Mary Harrington - Why are so many transgender prisoners sex offenders?

[RebelliousCow]

https://open.substack.com/pub/reactionaryfeminist/p/how-many-sex-offenders?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Anyway, GuanYinShanxi has not presented any data to support the hypothesis that men convicted of sex crimes against children are more likely to be "fake trans" than "real trans" and that they "fake being trans" in order to be transferred to a Women's Prison for their own protection.

And despite being asked several times, that poster has failed to explain what the difference is between someone who is "real trans" and someone who is "fake trans" and how anyone can tell the difference.

At one extreme we have part-time crossdressers like Jamie Wallis MP and at the other fully surgically modified transsexuals. All under the massive trans umbrella.

If we accept that any man who claims to identify as a woman is trans, then there is no such thing as a "fake" trans person. Under this belief system, the act of declaring their transness makes it so.

But if the claim is made that there are "real" and "fake" trans people, we need an objective description of what makes someone a "real" trans person so that we can separate "real" from "fake".

A delusion in the way that some people with mental illnesses have delusions, you mean? Like some people think they are Jesus, or Napoleon?

And yes, delusions can persist for long periods of time.

Does that make them a 'genuine' Jesus?

Thank you, Bosky and OldCrone for your useful, referenced posts.

Surely somebody is researching this subject, somewhere? There is plenty of evidence out there.

I suppose it makes them a genuine trans Jesus rather than a fake trans Jesus. And around and around we go!

I suppose the key question is - does a genuine transJesus have the right to dispense blessings and avoid council tax charges, and how do we stop a fake transJesus from availing Jesusself of the same benefits?

There are also people who identify as transabled. How can we tell the difference between genuinely transabled people and those who are just faking it to claim disability benefits or just for the attention?

One well-known example in this category is Chloe Jennings-White, who is also transgender. This is a particularly good article about him written by a disabled woman, Melanie Reid who broke her neck and back in a horse-riding accident.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spinal-column-no-truck-with-transableists-r3qrr3glx73

Archived here: https://archive.ph/rIKDk

There are some unexpected perks from my situation. One of them, if you possess a fertile sense of the ridiculous, is discovering the lunacy that lurks around the edges of disability. In this regard, one of the most spectacular bits of low-hanging fruit is a person called Chloe Jennings-White, a fake paraplegic who features in a National Geographic documentary to be broadcast next month.

Jennings-White is the best known proponent of a movement called transableism. Transableists claim they are disabled people trapped in able bodies and they have a burning desire either to live as cripples or get medical help to do so. Some of the transabled want limbs removed, some want to be deaf or blind and some want to be paralysed. Honestly, I’m not making this up.

Come to think of it I have always had an inner Jesus-y feeling.

Now about that council tax exemption...

I'm interested in how this socialisation vs hormones works with other mammals, especially livestock. Valuable pedigree stallions interact with professinal humans from birth but are still stabled separately and require specific handling skills. They are not used in RDA work and most livery yards will not accept them. Why is this, if their intact maleness can be just trained out of them?

You can join a religious cult because you genuinely believe, or join because it's a way to get a wife.

In either case, you may end up leaving, because, "yeah, bit of a mistake, I joined a cult".

I think it's borderline. As I used the word, I just meant it's a false belief.

At least some religious beliefs are going to be false.

Now holding to a religion doesn't mean you have a mental illness, even if the beliefs are false.

Let's say with Mormonism as an example, it's not only false, but a lot of people would think it's obviously false, and you're going to be highly irrational to believe it. It's still not regarded as a mental illness.

However, people can certainly "go off the deep end" with religious beliefs. You can cross that line where it starts to look like a mental health issue.

I would say trans identity is a mental health issue, but it's probably not on the same level as the delusions you mention.

So a trans person could be well functioning. They could be genuinely happier that way in some cases. Or it could cause them a lot of distress and impairment.

Does that make them a 'genuine' Jesus?

I suppose it makes them a genuine trans Jesus rather than a fake trans Jesus. And around and around we go!

If you wanted to know if someone is a genuine Christian, you would look at their beliefs, and maybe something like church attendance or whatever.

You wouldn't ask whether their beliefs are correct.

Now of course, some people want to insist that, "trans women are women".

But that's not my position.

Do you want to insist that we define "trans" as they really are the opposite sex in some sense?

Then we would just need to come up with a new term yes?

Question is what is a trans belief and what does "going off the deep end" with belief actually look like and what does faking it look like?

We've recently had some pretty high profile trans activists saying that they think TW are AHF. RMW is a good example of this and has recently claimed that RMW is an AHF. Do we honestly think for a minute that RMW actually believes that RMW is a AHF? The most likely scenario is that they are trolling or lying. RMW is not daft and I find it unlikely (in view of the fact that they are a working barrister) that have any serious mental illness that would lead them to believe that they are actually an AHF. So at what point does a claim to be a TW or an AHF become so patently untrue that you are considered to be faking it? Does India Willoughby's claim to have a cervix mean India is faking it? Does Isla Bryson only IDing as a TW 10 minutes before his trial mean that he is faking it?

The difference between all these beliefs and transgenderism is what is expected of other people.

Nobody is expected to go along with a deluded person's belief that they are Napoleon or Jesus.

People of various religions may try to convert others, but nobody calls you a Mormonphobe or a Jehovah's Witnessphobe if you choose to politely say "No thank you" and close the door when they call.

MPs don't get all tongue-tied if you ask them "Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God?" - they just answer according to their own beliefs, and nobody who answers "No" to that question is called a Christianphobe. Even if they confirm that they are an atheist and don't believe in God at all.

