Probation Officer in a Multi Agency Public Protection team discusses sex offenders and self ID

[ChristinaXYZ]

The following is a fascinating thread on twitter.

"I have met and dealt with a lot more nasty, violent and dangerous preditory male sexual offenders than most people have. That is the group driving my concern. What I know of them as a group, there is NO rule or opportunity they will not exploit."

twitter.com/James_Treadwell/status/1475413012945281025

Just to add that as the writer points out:

"It isn't about trans people, it's about bad people who will exploit the law from self interest and work within a legal framework (that could protect women's spaces) to do as they want and get what they want."

Going to have a squiz at comments as interested to see if when MAN states

A. The bleeding obvious and
B. What loads of women (and increasing numbers of men) have been saying for YEARS

He gets the same response as a woman would...

"It isn't about trans people, it's about bad people who will exploit the law from self interest"

If there were no examples of trans identifying males claiming a number of varied self-proclaimed gender identities, who have also committed crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature, that would be an accurate statement. The problem with that sentiment is that it makes a sacred caste beyond scrutiny or safeguarding principles. It's been stated many times that the offending pattern of trans identifying male people is no different from males as a sex class. We shouldn't be setting aside a small group of males, beyond the scope of any scrutiny or safeguarding measures, purely on the basis of a claimed & unverifiable 'self-claimed gender identity'.

And in case my comments are wilfully misinterpreted as 'all trans people are...' etc. this is me making an observation that in order to protect the public from the few male 'bad apples' within the wider male sex class from nefarious individuals, the same applies to males who claim one of a number of gender identities - none are beyond the scope of general safeguarding measures & employing those principles is not a blanket claim that "...all 'X' are..."

That's the whole basis of the need & requirements of single sex spaces/services/provision/support/sport etc. The few males who pose a threat mean all males are excluded where women require privacy, dignity, safety etc.

Negative comments are much more polite than women who say this tend to get...

Didn't read all comments but a good wedge.

Hmph.

Still great more men are speaking out.

Saw an irritating post from someone this evening saying, "your problem isn't with trans women, it's with cis men pretending to be trans women" in a really "gotcha" way.

So frustrating. Sigh.

@ChristinaXYZ

Just to add that as the writer points out:

"It isn't about trans people, it's about bad people who will exploit the law from self interest and work within a legal framework (that could protect women's spaces) to do as they want and get what they want."

But according to the people who support self ID, anyone who says they're trans is trans.

So a man who declares he is trans and is doing so simply to gain access to women or children is as much a transwoman as a male who suffers from gender dysphoria and genuinely wants to be a woman. According to Stonewall. Acceptance without exception. Everyone is who they say they are.

Self ID is used in two different ways, and they're both common. Actually, one is more common than the other, but when it is useful for those posting gender> sex, 'misunderstanding'' is standard and useful, as seen on the Twitter thread in OP.

The more common use of self ID is the social rather than legal side.
About large numbers of sports bodies, changing facilities including in gyms etc, bogs natch, police crime recording, etc.
Going on self ID of gender (internal feeling) rather than sex. And loads of other things. Rape crisis, women only competitions, awards, feminist orgs, I mean so so much.

Often not publicised, pointed out when joining, using facilities etc. Which is so cowardly.

Anyway. That self ID, what's demanded is that everyone assume everyone is in the right place. Even a double take or other slight reaction is vv upsetting. Saying something is hateful. Just keep quiet, ignore or better still be welcoming (!). Remember appearance doesn't mean anything about what gender, and gender can be fluid. Ground floor seeing same person women's changing, later use gents. So what? Be respectful. Their gender could be in flux and don't judge...
Etc etc.

Second is law. GRC, if move to self ID.
Very few trans people here have one, proportionately.
This changes birth cert. Also marriage cert iirc if married (whole so called 'spousal veto'). Legally your sex has changed.
Where helpful?
For full on old school trans sexual people, means no confusion thought was women this says male.
Not sure what else have to look.

If was like Ireland eg online form.
What issue with it.
With so much self ID already not sure.
Ireland Barbie K quickly did it before in court so their law said women's prison.

Dunno really. Again would need to look.

So on that Twitter thread. I think the OP was not 100% on the above.

What he DID know, and wanted to share, was that dangerous blokes will exploit any and all ways of getting access to victims etc.

He said gender self ID.

I think he's not 100% on the situation re GRC and how on ground it's just choose what fancy doing at that point. Just say I'm this, done. No GRC required.

And that doesn't matter because his comments were about, dodgy men WILL exploit.

Of course loads of comments then, GRC is only birth cert so what etc.

And I think those posts got a fair few commenting confused.

