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

Because at the core of it, they are unwell.

Because I think it's correct to say "some trans people are genuine".

Even if there are different pathways, that doesn't mean it can't be genuine identity for them.

As I was recently saying with political lesbianism, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that if you embrace an ideology, it could genuinely turn off one side of your sexuality in select cases. So for a minority of people perhaps.

So they could end up as "exclusively same sex attracted to women" because of their ideological commitment.

I don't think multiple pathways to lesbianism would mean that lesbianism isn't a real thing. Even if political lesbians may have a less stable identity and may go back to men. Like maybe when the ideological commitment weakens.

And perhaps there are multiple pathways for trans, and some should be treated in a medically different way, or considered as less stable identities where medical transition is less justified.

We keep going round in circles...and you have totally avoided the issue of the sexual motivation that lies behind transition for many, even though you posed a question about it, and evn though you have been on this board for years.

How "genuinely" someone believes something is something only they can know; plus it still doesn't make that belief true. We all hold beliefs of one sort or other, and then the time comes when the scales fall from our eyes and we come to realise that what we believed was a fantasy; or the belief was an avoidance strategy; or a naivety; or whatever it was.

You do realise that Stonewall and the new orthodoxy both say that being trans is not a medical condition, and that one does not even need to be suffering from dysphoria to be "genuinely" trans, don't you?

Of course you do.

How other people identify is for them alone. It has got nothing to do with the rest of society until it impinges on other people's rights and protections or transgresses societies moral or criminal codes.

I haven't been posting for years, and I didn't report anyone's post.

I'm well aware that it's alleged that there is a sexual motivation in some cases and some trans people have said things that are supportive of that.

Personally I would still be curious as to whether this is really creating a trans identity or whether they just become committed to the role.

How "genuinely" someone believes something is something only they can know; plus it still doesn't make that belief true.

This is "going round in circles".

I'm not talking about that. I haven't said well they identify that way so they must be women!

Again, your "different pathways" point just doesn't seem to mean much. Why should it matter?

That is because of your belief in such a thing as a " genuine" trans identity - which you cling to no matter what arguments or alternative evidence/persepctives are put to you.

If you were really interested in testing out your beliefs you would have subjected them to some of the evidence and accounts that are in plentiful supply on this board.

Queer Theory ( from which gender identity theory arises) is all about playing roles. The performance of gender.

'Identity' in the way you are using it is role play. That is why someone identifies as something - and not with something. Identifying with something means that you share a set of values or conditions.

If you identify as something, it implies you are not actually that thing.

The whole 'identifying as' something comes from Queer Theory. Now we hear people who are lesbian or gay saying " I identify as a gay man" or "I identify as Queer". This is quite a new phenomena - that is straight from post modernistic ideas about the construction of the self, whereby there is only role play and no core self.

That is because of your belief in such a thing as a " genuine" trans identity - which you cling to no matter what arguments or alternative evidence/persepctives are put to you.

Well you were bringing up the issue of "multiple pathways" to be trans. Fine. Let's focus on that.

I'm not going to abandon my view just because you mention something, right?

Why do you think "multiple pathways" would be important here? Why would it undermine that "there are genuine trans people"?

What I meant by multiple pathways, was that people arrive at the adoption of such an identity via a variety of paths.

This has been explained many times to you. You seem to want to believe that some paths are more valid than others. and yet your only criteria for 'genuine' seems to be the depth of the belief that someone is actually the opposite sex, or no sex at all.

So, when someone detransitions, or turns out to be a sex offender - the allies cry " but you were never really, genuinely trans at all"

If someone is genuinely something they do not require surgery to make them resemble that something more; nor do they require voice coaching to be more convincing.

So, when someone detransitions, or turns out to be a sex offender - the allies cry " but you were never really, genuinely trans at all"

That's not my position.

It may be that some pathways to being trans result in less stable identities, and should be treated in a different way medically perhaps.

But if you use the criteria of "genuine belief", they can be trans, even if they detransition.

I don't see any clear argument here for why "multiple pathways" is really a problem.

We can say multiple pathways are all valid. We can say that some pathways aren't valid if we wanted (if we thought that they weren't producing a trans identity at all). You could maybe speak of some pathways being less valid in a certain sense.

If it's one pathway or more, that all seems fine.

How about...

You genuinely believe you are a woman.

But you also suffer from gender dysphoria, so transition for that reason.

Or you transition in the hope that people will treat you differently.

The crux of this disagreement seems to me to be this: you want people to accept or believe that there is a such a thing as a genuine trans person; whereby there is some form or indication of genuineness;

...... whereas what most people here are telling/explaining to you is that we don't believe or accept in such a thing. What we see or recognise or accept is that some people adopt what is known in contemporary parlance as a 'trans identity' for whatever reason or motivation.

But that adoption has got nothing to do with us, until it does, and until it impacts on our rights and protections and on our dignity as adult human females ( otherwise known as women). Then it becomes a severe and fundamental conflict of rights and realities.

