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

Nobody is sugggesting testosterone "forces men to be violent". As human beings we have potential for control over our instincts and drives - but that doesn't mean that these drives and instincts are not there.

The biological differences are minor because biology does not direct our behaviour, thoughts, intelligence and so on. The whole female brain, male brain has been throughly debunked.

Going on about physical differences is pointless because they do not direct how we think, behave or how intelligent men vs women are.

Again, violence is a behaviour that is chosen. It is not instinct. It is not a biological compulsion.

It would be funny if the consequences were not so serious wouldn't it? I want to laugh but ....

There aren’t really any human instincts that control us in regards to choosing violence, apart from the self-defence instinct but that is in response to a threat to life. It’s not the sort of violence we are referring to.

Is a poster really telling women that:

"Going on about physical differences is pointless because they do not direct how we think, behave or how intelligent men vs women are" ?

Try telling that to the the thousands of women and children harmed every day by violent men able to use their physical strength to hurt, abuse and at times kill them. 😑

You've completely missed my point. I was talking about physical differences. This is the only difference that matters if you're trying to argue about putting men in women's prisons. It's not pointless at all.

Men commit about 90% of violent crime and 98% of sexual crime. This is in the UK but it's much the same elsewhere in the world. Is this just a coincidence in your opinion?

Identifying as women just to get preferential treatment doesn't explain why so many are sex offenders. Is there a similar number of sex offenders in those prisoners changing religion to get better food?

Prisoners absolutely do change religion to get better food.

Being trans just for the prison sentence is absolutely a thing.

And if you get to a sex offender only prison, no-one gives a shit about you being a sex offender, there's no threat of violence or lowest of the low as you are all the same.

So someone like Isla Bryson with his wig and pink leggings is showing strong supporting evidence that he is living as a woman, despite his fondness for using his penis to rape women. And that absurd Canadian teacher with his enormous fake breasts would also be considered to be showing strong supporting evidence of living in his gender identity.

And mannerisms? What on earth do they mean? Interesting that they decline to say what these mannerisms actually are which supposedly express gender identity.

They've reduced women to a costume and stereotypical behaviours. Do none of the people who write this stuff ever read what they've written and go 'hold on a minute...'?

Yes, it really is ridiculous and sexist. And no I don't think they ever do, or do cheerleaders of "trans rights".

We're in Orwellian territory at this point. Insisting that what we see and can evidence is really not the case:
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"

@GuanYinShanxi

If you really believe that men are no more violent than women, can you post some evidence?

It seems unlikely that there is any, given the enormous amount of evidence that men are much more violent than women.

Presumably because sex offender prisoners get a hard time in the male estate from the other prisoners.

Im not arguing anything of the sort. The whole what prison where is entirely not what we were discussing at all. You asked
“But is there anything in our biology which inherently makes men more violent than women? That's the important question.”

I answered that with a no. You then went on about physical differences.

If you believe that men being bigger and having more muscle actually drives them to be violent while women being able to be impregnated makes us not violent, then that’s a belief as it bears no relation to anything in the current scientific understanding of the causes of violence.

It’s not a coincidence that rates of violence are virtually the same in other patriarchal societies but the cause of it is not inherently biological, it is psycho-social whereby early life socialisation plays the primary role in creating violent men.

Are you saying that only poor Black people become criminals? Because that’s what it sounds like.

I’ve not posted anything even remotely implying that.

Yes so this would imply they're not
'Real' trans people in the sense they've been living that way for a while, but they are 'trans for the stay' in prison

No of course not. It sounds like nothing of the sort.

Sex hormones and hormone fluctuations play a very important part in people’s behaviours. To claim that all behaviour is just down to socialisation is at best naive, and at worst damaging to the reality of our physical bodies.

That’s absolutely what it sounds like to me.

There have been matriarchal societies in Africa where women were just as violent as men. The ancient Sudan is one such example (Kush empire).

Having quickly googled the Kush Empire, I can't find any immediate evidence of a matriarchal society. Can you post some links to this society where women subjugated men?

No they don’t play an important part at all in our behaviours.

I rather think that the ideology of biological essentialism is more damaging because if, as you imply, men truly cannot help being more violent due to their hormones or whatever, then why are they being punished for something they cannot control? We should abolish all prisons and just give rapists and murderers some HRT to calm them down.

That is where this nonsense that excuses men of their agency leads to.

Most matriarchies were more egalitarian than the patriarchies so it’s inaccurate to call it “subjugation”. Sorry quick Google didn’t give you all the answers in 10minutes, you might need to actually read a history book.

Violence is the end point of self assertion. Some people get there more quickly than others, as they have fewer other ( less/none physical) avenues available for self assertion. There is nothing inherently negative about self assertion, though. It just is. Some people have more self control or ability to inhibit their responses than others.

You cannot pick and choose which violence you think is inherent, and which you think is not because it doesn't suit your ideological framework.

Even in societies in which women have more social power there are still sex based differences in role/function/expectation.

Sorry, I can’t help that. Try rereading what I posted?

If I didn't laugh at the absurdity of it all I think I would go insane.

Sorry for being thick, but you were the one who brought up the Kush Empire and stated that women there were as violent as men. Given that most patriarchies subjugate women, how , with my small brain was I suppose to not infer the same of matriarchies towards men, especially the ones with really nasty violent women.