Andrew Miller/Amy George thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

'Defence advocate Victoria Dow told the court that Miller "recognises and feels the horror of his conduct" and was said to feel an "enduring sense of shame".
Miller was also said to have expressed concern over how his behaviour would affect the wider trans community.'

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-miller-jailed-for-20-years-for-abducting-and-sexually-assaulting-girl-in-scottish-borders-12983829

Following on from previous thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4737858-girl-abducted-in-galashiels-appears-to-have-been-held-by-transwoman

Exactly.

We are in the absurd position that it is virtually forbidden to name and discuss a sexual fetish.

Crossdressing is a paraphilia, and paraphilias tend to cluster.

Women need to be able to discuss this. Mothers need to be able to discuss this.

I think that interview was from back when he pleaded guilty.

The guy is despicable and the crimes are too.

But unlike the other trans sex offenders (who suddenly identify as trans after being charged) he had cross-dressed for years and it is ironic that the media use male pronouns and his male name for the reporting.

But then again he is concerned for the trans community (a shame he wasn't concerned for that poor girl) and it is his request that the media refer to him as male. The media are obliging to his requests.

That poor, poor girl. I hope she and her family are getting the support they need.

Spot on observation, @CorruptedCauldron

There's a certain hypocrisy to the BBC and Guardian describing him as 'a man dressed as a woman' in their attempts to minimise the trans aspect (beyond of course, the fact that anyone who says they are trans must be believed and affirmed so why aren't they affirming this predator?)

In Troubled Blood, a serial killer pops on a ladies coat to help him abduct women - this, of course, is evidence of JKR's massive and raging transphobia. How dare she suggest men dress as a woman in order to perform predatory acts undercover? She is a hateful bigot.

And then... we have this article from The Guardian. Which (apart from the fact this guy actually is/was trans) is saying exactly the same thing. But in saying this they are trying to minimise the trans connection, because all he was was a man dressed as a woman and not one of the most marginalised and vulnerable.

So which is it? Is acknowledging predatory men dressing as women in order to commit crimes literal genocide or is it protection of the trans community?

Or are they just trying to have it both ways when it suits them? (that bit's rhetorical - I know the answer).

I don't much care whether he is trans or not.

What I do care about is the insanity whereby women (and girls, of course) are forced to accept men into women-only spaces simply on their say-so. It is no longer acceptable for us to say to the gym receptionist, "There is a man with his dick out in the changing rooms, please sort it out." Or, at the supermarket, "There is a man in the women's toilets." Or, "There is a man masturbating in the women's showers."

Women across the country (the world, in fact) are nasty transphobic bigots if we dare to say such things. These perverts are women, obviously, and we are the ones in the wrong.

catduckgoose · Today 14:13

This doesn't seem to be unusual amongst men with this paraphilia, on the trans forums there are so many men confessing to stealing clothes and particularly intimate garments from their sisters or mothers.

I don't think it's confession, I think it's bragging.

HIs 'concern' for the Trans community (rather than his victim) is just more 'look at me' braggadocio. He is allowed to decide which name & gender he is sentenced under. Quelle surprise, after years of 'Amy George' he is now Andrew Miller again. So, when he formally 'transitions' inside jail (to get into a female jail) he can then come out with a new 'female' identity. He is STILL calling the shots.

There's a certain hypocrisy to the BBC and Guardian describing him as 'a man dressed as a woman' in their attempts to minimise the trans aspect

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s pure malevolence: a determination to protect abusive men and their own journalistic reputations. They don’t care about women and girls.

By now, I guess this is sunk costs fallacy. They probably can't even admit to themselves how bad its got.

But we see it.

Enabling, excusing and minimising.

I think it says it all that this individual is more concerned about "harming the speshul community's fragrant reputation" than about the actual harm he inflicted on his poor victim.

And I also think it says it all about the Right Side of History media and useful idiots, who have exactly the same priorities.

