“There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.”

[ArabellaScott]

I know this was years back.

It's just struck me again what vacuous bullshit it is.

Every man who has abused and predated has pretended to be something else.

How many men wear T shirts saying 'Hi, I'm a rapist', or state their intent to abuse children when applying for a job or meeting a prospective partner, or signing up for a dating app, or going out for a drink with someone, or spiking said someone's drink, or 'love bombing' a target, or stalking someone, or abusing their position of trust in their job, church, social group?

Every predator and abuser 'pretends' to not be a predator and abuser, surely?

Deception, manipulation and lying is a fundamental part of abuse.

It's quite chilling that politicians got to the point where they would make a statement like this.

It's effectively saying that men will openly warn us before abusing and predating. It's the direct opposite of the truth. In other words, it's a huge, blatant lie.

www.holyrood.com/news/view,shona-robison-must-resign-over-gender-reform-comments-alba-mp-says

One answer to that bullshit:
Savile.

Anyhow, if this is about single-sex spaces, when was the last time someone proposed their abolition 'because NAMALT'?

This is a really important point.

A person can be both of these things.

What gets me is how definitely and earnestly these words are said. It's like a groupthink that comes mainly from women who would claim to be feminists within "progressive" parties.

I think more and more that the predominance of the professional politician ie - university- spad- candidate- MP/MSP - creates an echo chamber that distances these individuals from the real world. They lose touch with common sense and critical thinking. They become so entrenched that they don't brook any view that conflicts with their own. It's quite scary really.

It's not classed as a paraphilia. Depressingly, it's perhaps too close to the norm/typical.

The list of paraphilias is fairly specific, although I'm sure there's probably other behaviour that would fall into that sphere:

'A total of eight Paraphilias are listed in the DSM V and include pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, frotteurism, fetishism, and transvestic fetishism.'

'Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviors of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554425/#:~:text=Paraphilias%20are%20persistent%20and%20recurrent,of%20paraphilia%20and%20paraphilic%20disorders.

So somebody has fed them this line, that predatory men don't 'pretend' to be otherwise? It's a fucking weird one. I wonder where it came from.

I'd imagine someone who said something like that had quite specific motivations for creating that lie.

Here is the fuckwittery, enshrined in our government's records:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-cabinet-secretarys-statement/

'...we must be clear: all of the evidence tells us that the cause of violence against women and girls is predatory and abusive men; not trans people. And importantly, we must not conflate the two. There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.'

Yes, I wonder too….

/me does not in fact wonder. /me knows bloody well it’s the predatory men feeding this line to gullible eejits

It's odd isn't it.

"Minister, we have all these populations. And in each population - women, children, vegan people, disabled people, people who can change tyres, people who can bake a lemon drizzle cake - we have a certain percentage who are violently criminal. BUT not the trans population. That's a totally different kettle of fish."

It's obvious rubbish, and it's actually quite patronising and othering, not to mention that it doesn't stand up to even the most simple scrutiny. Why the absolute terror of admitting that some trans people - like any other population - are going to be violently criminal? Who is clinging on to that comfort blankie of illusion and why?

And then we can get into that the statistics are the same for any other population of men, in fact greater according to the MoJ, and the whole number of women who have now been traumatised and injured by said men, enabled into the women's space to hurt her by this bunch of idiots in denial.

Fgs. You can provide men with alternative facilities and support their self actualisation without sacrificing women to them, and lying frantically about it to try and make it sound less terrible and misogynistic than it really is.

In America there was a paedophile who pretended to be a 15 year-old girl online to lure children.

Media organisations reported him as a (trans) woman who faced in tough time in prison. My question to them would be "why do you believe him to be female when you don't believe him to be 15?".

Why is it that convicted liars (because they denied the crime and since been convicted) would lie about everything else apart from their gender?

This! And it's infinitely easier for an abuser to say he's a woman than it is for him to become a teacher or a priest.

There was the concurrent suggestion that 'becoming trans' was some incredibly difficult and onerous process and no man would 'go to the length' of pretending to be trans to access victims.

It's considerably quicker and easier than, say, qualifying as a doctor. Or a priest. Or a teacher.

In fact, now that I think of it, the suggestion wasn't that it was difficult, was it? It was that it was shameful, and that no man would shame himself by wearing make-up, skirts, the trappings of womanhood, and declaring his pronouns as she/her.

Crosspost, Enoughwiththisshit!

It's like these people can't do joined up thinking.

