault of schools and society that those needs are not met. Every effort must be made to meet the needs of the individual, and then the behaviour will disappear.

Interesting isn't it, that the unmet need theory is applied only to some in some contexts - it's about separating population into the service recipients who are cared for by the service providers, based on much stereotypical class based decisions. For example GC females as a class are framed always as service providers who are reprehensibly refusing to soldier. You will never see TRA groups running around going 'this GC behaviour is an unmet need, we must have a no blame/no shame/ compassionate response in which our own feelings must be set aside, and we will provide support and care to meet this need so they don't need GC behaviours any more'. Instead the approach is wholly and furiously punitive in a highly Dickensian, anti Liberal hang em and flog em way.

I bang on and on about this but when you look at what comes up over and over again in serious case reviews where a child has experienced a major safeguarding fail:

• difficult adults were involved in the situation, often highly needy in themselves, whose behaviour was challenging, demanding and deeply unpleasant and overwhelming when they were displeased. Professionals were unequipped professionally or emotionally to stand up to this.

• those adults often either became the prime focus for the professionals, their needs taking up the time, the energy, the attention and resources, or their behaviour so successfully punished professionals for anything that made them feel emotionally uncomfortable that professionals backed off from expected boundaries, avoided challenging the person regardless of how the person breached policy/procedure/standard expectations or even legal requirements, and focus slipped to 'keeping the person on side' by never upsetting them. Often professionals were actively afraid to upset them. (Declaring that behaviour an unmet need without looking deeper shifts focus nicely away from you as a professional needing to unpack your own issues and responses and address them.)

• Professionals were overly concerned with understanding, relating to and supporting the adults involved, often based on ethical and organisational political ideals, and lost sight of the primary focus and purpose of their role.

Hold a serious case review into policy capture (and this will come, except it will more likely be a full scale public inquiry) and I'll bet there are the top three findings right there, all ready to go.

Pale in Michelle’s post she says

“In this empathic, compassionate deconstruct of the behaviour you will find no mention of the victims anywhere, nor any suggestion that the offender should be expected to take any kind of responsibility for their own behaviour and management of their feelings“

Which is exactly what I’m talking about in schools. I’m not saying that children and adults should be treated in the same way, but that the idea that when you have the behaviour of an individual caused by unmet needs (I don’t agree that this is the root of all poor behaviour) then the focus should be on their needs and the needs of the victims/collateral damage is entirely overlooked is not an ideology peculiar to this case.

Oh I see! When a man has a high sex he just can’t stop himself from raping women and children. That’s just biology. They’re only doing it because their sex drive is so damn high and they can’t help themselves. If their sex drive is lower then problem solved, eh?

Is high sex drive now usable as a defence for sex offenders? Of course not. So lower sex drive cannot possibly be used as a reason to let them out. Abuse is not just about sex.

I’m suddenly reminded of serial killers like Ed Kemper who managed to convince psychiatrists that they were safe to be released so they could carry on raping and killing.

How can they possibly analyse the likelihood of reoffending? Self-reporting doesn’t work in psychopaths, for example. Are they doing that thing where they place a sensor around the genitals and measure arousal? Because that won’t work if they’re on female hormones. Doesn’t mean the person not a risk, and that’s if they keep taking them.

What’s to stop every sex offender doing this?

It’s not castration as there’s nothing permanent about it.

It is permanent if done long-term.

It’s also not being given as treatment for paedophilia.
**
It could easily be seen as a short-term fix for getting early release from prison by people who have committed abhorrent crimes if this goes ahead.

It's not being given as a ' treatment' for paedophilia, but it's clearly an alternative to a lengthy prison sentence.

But of course this never happens. Nobody would choose hormonal treatment if they weren't ' genuinely trans'.

The molestation of children has nothing to do with sex drive and all about power over a vulnerable weaker person. The same goes for Rae. If it was about sex drive, they could solve that by having a wank. I’m absolutely disgusted with this decision and unfortunately it won’t be those who made the decision that will suffer because of this creep being released into society, but more vulnerable souls.

*The sane goes for rape.

Great post Michelle

Can someone send this to Nicola Sturgeon?

No point. This person is a 'female predator' in her eyes.

I thought society had moved on from considering chemical castration to be a suitable treatment for sex offenders. Barbaric.

From a recent thread

MoleSmokes wrote
Archived Jenny Rossity Twitter thread about anti-androgens for sex-offenders experiment in UK Prisons:

archive.md/3T3TF

Tweets by @ jennyrossity 27 Nov 2018

Earlier Peter Tatchell disingenuously defended women’s rights by telling us we’re wrong to fear transwomen. In general I agree, but we should be afraid that in a cohort of 120 sex offenders given anti-androgens in prison almost half then decided to transition.

And we should be extremely worried that in order to ease prison over-crowding the government has suggested widening that cohort to 1,500 sex offenders in order to release them. Source:
www.express.co.uk/news/politics/944275/sexual-offender-chemical-castration-ministry-justice-worboys

A side effect of anti-androgens is that they cause those taking them to grow breasts. We have treated sex offenders with anti-androgens since 2007:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

(@ thefishgod Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Let me get this right: the government are creating trans prisoners?)

Then these sex offenders gets an idea to exploit hard won trans rights to get themselves transferred to a women’s prison and access victims more easily. In evidence to Parliament GIDs say they cannot cope with the sheer amount of referrals from prison:
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.html

I discovered this because I looked at the case of trans sex offenders Jacinta Brooks and Carrie Cooper and thought: these are not my nice trans friends. This is something else entirely. They both had previous for paedophilia and so I looked into how sex offenders were treated.

The harm this cohort of violent sex offenders could cause to women and girls and also to the trans community should not be underestimated. Surgeons do not want to transition these patients. They see it as conflicting with their duty to do no harm.

