BBC at it again withholding fact ‘woman’ charged with murdering husband is trans

[Heylo]

You know what to do Mumsnet. BBC apologised previously because of mass complaints about sick cat killer Scarlett Blake not being referred to as trans and just being referred to as she / woman in original article. They’re now at it again.

this person arrested for killing husband with samurai sword.

bbc article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro

daily mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480347/amp/Trans-woman-70-appears-court-accused-murdering-husband-samurai-sword.html

complain and let’s get a precedent set, these are not our crimes!

Male pattern baldness is a thing (it's the reason no man aged 35+ in my family owns a comb). It doesn't mean my FiL with a full head of hair at 83 isn't a man or that my dear friend with alopecia is a man. It means that there is a specific type of hair loss that affects men, not all men but only men. It doesn't mean no women have hair loss, it means they don't have that type of hair loss.

@Mummy2024

What is it you actually object to the term not our crimes?

We're not saying all men commit these crimes, there's even an acronym for it NAMALT (not all men are like this).

But the fact remains, that it is mostly men. 98% of all sex crimes are committed by men. 90% of all violent crimes are committed by men. It's pattern recognition that helps to establish how to do risk assessments.

Which is why it's important on this particular board (about sex and gender). Segregating people by sex is an instant, and massive, risk reduction for women and girls.

Violent male rapists are being put into prison with women, because they say they are women. The crimes are being recorded as having been committed by women.

When you consider that rape is a specifically male crime, because the legal term rape has to involve use of a penis, it's ludicrous that this is being attributed to women.

Indeed, there was an article a few months ago, about the rising tide of women committing rape!

The only time a woman can ever be accused of rape, is if she is involved in a crime where a man has used his penis to rape. It's called dual enterprise and it's where she is held just as responsible as him, despite the fact that it was his penis.

So all these women suddenly being accused of 'rape' is a total misrepresenting of the facts. It's also leading people to think that there is a rising tide of female crime and wondering why that is. I've even seen feminism being blamed for it.

And, it's not just rape. Women are far less likely to commit any kind of violent crime. And seeing these crimes being attributed to women, when they are actually being committed by men is absolutely something that feminists are going to be opposed to.

So saying not our crimes is not a boast!

It's understanding that if you ignore male pattern violence, profiling and recognition, risk assessment disappears. And if risk assessment disappears, all accommodation to help make women and girls safe disappears along with it.

Like sex segregation.

You say you understand about toilets.

Which you wouldn't do, of course, if you didn't really totally understand what we're saying.

And it's the reason why you wouldn't let your, say, little girl, merrily walk off into the gents toilets without a backwards glance.

What's your source for this?

The data on sex offender prison populations have consistently shown that trans identifying males (which is what we're talking about, not trans identifying females) are significantly over-represented in proportion even to other males, in relation to census populations.

There is also a very long catalogue of incidents where trans identifying males have abused and threatened or perpetrated violence against women. Women aren't just proportionately more likely to be victims of threats, abuse and violence in the 'culture war' between trans activists and feminists - it's entirely one-sided.

This may be a bit off-topic, and it's anecdotal, but I've noticed in real life that men seem to be slightly more happy to accept mostly-nature explanations of male violence, or of anything really ("its evolved, innit"), while women seem to be slightly more keen on mostly-culture explanations ("toxic masculinity").

That probably doesn't hold true on the FWR boards. I wonder if other people have noticed the same in real life though, and if so why that might be?

I wonder if there's an element of men thinking "we can't help being violent and sexually aggressive, it's the way we're made, nothing we can do about it". So they don't do anything about it.

It's odd, because women as do the bulk of the child care, it would seem the ones arguing that it is nurture rather than nature are, in a roundabout way, blaming women for men's crimes. That's one possible interpretation anyway.

@Chersfrozenface Yes, I think that's part of it (I mean, men relying on nature to excuse male violence). And women may prefer a culture explanation as it feels more hopeful that things can be improve. I wonder if it's also a science vs humanities thing too, in what sort of explanation of the world tends to appeal to each sex.

Yes I think so. Also most people find it uncomfortable to accept their personality / "self" is a product of external influences not an inner "real" person.

Also yes to "thinking it can be improved". As the weaker, less violent sex it's pretty bleak to consider that nature has cast you in the role of victim/dependant human.

Yes, I guess that's one implication, though I wouldn't have framed it like that.

I think women have a very large role in shaping culture at all life stages though, not just through child-raising. Managing social relations and enforcing social norms does in real life seem to be something women are more interested in and adept at.

My problem with the "toxic masculinity" idea is not that there isn't a lot of toxicity in male culture. It's that I think culture, in the modern world, is mainly a restraining force on nature. i.e. culture is making men less violent than they would otherwise have been. So more can be done, but not by getting men back to their 'true nature'.