Transgenderism isn't just a belief system, it's one that we are all required to believe in, regardless of our own true beliefs.

Transgenderism isn't just a belief system, it's one that we are all required to believe in, regardless of our own true beliefs.

Yes, but that's a distinct issue.

We still need to recognise that there are trans women, to maybe send them to a trans wing of a male prison, rather than sending them to a female prison.

Whether someone is or is not a genuine Christian (or any other religion) doesn't affect anyone except themselves and other members of that faith. It's only when someone's declared religion starts to impact on others that it's important to anyone outside that faith, as in the case of the prisoners identifying as Jewish because kosher food was better than standard prison food, but also cost twice as much, so the prison service was keen to establish which prisoners were genuinely Jewish and which ones were fakes.

If men who claim to identify as transwomen weren't trying to get into women's sports, changing rooms, toilets and prisons, and trying to convince everyone else that they are real women, nobody would care how they identify, and whether or not they were faking.

Why do we need to recognise that there are transwomen, if transgenderism is just a belief system that we are not obliged to believe in?

Saying that we need to recognise that there are transwomen means that we are obliged to believe in this 'religion'.

What is a transwoman (in your opinion)?

We've recently had some pretty high profile trans activists saying that they think TW are AHF. RMW is a good example of this and has recently claimed that RMW is an AHF. Do we honestly think for a minute that RMW actually believes that RMW is a AHF? The most likely scenario is that they are trolling or lying.

I doubt they are claiming to be biological females in the normal sense.

I'm guessing it's just a form of "TWAW", where they also want the word "female" on the basis of identity.

Sure it messes up the language and confuses everyone.

RMW stated they didn't have a grc so, not even as a legal fiction.

Saying that we need to recognise that there are transwomen means that we are obliged to believe in this 'religion'.

We need to recognise that Christians exist, to protect their legal rights, and well because it's just reality that they do exist.

You don't have to believe in the Christian religion however.

You can recognise trans women, without believing that TWAW, or believing in various "trans rights" claims.

"nobody would care how they identify, and whether or not they were faking."

They still need to be recognised for things like medical treatment or protecting their legal rights, say discrimination in housing.

The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the Christian faith. I recognise that people exist who hold these beliefs. Their beliefs are protected in law. In general, people who hold these beliefs don't try to force me to hold those beliefs as well (this was not always true in the past).

I also recognise that people exist who identify as transgender. I recognise that there are men who identify as transwomen. I don't believe that they are fundamentally different from any other men. I don't believe that transgenderism is anything other than a belief system.

What do you mean by "recognise transwomen"? Isn't this the equivalent of requiring me to believe that Jesus is the son of God?

What is the definition of a transwoman in your opinion? I need to know this in order to know why I should 'recognise transwomen'.

Why do they need to be recognised for medical treatment? It's only important for medical professionals to know their sex.

Transgenderism is protected in the EA under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In what way do they need to be 'recognised' other than this?

I recognise that there are men who identify as transwomen. I don't believe that they are fundamentally different from any other men. I don't believe that transgenderism is anything other than a belief system.

The degree to which a man believes he is a woman, whether it's just 'a little bit, since I got convicted' or whether it's 'since I was four and preferred playing with dolls' really doesn't matter.

He is never a woman, no matter how fervently he wishes he was one.

And yes, delusions are common and nobody cares so long as they don't impact on society. (I would say 'others', but we also generally care if a person's delusions damage them. To the extent they may try to self harm, for example. People with BIID, who try to blind themselves, we generally don't hand them a prescription for drain cleaner.)

But delusions certainly don't entitle anyone to avail themselves of the rights and protections that belong to that thing-they-identify-with.

Having a think again about the available stats on trans sex offenders in prison . . .

There is evidence from sentencing, reported in the press, that judges sometimes consider "struggling with gender identity", "gender dysphoria" and concerns about "vulnerability" in prison to be factors in opting for a non-custodial sentence.

Should this apply equally, or more so, to non-sex crimes committed by trans people then it might account, at least to some extent, for the disproportionate number of sex crimes as a reason for imprisonment of males who are recorded as "transgender", ie. as compared to other males.

That is, that once "trans mitigation" sentencing leniency for other offences is taken into account, it is possible that the difference between trans and non-trans male prisoners convicted of sex crimes might disappear.

(IIRC the prison figures do not include any males with GRCs who might have been imprisoned for sex crimes, as they would be recorded as "female" and not as transgender. The figures for all males are of course wildly in excess of those for females, even if the "female" number includes some males with GRCs.)

However, assuming for sake of argument that it could be proved that "sentencing leniency" had no effect and that Signalbox and OldCrone are correct in their calculations, and that "transwomen are nearly 3 times as likely as other men to be sex offenders" what would be an appropriate response to that information at a societal level?

I would suggest that it bolsters the argument for all males to be excluded, as they were traditionally, from settings in which women expect to be free from male predation, voyeurism, coercion and exploitation for sexual gratification.

Secondly, that males who claim to be women, whether they seek to present in a "feminine way" or not, should be acknowledged to be a higher risk as a group than other males, rather than being downgraded to the same risk level as females.

I am not sure if the latter is necessary for safeguarding reasons but it might open up the public conversation about the strange situation whereby pubescent girls are bracketed with middle-aged and elderly men as "trans", supposedly having commonality of experience and being part of the same "community".

“You can recognise trans women, without believing that TWAW, or believing in various "trans rights" claims.”

Well, I recognise that some men lie about their sex and try to force other people to lie about it too. They sometimes get extremely angry if you contradict them with the truth.

Some women do this too.

I’m yet to be convinced that it is legitimate to lie about something so fundamental and insist on the silence or feigned belief of others.