To echo what's already been said, these men don't go around saying I am a sexual predator. But given we know sexual predators can be Priests, "good" family men, medical professionals and basically any man from any culture, class or profession, are we to believe they would draw the line at putting on a wig to abuse women and children?

'...we must be clear: all of the evidence tells us that the cause of violence against women and girls is predatory and abusive men; not trans people.

Well given that a man who identifies as not a man (that would be a so called trans woman) is a man, then he would fall into the category of men. And that would be the category most likely to harm women and children.

Trans people is such a weasel term.

No-one is accusing transmen in general as being likely to abuse women (though some who overmedicate on testosterone can be problematic for fellow humans in general).

Transwomen (ie men) are the problem, not 'trans people'.

And genderism is a threat to young females just as anorexia was to previous cohorts of unhappy adolescents.

It would seem fairly simple really.

If being trans is the magic bullet ending sexual offending then let's get cracking on bringing the message of gender identity and exploration to every category A male prisoner in the UK.

We are however going to have to figure out what happened to the men identifying as trans at the point they injured and harmed women (and convicted for doing so.) Did they stop being trans at some point before or during the assault? Were they insincere in the transition? How do we protect women against that group of men who identify as while still being violent?

And while we're at it, let's also consider that many women don't care how the man in their changing room or wanting to counsel them on their rape identifies inside himself or how lovely and safe a person he is. They cannot and do not want to be there with a man. That this displeases the man isn't relevant.

It's easy to get tied up in knots over whether or not "men would pretend to be a woman to commit abuse".

Men pretend to be women for all sorts of reasons.

At the end of the day, we don't care why a man is saying that they're a woman.

Firstly they're not one, secondly men will commit 98% of all sex crime and 80% of all violent crime regardless of whether the man is saying they're a woman or not. Magic words don't change your basic physicality.

Like so many of the arguments, it missed the point.

It doesn't matter whether they have to, it matters whether they do.

And as Circumferences says, in many situations the motivation is irrelevant. There are circumstances in which a man of any identity should be excludable even if he has a guarantee of safety from the 12 most popular gods and Germain Greer herself.

The key point of Robison's speech was, I suppose, that a man who says he's 'trans' is automatically removed from the 'male' class and put in a special class that is not capable of predatory/abusive behaviour.

And that nobody pretends to be trans because its an innate and sacred quality.

Voila, a sacred caste one can identify into with the mere putting on of a blonde wig.

Still astonishing, years later.

Re safeguarding, I still can't get my head around what happened with Queen Ethelburga School.

A predatory male buys a boarding school (allegedly through various holding companies)
he installs somewhere between 500 and 700 cameras around the building, including in areas where children get changed
he abuses children
…
He got appointed to Chairman of the Governors which meant that he could help write the safeguarding policies.
He managed to get off from charges the first time

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4290737-Queen-Ethelburga-school-and-sex-abuse

And the soft play centre (also that MN thread):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6109857/Eddie-Catz-play-centre-founder-Darren-Johnson-filmed-girls-undressing-jailed.html

Whenever I see this lie I think of Andrew Wheeler, the paramedic accused of sexually assaulting multiple patients and Larry Nassar, the U.S. Olympics gymnastics coach who assaulted hundreds of girls. These men literally went into a difficult academic profession in order to give them access to vulnerable women.

Can you imagine studying to be a flipping paramedic just so you can rape women? The idea a man wouldn’t take advantage of mixed sex wards or entry to female spaces simply by virtue of putting on a dress and some lippie is laughable.

For Larry Nassar read NY Mag’s long form.

On Andrew Wheeler, there’s this: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/cambridgeshire-rapist-paramedic-andrew-wheeler-20109747

“His decision to become a paramedic may have been influenced by the access it would give him to vulnerable members of the public, said Detective Chief Superintendent Martin Brunning of Cambridgeshire Police.”

So let them have the fun of pretending for extra gratification! Everyone likes a dress up party.

It’s beyond ridiculous.

I agree with the claim made by the title, presuming this is about trans woman. I've said it several times- if a predatory man wanted to enter a woman's bathroom to commit a crime he can just walk in and do it as he is, why would he bother to go through all the time and effort to become trans? Also, making a law to ban trans women from women's bathrooms also isn't going to stop these predatory men.

Look, here's an example from just 4 days ago. No mention of being trans or anything, he just walked in.

www.thesun.ie/news/13932055/woman-raped-tesco-supermarket-toilet-man-cubicle/

agree with the claim made by the title, presuming this is about trans woman.

Goodness, why would you presume that? 😯