From GIDs "Another persistent source of difficulty is NHS rules require patient files to be kept for at least 30 years whilst the GRA requires us to destroy any records which link the patient’s old identity with the new identity. It's unclear which legislation takes precedence."

I wish this weren’t true, but it is & it’s up to the decent trans community & women to stand together & oppose it, not bury our heads in the sand & pretend it’s not happening. Stonewall want acceptance without exception. I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t take exception to this.

This is a national scandal on a par with the PIE scandal.

We know 120 prisoners have been given anti-androgens across 6 sex offender specific prisons. Data from 4 revealed that of that cohort 34 have now transitioned:
www.pressreader.com/uk/the-mail-on-sunday/20180603/281728385203217

Yes. The anti-androgens help them treat the compulsive behaviour that then allows for meaningful psychiatric interventions. I doubt it was their intention but it is often the end result.

(@ SalwayBrewer Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Is that history destruction required by the GRA correct? No offence meant.)

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
What I have found is that the prison service will log a new and old name together so it is recorded somewhere. Who has access to that info I don’t know. I am assuming it’s on the criminal record fullstop so hopefully there would still be a way to connect past and future crimes.

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
I don’t know whether GIDs are correct about that NHS record destruction they would know more than me about that and I haven’t double checked that. Pls feel free to though. I don’t mind at all.

(@ sarahstuartxx Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
There is no proof, as I understand it, that this treatment stops offending behaviour.)

Replying to @ sarahstuartxx
Correct. ESP as it relies on self medication. There is evidence they flog it on the dark web to earn money.

(@ PocketHanky Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
This is a very interesting thread, but are you sure about this bit? I thought the anti-androgens stopped the production of testosterone, but it was the oestrogen that caused the breast growth)

Replying to @ PocketHanky
See marked section:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3755910-Prisoner-denied-GRS-court-case?pg=5&order=

When a man has a high sex he just can’t stop himself from raping women and children

I see. So men with lower sex drives just do a little bit of raping, I get it now.

Every day the safety of children becomes more and more compromised as paedophiles and predators are protected by the woke and foolish

I'm another one who is wondering why the trans lobby is not up in arms about this.

Of course they say we should just let them offend and then deal with the aftermath afterwards.

Quite. Remember if you get raped or murdered, you can always report it to the police. Which will make it all better.

This is so insulting and offensive I just don't have the words to express how angry I am.
His victims deserved justice, now they have been abused and robbed of justice.

And let me guess, if he decides to stop the hormones, that's his human right. Demanding that he keeps taking them would be transphobic and akin to demanding sterilization.

I have no doubt if you dug around in the minutes of the meetings around this decision, you will eventually find suggestions that his offending behaviour was probably in part caused by the stress of not having transitioned.

Likewise. Wasn't there quite similar material in the case of Karen Jones?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3180050-Invited-to-talk-at-the-House-of-Lords

NB: I know that somewhere there are threads about Jones with very good collections of links to the various documents.

I know I've read about two cases of post-op males who committed and were then convicted of serious sexual offenses after their transition.

And even >90% men who've had an orchiectomy (ie surgical rather than mere chemical castration) can achieve and maintain an erection, about half of them without taking any erectile dysfunction meds.

And claiming that a lowered sex drive prevents reoffending is highly problematic. First there's typically no objective base line to compare this to as sex drive is highly individual, second if you ask an offender offered this "treatment", it's always in his best interest to lie and claim it's working even if it isn't and third, we know from at least one study that in 75% of the men who took part, testosterone wasn't successfully lowered to the female range, despite receiving a high enough dose.

But this is a logical end product of a justice system built by and for men, run by men and operated by men. The fear of castration is a primal one for men. They consider this a much more effective and graver punishment than it actually is. It's a blind spot and I doubt we'll ever get them to see it.

First there's typically no objective base line to compare this to as sex drive is highly individual,

My dominant concern is that sex offences often seem to deploy sex as the mechanism of control in an abuse of power. Does having a lower drive towards sex automatically equate to a drop in the drive to dominate and abuse vulnerable others using whatever tools/mechanisms are accessible to you?

Does having a lower drive towards sex automatically equate to a drop in the drive to dominate and abuse vulnerable others using whatever tools/mechanisms are accessible to you?

A very early thesis of rape held that it is a crime of passion committed by men who cannot control their urges. This thesis was used to feed the persistent and widespread habit of blaming rape victims for their own rape. So much so that it was used for decades in the courts.

It took the feminist analysis of rape as well as new research to show that rape isn't about passion but power. And that was back in the 70s!

I couldn't remember the research I'd read about this just now, but here is an interesting article exploring the history of researching the causes of rape. One particularly interesting quote:

Various studies found that testosterone levels were not higher in rapists. Nor did sexual deprivation correlate with rape: the surveys conducted found that, if anything, rapists had more consensual sexual partners than other men. And, as the late Paul Gebhard and colleagues at the Institute for Sex Research (now the Kinsey Institute) showed in Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types (1965), married rapists were just as likely to have active sex lives with their wives. These results were so consistent, regardless of the political orientation of the researchers, that the belief that rape resulted from priapism or frustration was abandoned by all sides.

People like that should never be let out of prison!
Why are people in prison allowed to get these gender transitioning treatments?

There doesn't seem to be any guarantee that this person will continue with hormone treatment?

How many women do crimes like this - how many? How did they get away with so many crimes? What makes them get this get out of jail pass? I really don’t understand this?

Is high sex drive now usable as a defence for sex offenders? Of course not. So lower sex drive cannot possibly be used as a reason to let them out. Abuse is not just about sex.

Agree.

It seems there is every chance, even encouragement, for transitioned, released sex offenders to disappear from the radar with their former names and criminal records excised.

What could possibly go wrong?