IF there was a group of males who are trans, because they are AGP, there was always going to be a significant problem. IF identifying as trans is over representated in male sex offenders, there was always going to be a significant problem.
There have been substantive efforts to crush and silence any sort of questioning along these lines. To the point that, even now, I am trying to be careful on how I word this.
Yet the greater the evidence base, the more there looks like there might be a legitimate problem that needs to be spoken about, due to the possible implications if either or both hold out to be true. Hence the resistance to allow any research to be conducted.
From the word go, there has been an issue with treating trans identifying people as one singular group, despite there being significant evidence that there were particular clusters of presentation, that do present areas of concern that should be more greatly examined.
Its been known for a significant amount of time that the pattern lent towards middle age men transitioning and teenage girls transitioning. And patterns with gay and lesbians, autism and those with a history of trauma being significantly over represented.
This DOES NOT mean that all trans people are sexually deviant. Thats precisely part of my point - the treatment that all those who identify as trans are part of a singular group. It DOES mean you have a significant number of very vulnerable individuals being lumped in rather carelessly and thoughtlessly with a group of individuals with a trait which poses a significant potential risk to them.
This is the elephant in the room we can not avoid. The one thats the concerning one. The one we are made to shy away from most. Because 'it tars the innocent with the wrong brush which might lead to discrimination and hate directed towards them' narrative. A narrative which is most heavily pushed by the likes of Mermaids and Stonewall. A narrative that can't stand if the evidence continues to go in the same direction.
We have several groups of significant vulnerability though. There is a correlation/comordibity that even evidence that Stonewall and Mermaids have conducted has emphasised. Yet there aren't efforts to add extra layers of safeguarding to reflect this. Its just 'full steam ahead' on transitioning socially and medically as quickly as possible.
The force teaming is the very thing that CREATES a risk to the vulnerable that Mermaids and Stonewall claim to be advocating for and protecting. This is the crushing of safeguarding protocols which are viewed as 'obstructive and harmful'. This is the agenda they are promoting. It is the basis of Mermaids stated aims.
Not only must any concerns about overally sexualised behaviour be erased/surpressed, but so must any inclination towards the idea that trauma based trans identifying, autistic led inability to understand gender non-conformity and homophobic led transition mustn't be talked about too. Cos of the mantra about 'affirmation only'.
Its a combition which is utterly toxic and highly questionable on many levels. Add 'Acceptance without exception' and you've got a cauldron where things CAN only go wrong.
Once again we have concerns about reputational damage to priviledged and powerful adults first rather than safeguarding and putting concerns about the mixing of groups which never the twain should meet.
ALL these problems will continue to keep coming back to this underlying conflict of interests. They will never go away if you keep putting kids identifying as trans in the same box as males in middle age who have transitioned. They don't have they the same issues and problems and risks despite the constant attempts to frame things as if they do.
The agenda of whats best for children and vulnerable young people just isn't the same as late transitioning males. Thats your bottom line. Its not going away. And it needs to be spoken about.