Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
This paper is again looking at the demands made by the, predominantly, male prisoners about access to the female estate. Part of this paper looks at reactions to the Transgender Wing at HMP Downview. As you can see from the headline to this paper the loudest voices demanded to be included in the facilities set aside for the opposite sex; though this demand was more muted from the trans-identifying females.
There was some differences, in respect of at the point in “transition” a male would access the female estate. However, as you can see with the follow up clip, even for the hesitant access to the female estate was the ultimate goal.
Another was happy for there to be a transgender wing to get support before they undertook ”the operation”.
The article leverages the suicide of three male inmates, who identified as ”women” to argue for access to the women’s estate. These are very sad stories which reflect poorly on safeguarding, of vulnerable males, in prisons. However, women are not human shields for men, even those at risk in the male estate.
The above clip was followed up by a brief reference to Karen White. The offences in question were rape and sexual assault. He was not the only one. This was a predictable outcome of putting men in women’s prisons.
Since Matthew failed to uncover any violence of sexual assault, against trans-identified males, in Scottish prisons, he falls back on research done in the United States. Given there is no easy way to quantify if the risk is higher, than for other vulnerable males, I think we need to stick to the U.K context. Here the ”risk” seems to focus on issues like pronoun misuse which are hardly a matter of life and death.
Other issues raised are similarly superficial:
There follows a series of unrealistic demands for non-binary and intersex wings which even the author recognises as impractical. One participant is not happy to have been allocated a single cell though these are in short supply and much coveted. Here a prisoner complains about not being subjected to body searches as frequently as other prisoners. 👇 Given that females are being forced to perform body searches on, fully intact, males I am not surprised this is being avoided.
I am going to hazard a guess this is a male prisoner who is advocating for more body searches. This seems like a ⛳️⛳️⛳️ to me!
Next up is a common Trans-activist argument which attempts to infer sex separated spaces are akin to racial segregation.
Once again the argument about learning your social role is advanced. How does this square with arguments someone has always been a woman? This is incompatible with a demand to access women so they can lean how to assimilate! This 👇 makes it clear the women are being used as validation aids, for males. The females, as I have already covered, remain in the female estate so no emotional labour is requires from men.
Not content with access to the female estate some also demand they should be allowed to shower with the opposite sex. Again this will be the men. Matthew is using ”people” here when it is really about men asking to shower with women! ⛳️⛳️⛳️
By the time he was writing this Dr Maycock was no longer working for the Scottish Prison Service. Maybe it is this that allows himself to dip his toe into a more controversial suggestion. He admits this paper privileges the experience of males and recognises that trans-identifying females have contrasting views. Why it is almost as if their experiences are shaped by their sex. 🤔.
His final observation tells you this has been written by a man. It is inconceivable to Dr Maycock that the views of women would not be considered. REALLY! By your own admission the women were only asked how they felt AFTER they had been incarcerated with men. Its all a bit May Cock’s do as they like and to hell with what women want/need.
Even if some women have are willing to share intimate space with men they cannot be used as a loophole. Firstly we have been subjected to societal grooming for a decade to forget all of the facts about male risk factors. We should not jettison single sex spaces to appease males who demand access. Women fought for these rights because of 98% of sex offenders are male. The overwhelming percentage of victims are female. Furthermore male free spaces are also about dignity and privacy. Any male disregarding this has no idea what it means to be a woman.
Rhona Hotchkiss (retired Prison Governor) points out that, of the women interviewed, who were part of the wider project, 80% objected to sharing their incarceration with males. Only 3 had no reservations at all:
Researching the harms of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay rights and most especially all children and young people referred to Gender Clinics.
Some research about female inmates and their reactions to being housed with males who have a ”transgender” identity. Since Claire Fox quoted it in the House of Lords I decided to seek it out.
Dr Matthew Maycock has also done research into what transgender prisoners want from the prison system. I will cover that paper in another blog post. He was employed by the Scottish Prison service for this research. The Scottish Prison service has worked closely with Transgender Lobby groups on their Prison policy. As evidenced by this statement, by James Morton, of Scottish Trans Alliance. This was published in Christine Burn’s book: ”TransBritain”
This lobby group ”strategised” that if they could make this “work”, for which I read ”get away with it”, they could then move on to eradicate all single sex spaces. Note their aim was to dispense with the requirement for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Admission to the female estate would be on the basis of self-declaration.
Dr Maycock now works at Dundee University. Here is his biography.