@SwumMum

Saw an irritating post from someone this evening saying, "your problem isn't with trans women, it's with cis men pretending to be trans women" in a really "gotcha" way.

So frustrating. Sigh.

Well, it's a start, isn't it? Because the next logical step is - how do we tell them apart?

That's going to be another answer you'll be waiting a long, long time for, Arabella !

I was referring to both types of self ID, both informal and legal. Changes to the GRA would just make it easier for predators to get legal recognition.

If you believe that everyone is who they say they are, then people like the Wi Spa flasher or Barbie Kardashian or Karen White are just as 'trans' as someone diagnosed with gender dysphoria. You can't tell them apart because they are the same: they are all people who say they are trans. And that's all you need for self ID.

There is nothing about self ID which requires a statement about why someone believes they are trans. Easy access to women and/or children is as valid a reason as any other.

And as always wholly misses the point that even if via Vulcan Mind Meld or Layla Moran doing a soul scan, and every single TW who was sincere was assessed and given a badge or something and no one without a badge could use women's spaces.....? (And badges were non transferrable in some way, and unfakable?)

• who is going to stand on the entrance of every female space and check for badges?

• who is going to deal with the angry male person who says they are a woman and is coming in and you can't stop them?

• what is the badge company going to do with sincere TW who are also convicted predators? Karen White et al are as trans as anyone else, being trans is not incompatible with being a danger to women

• what are we going to do with the females excluded from any space, resource, facility etc who have had all access and all inclusion removed so that this lovely male person can use a facility and make it mixed sex to better meet their needs?

Female people are not a consumable resource for male people. If female people were not viewed as such we would not be trying to have this ridiculous conversation in the first place.

If there were no examples of trans identifying males claiming a number of varied self-proclaimed gender identities, who have also committed crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature, that would be an accurate statement. The problem with that sentiment is that it makes a sacred caste beyond scrutiny or safeguarding principles.

^This. It implies that there are two separate groups of people who say they are trans. Group a) People who genuinely identify as the opposite sex and group b) Sex offenders who would use Self I.D. to commit sexual crimes. Presumably there is plenty of data which proves there are quite a few trans-identifying individuals who belong to both groups? But obviously you're not allowed to say that, because that would mean that you think all trans people are sex offenders . In any case, it certainly means that judging on the basis of which ones take hormones or have surgery would not work.

You're right @crazyjinglist as well as those who mis use the concept of gender recognition, there will be some genuine trans who are also sex offenders, as there are in any other group.

But a higher proportion than in other groups, from what I've read (on here). I'm sure someone quoted stats which said that the proportion of imprisoned transwomen who were in prison for sex crimes was not just miles higher than it was for natal women (tiny minority) but also higher than it is for men. Though I guess we don't know how many of those are genuinely trans either...

Can someone explain what 'genuinely trans' means?

I take issue with any man, 'trans' or not, who doesn't accept that womens opinions/boundaries/feelings are actually valid.

Can someone explain what 'genuinely trans' means?

It seems to me that there are two possible answers to this:

1. People who have the medically diagnosable* condition of gender dysphoria which requires medical treatment.

1. Anyone who says they are trans.

It was assumed until recently that 'genuinely trans' referred to people described in 1. At some point in the last few years we have moved over to 2. So a 'genuinely trans' person is anyone who says they are. Which includes males who decide they are 'genuinely trans' with the intent to use their status to commit sexual offences.

*I'm not even sure that gender dysphoria is medically diagnosable, since all the descriptions of how such a diagnosis is made seem to rely heavily on gender stereotypes.

Well in this context I think it means a man who genuinely wants to be, and thinks of himself as, a woman. As opposed to a man who absolutely considers himself a man, but is willing to pretend he identifies as a woman in order to gain access to vulnerable women or women's spaces.

I'm with you on taking issue whether 'trans or not'. But I still think it's important to point out to TRAs that men cynically claiming to be trans in order to access women's spaces is not 'something that would never happen', but is something that already does happen. That doesn't mean that genuine transwomen should be allowed access, it just makes the point that women have more reason to object than TRAs claim.

It was the point at which 'genuinely trans' became a very blurred and undefined concept, a few years ago when I noticed anyway, that I started questioning all this.

The argument is now very much that gender dysphoria isn't necessary, being trans is a person's self and identity so it shouldn't be medicalised etc. So it's essentially indefinable, unless you use circular definitions and both deliberately conflate and separate 'sex' and 'gender' as concepts depending on what you're trying to argue.

As noted above, under self-id, to state one is trans is to be trans.

Well in this context I think it means a man who genuinely wants to be, and thinks of himself as, a woman. As opposed to a man who absolutely considers himself a man, but is willing to pretend he identifies as a woman in order to gain access to vulnerable women or women's spaces.