But aren’t cross dressing men in Scotland protected under hate crime bill ?

that poor wee girl. How brave she was to get away.

he really planned that with his hidden room

SNP really emboldened this man. And yes I think he would have been put into women’s jail if the whole Bryson thing hadn’t been exposed

Not only this, but a significant proportion of known sadistic murderers are known to have gotten sexual satisfaction from cross-dressing, a fetish which, for these individuals, accelerated into actual violence.

Peter Sutcliffe, Ed Gein, Haddon Clark, Henry Lee Lucas, Edward Cole, Russell Williams, Jerry Brudos, to name a few.

Ray Blanchard has written about this link.

When JK Rowling published Troubled Blood, a number of the woke bien pensant raised an outcry, in numerous think pieces, claiming that making a link between serial killing and cross dressing was transphobic.

In fact the link between transvestite paraphilias and the apparent propensity of a minority of cross dressers to sexual and/or homicidal violence must be further explored as a matter of urgency.

I keep thinking about the poor little girl thinking she was safe getting in the car with a woman.

It reminds me of this study where the reasons for why certain people did not make it through the assessment process for gender reassignment were revealed. The link with paedophilia is noted in the academic literature.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/gender-reassignment-5-years-of-referrals-in-oxfordshire/6B5F217162ABD9B3189F2EB82787034E
"Reasons for non-referral to a specialist centre included being deemed not ready for transitioning (either determined by the individual or because the person was not currently living in the desired gender role), being homosexual but not having gender identity disorder, having an autism-spectrum disorder with a significant degree of impairment such that the real-life experience criterion was not met, and seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role.

Of course, self-ID would mean all these men would be handwaved through.

That is shocking, I wonder how many got through the 'gender reassignment' process while keeping this paedophilic motivation quiet.

I remember reading an article from Ray Blanchard where he said that he encountered many autogynephiliacs who would lie about the fetishistic motivation on the basis that they would be excluded from transitioning if they told the truth.

Yes I thought that too Mavis. He gives off Buffalo Bill vibes. Thank god that poor girl had the bravery to call for help.

It's Eddie Izzard's girl/boy mode used for the most nefarious of purposes. The fact that certain elements of the press are kowtowing to Miller's wishes for "the wider trans community" is absolutely disgusting.

' I note that you are recorded by the risk assessor as talking in detail about your desire to limit the impact of your offending on what is referred to as the wider trans community. By way of contrast, however, the assessor reports that, during her discussions with you, you appeared to deflect from the harm your sexual assaults have caused to your victim. You denied that any harm had come to her during her days as your captive, and, while you used the term “inappropriate”, you avoided the use of the word “harm”. You even appeared to place the responsibility for your offending onto your victim.'

You know, it really does seem to me that for all that trans women insist they are women, they don't seem to feel much solidarity with "cis" women and girls. This guy is capable of empathy, or he wouldn't be worried about the impact of his actions on other trans people. It's just that he doesn't extend that sympathy to the "cis" girl he assaulted.

They don’t care about women and girls. They say they can’t use the men’s loos because men are so horribly dangerous, but don’t understand or respect that yes, exactly, that’s why we don’t want men in our loos, thanks.

It’s such a selfish, blinkered mentality.

@ArabellaScott sorry to ask - I'm sure you and others will have said, but I can't find it right now... do you know where I can find the best evidence to cite for this? Important to something at work meeting... TIA

Ah sod it.
F*ck the 'trans community' he's so concerned about. No outrage on social media, no trans organisations making a statement, India Willyboy oddly silent. No words about the victims suffering. Nothing.
Silence is complicity.

judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2023/10/18/hma-v-andrew-miller

The judges summing up is available online. Trigger warning though

@MotherEarthisaTerf and @JanesLittleGirl - thank you very much. What a horrendous summing up :(
I think I might be missing the crucial element somewhere - does it state that he "identified" as a woman/trans in general prior to this crime? I know it says he wants to "protect the trans community", but is there an explicit statement that he considered himself trans/a woman?

In the BBC News story it says
"In May, the court was told that Miller identifies as transgender and in the process of transitioning to female."

So I presume that would be in the records of the May hearing, if they are available to the public.