Whatever the genuinely held belief, or how firmly that belief is held, it does not make it true.

You cannot be a woman if you are not a woman. You cannot become female if you are male. You can empathise with women and identify with them and have close friendships with women, but you are not a woman yourself.

When you say " hoping to be treated differently" can you give some practical examples of what this might look like in action?

Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!

But actually, let's imagine that in some mysterious sense they really are a woman. So "trans women are women" for the sake of argument.

It still seems to possibly make sense for them to get surgery. For example, they want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier.

So whether they are a woman, or just have a belief that they are a woman, why not get surgery?

I'm imagining if a man has a male partner before surgery then they are both gay - and getting surgery to resemble a woman is not a credible solution.

A heterosexual man in never going to be satisfied long term with a neo vagina, and in the case of 'Regretters' ( Netflix documentary) he may well want children at some point.

I can imagine that getting such radical surgery may even herald a faster, harder confrontation with reality than if one hadn't had surgery - and this is evidenced by the sharp increase in suicidal feelings post surgery. Plus the inevitable complications and consequneces of damaging healthy bodily function must be depressing in and of themselves.

Anyway i asked if you could give some practical examples of how a person may be "treated differently". You have offered the one scanario of better resembling a woman for a sexual partner. Is that it? Any more examples?

Is there any other delusion thought process or psychological maladaptation were people are advised to undergo radical surgery as a solution?

"Why are so many transgender prisoners sex offenders"

Or rather "what does a male sex offender have to do to be able to access female prisons".

You seem to believe in the existence of "genuine trans people". Can you explain what you believe makes a person a "genuine trans person"?

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!"

Let's leave out the next bit where you contradict yourself and, "for the sake of argument", you imagine a "mysterious sense" in which men "really are" women.

Let's go straight to:

"they want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier."

Now let's leave out this bit: "So whether they are a woman, or just have a belief that they are a woman" and go straight to:

"So . . . why not get surgery?"

What we have left, if we cut out the bits where you contradict your opening statements is:

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!

They want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman, and changing your physical appearance makes that easier.

So why not get surgery?"

Now, let's get some clarification of who you are talking about: who are "they"?

(Don't double back on yourself and answer "men who think they are women" because you don't need to conjure up that imaginary scenario "for the sake of argument".)

When you have clarified who "they" are . . .

Why do "they" "want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman"?

(No, not because they are "men who think they are women" - think of another reason or reasons why some men "want to be accepted by a male partner as being a woman".)

Go on, you can do it. It will help you to avoid these mental contortions where you say you don't believe something but then, ironically, keep constructing imaginary worlds where the thing you don't believe is true. Try imagining a world that is congruent with your opening statements:

"Again, I'm not claiming that they are a woman.

I repeat: they aren't a woman!"

I think what we're being asked to consider is accepting someone's self definition of themself as if it is true ( post-modernism/social justice theories expect us to bow to people's 'truth' and not question it) - even if we, personally, don't believe in or subscribe to it. I think this is so that we are not guilty of "denying someone's existence". Why can't we"just accept that there are actual, genuine trans people" ( by the terms of their own self definition).

Problem is this is not possible without an act of wilful double think and a huge dollop of cognitive dissonance. If you don't accept the premise in the first place, how can you even begin to pretend to be accepting of it as if it were true?

Are there any other false beliefs ( no matter how " genuinely" held ) which are actively encouraged - apart from childhood myths/fantasies such as Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy?

I think it comes down to the depth of their belief.

I think what we're being asked to consider is accepting someone's self definition of themself as if it is true ( post-modernism/social justice theories expect us to bow to people's 'truth' and not question it) - even if we, personally, don't believe in or subscribe to it. I think this is so that we are not guilty of "denying someone's existence". Why can't we"just accept that there are actual, genuine trans people" ( by the terms of their own self definition).

I was hoping that @PorcelinaV would explain why we should believe that there are "genuine trans[gender] people", but we don't have to believe that there are genuine transracial/transspecies/transabled people.

What is special about transgender people that means we should accept their transness as "real", but we don't have to accept as real all the other varieties of "trans"?

I'm imagining if a man has a male partner before surgery then they are both gay - and getting surgery to resemble a woman is not a credible solution.

Imagine that they don't have a partner at the time. They are thinking of future partners.

A heterosexual man in never going to be satisfied long term with a neo vagina

Let's assume that. It would be a limitation on modern surgery, not that someone shouldn't want surgery in theory.

I'm responding to your statement:

"If someone is genuinely something they do not require surgery to make them resemble that something more"

You can't defend that by bringing up the limits of existing surgery.

Anyway i asked if you could give some practical examples of how a person may be "treated differently". You have offered the one scanario of better resembling a woman for a sexual partner. Is that it? Any more examples?

Easier to socialise (friendship) with women perhaps. As in meeting new people.

Also, you may be seen as less threatening in a women's space. They can have this motivation whether or not they should be allowed to be there.

I gave an example above in the thread already.