Something else (not sure how this connects) is that in single-sex schools, boys and girls both choose less stereotypical subjects than in mixed sex schools, and the effect runs both ways (i.e. when you expose boys to girls, they become more likely, not less likely, to choose 'manly' subjects).

@GenderRealistBloke I'm also male and I once rather unwisely got into the discussion about to what extent male violence was innate or learned on twitter and some radfems made their disapproval pretty clear (which was an uncomfortable experience as they were people I followed and liked a lot). I think they had a good point that the more you emphasise the nature side of the behaviour, the more it feels like you are excusing it and saying attempting to improve things is hopeless.

A while ago, long before all this gender bollocks came along and mangled everybody's understanding of reality, I heard a podcast about sex differences. I can't recall the exact details but one of the things mentioned was crime. The speaker explained that if you take a very low-crime country vs a very high-crime country, you'll see that in the low-crime country there will be (say) a 0.5% crime-rate while in the high-crime country there will be a 25% crime-rate - but in both countries, the males commit ~90% of the crimes. Thus neatly demonstrating the nurture and the nature.

I think most women (who think about it) feel that since men manage not to attack their bosses or other people who could impose immediate and serious consequences on them, even if violent tendencies are innate the fact that men are clearly capable of managing them when necessary means the "men are violent in certain contexts because it is implicitly accepted by our culture, and we can change that by stopping this cultural condoning" model fits best and also gives most hope for the future.

That's really interesting!

Yes, I've had similar experiences though not on Twitter! I can see how it can seem hopeless to emphasis nature.

I guess my responses would be: i) natural doesn't mean good (at least, not straightforwardly), ii) if you discount nature completely then you are misdiagnosing the problem, and therefore your solutions may be wrong too.

Yes I think that's a sensible version of the 'toxic masculinity' idea. Nothing for me to disagree with there.

I do think that accepting nature probably means there is some limit in how much you can prevent males from being violent (hopefully that limit is much lower than where we are now, but it's unlikely to be zero in any culture). That doesn't mean we have to accept it, but does mean that (for example) at the margins your solutions might lean to identifying the men who will never be properly socialised and locking them up, rather than trying to reform them.

I tend to agree with people like Helen Joyce who say the blank-slateism of the "culture not nature" position is part of what conditioned too many institutions (including a lot of mainstream feminism) to drop sex-based protections so fast. So in that sense, misdiagnosing the problem led to a huge real-world impact.

This. Abusers tend not to abuse their boss. There is control, they just choose not to apply it to their partners or children or anyone weaker than they are (not just physically but in terms of consequences).

Considering male violence as a whole, men are also violent against other men. Where I grew up casual male violence was almost recreational. But the general point still applies that men are rarely violent to those who have direct "civilised" power over them.

It's the terms being used I take issue with "our" is a blanket term. I'm a woman so your including me. I don't want you too.

The term "men" is also a blanket term to include all men, instead of saying "some men" certain men or certain males". Whether you accept it or not your stereotyping and discriminating. There was a poster that asked me some questions earlier that I want to respond to when I have more to time later. For everyone else especially the poster who has an issue with how another person wants to be know I won't be responding. There should be a formal recording of trans females as trans females but if they want me to address them as her/she I will... why wouldn't I who does it affect.

There should be a formal recording of trans females as trans females but if they want me to address them as her/she I will... why wouldn't I who does it affect.

"Trans females" wouldn't want to be called "her/she". For me, they are women or girls who identify as men or boys. Men can't be "female" in any sense. And no I won't be using opposite sex pronouns. Again, you do you, but you won't compel my speech.

And I'm going to continue to point out that male crimes are not female ones. Hope that's clear.

@Mummy2024 I promise most men would also be appalled that rapes and sexual assaults carried out by men are being recorded in the female crime statistics. I'm not upset by #notourcrimes and I don't think you need to be on our behalf.

@Mummy2024 It's the terms being used I take issue with "our" is a blanket term. I'm a woman so your including me. I don't want you too.

It doesn't matter whether you want to be included or not.
If you are female, you belong to the female sex class.
If you are male, you belong to the male sex class.
Yes, obviously it's a blanket term. It's not about you personally.

Using incorrect pronouns affects everyone, because it plays into the fallacy that men can be women. Look where that has got us (males in female prison, refuges, hospital wards, men in women's sports, men in women's toilets, men carrying out intimate searches or medical exams). No thank you.
It's just another "be kind" trope, and asking people to deny the evidence of their eyes and brain.
I don't play the pronoun game because a)you don't need to use pronouns in the presence of the person you are talking to, you use their NAME and b) I will not be told how I must refer to someone when they are not even in the room. I don't do compelled speech.