Since it's impossible to know what someone else is thinking, it's impossible for anyone else to know whether the man claiming to be trans is genuine or not.

And in any case, a man who genuinely wants to be, and thinks of himself as a woman is still a man. So does it really matter what is going on in his head?

Yes, you're right of course. The widening of the 'trans umbrella' really has doneno favours for genuinely dysphoric transpeople. I was about to say 'You'd think they'd want to distance themselves from the other group', but I guess they don't really have any choice. After all it's clear which group is loudly running the show and pulling the strings, and that's certainly not the trans people who just want to be left to quietly get on with identifying as they choose without hurting anyone.

'And as always wholly misses the point that even if via Vulcan Mind Meld or Layla Moran doing a soul scan, and every single TW who was sincere ...'

The massive, fundamental question here-

Even if a person can be proven to feel they are a woman (and that in itself is rife with massive issues, questions),

Single sex stuff exists because-

1. It's about bodies; the totally obvious differences that 99.9999 % of the world know because fundamental between male/female . Not feelings.

* This is an interesting area. The justification for TW in women's things even though male body, used to be because at risk of violence etc in men's. That stopped being said a few years ago I think. And I can't think of any replacement for it. The key question- why an internal feeling should be the determining factor for things to do with bodies. Has not been answered, currently no decent justification offered, conversation diverted constantly away from addressing it head on.

1. It's about the fact known by 99.999% of the world that there are v significant behavioural differences between male female. Whether nature/nurture/a mix is a really interesting topic, but irrelevant to the basic point. Which is that globally, post puberty males are as a group more aggressive, more violent than females. They are responsible for virtually all the unwanted/feared/damaging/appalling/unconscionable sex related behaviour around the world. I don't say illegal as what is illegal varies so much, and various levels of harm are acceptable to society.

* There are have been so so many different arguments about why this isn't anything to do with anything. Over the years they have shifted usually in reaction to events rendering the existing argument/s obviously incorrect/unpalatable.

1. With some things it's because that historically (and still, to various levels around the world) women's achievements have been ignored, not recorded, attributed to men. The history of access to education, further study, various jobs etc. The difficulty getting taken seriously, having their work heard, read, paid attention to, made available to a wider extent. Discrimination in work, politics, sport, the arts, science, pretty much everything seen as difficult/ clever/ innovative/ challenging etc etc.

* Justification here is, not sure. I think there's a bit of angry man attitude. These things are special treatment, not fair to men, women getting stuff even though not as good as men. Only open to niche groups. So what if not female any more.

Genuinely trans.

From the gender > sex orgs individuals etc that I've read and a lot on this.

And the arguments have gone really ???!!! in current iteration I'll get to that.

Predominant view is that gender ID must be respected, if doubt assume right place etc.

IF there's a crime committed, and note, it's invariably rape that is raised, not any other sex offences or legal but godawful behaviours male > female that happen.

THEN they were not a genuine trans person.

That's what it means.

Some TW have also been pretty much expelled from trans 'community' and are not mentioned alluded to at all.

Canada JY example of this. Ireland the fucking govt are also trying best to make someone invisible, and certainly never seen mentioned when Ireland gra process and how brilliant no probs is discussed - B Kardashian.

Some who were pretty high profile in media orgs etc not ever mentioned include the NUS bus stop flasher, that nspcc rubber pants bog wanker (some were vv vocal to their large audience about that person being vilified due to homophobia appalling). Also two individuals with fluctuating gender id/presentation who should be celebrated as trans people succeeding are not mentioned. Even though one vv high up in major business sector, wins lots awards and advocates for trans people a lot and gets interviewed etc, and the other vvv well known actor/ comedian etc around for decades.

The key question- why an internal feeling should be the determining factor for things to do with bodies.

We have sex segregation in the UK. Wholly accepted. Male and female bodies, in situations of privacy and dignity, have separate provision and this is unquestioned and normal with the need fully understood.

Unless a male person feels that their thoughts and feelings mean their physical body isn't how they wish to be thought of.

And then female people must pretend that they are not in fact physically male, and that there is not a problem with making an exemption and overlooking all the difficulties that come with male bodies in female spaces, removing female people's privacy and dignity.

Who and how many males get to make this choice and to require females to set aside their own privacy and dignity and pretend this is not a problem?

Any. All.

So effectively sex segregation is the norm in the UK, however male people may enter whichever space they choose for their own reasons. Female people do not get privacy, dignity, safety, because male people do not want them to have it, because them having it would get in the way of male people meeting their own needs.

Hello sexism, welcome to 2022.