His starting point accepts the central tenets of transgender identity ideology; mainly that sex is “assigned” at birth and women need a new qualifier to our existence as females;”cis”. Matthew would do well to consider that many, maybe even most, women have issues with ”gender” (stereotypes) being imposed upon us because of our biology. Accepting the reality of our biological sex does not mean our sex allies with a mythical “gendered soul”.
I find these assumptions irksome, to say the least, but let us move on to consider whether he has tackled this issue fairly.
Here is the abstract: Notice the quote chosen to head-up the report. That gave me a clue about his perspective.
The abstract sets out Maycock’s aim. He will offer a ”corrective” to those feminists who ”claim” to speak for female inmates. Because Matthew works for the Scottish Prison service he has unique access to the female prison population housed with transgender inmates, of both sexes. If only there had been a requirement for ethical approval before the SPS unleashed males on incarcerated women. Their consent was either taken for granted or deemed irrelevant.
Maycock begins by claiming his research will be groundbreaking because it is the first time “cis-women” prisoners have been asked for their view. Let me repeat that. Only now is the Scottish Prison service even considering the views of females in custody. Since the SPS are also funding this research and surveying existing prisoners, in their custody, we need to bear the context in mind. The women are literal hostages to this policy. As becomes clear the “people”, referred to below, affected by this policy are the female kind. The females remain in the women’s estate irrespective of a transgender identity. 🤔. It would have been interesting had Maycock explained why this is the case.
At least Dr Maycock acknowledges that women have been marginalised in the wider debate about transgender issues. We will get on to what the good Doctor thinks about these ”feminist elements” who, against instructions, attempted to have some dialogue about prison policy. The language here is also revealing. If a male is excluded from single sex spaces we do not normally talk about it in the language of ”acceptance” and ”rejection”.
He continues with an outline of Prison Policy around the care and management of transgender prisoners. He claims England and Wales house persons in line with their sex unless they have attained the legal status as “women”. This is certainly not true. Males have been housed in the female estate without being “legally female” for some time. A little social justice speak creeps in here 👇 with the talk of the ”gender binary”. He means prison policy that recognises Humans are sexually dimorphic. Heaven forfend!
The situation in Scotland is because of the, afore-mentioned, involvement of Scottish Trans Alliance. {If you feel so inclined you could look up Gordon Pike who was also involved in drafting this policy. Pike is now subject to the judicial system himself. He was caught with thousands of indecent images of children}. The policy outlines its ethos of fairness to transgender prisoners. They interpreted fairness, to these males, as housing them in the female estate. 🤷♂️
The usual claims about risk profiles are made. Since we have been putting males in the female estate with criminal profiles, which include sex offences against women, I would be wary of claims about risk assessments. One such advisor on prison policy made it clear sex offences, against women, were not a bar to being placed in the female estate. This is a quote from Hansard, taken during an oral session of the Transgender Equality Inquiry. Chaired by Maria Miller and attended by Jess Phillips nobody in attendance objected to this statement. 👇. Megan is a trans-identified male.
Before Maycock gets onto the meat of his report he takes a couple of quite inaccurate side swipes against two groups who have undertaken research on the erosion of single sex spaces, in Scotland. On Women and Girls Scotland’s work he makes much of the fact that he doesn’t know the background of the women who undertook their research. He also casts doubt on their ability to speak for female women prisoners. He makes much of their lack of access to women in prison; something the authors at W&Gs Scotland are open about. {I doubt the Scottish Prison service would have been amenable to this organisation accessing women prisoners}. I will just point out that they did in fact state the background of the researchers. One of them was a “transwoman”, two were working class and all reside in Scotland. They also sent the survey out quite widely. The list below includes three organisations pushing trans-inclusive policies; Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Women’s Equality Party.
W & Gs Scotland are also transparent about their lack of access to prisoners. This only comprised one chapter of their research. They did, nevertheless get responses from women with prison experience. 👇
They also make it clear that they regard this research very much as a beginning and much more is needed. They did get over 2000 responses to their survey. I will cover this research in more detail on another blog.
Maycock outlines the methodology for his research. It consisted of a survey and unstructured interviews. He spoke to 15 prisoners. He also makes quite a revealing statement about how the survey participants were selected. They were recruited by ”gatekeeper prison officers”. It would have been important, at this point, to clarify the recruitment process. It would have been helpful if we could be certain all the women impacted by this policy got an opportunity to participate. Even if the participants were a representative sample there is a risk that a female prisoner’s responses would simply toe the line; considering they are commenting on policy instituted by their prison over lords.
It takes a brave woman to express hostility to existing prison policy while incarcerated. Thankfully there were some prepared to be honest about their objections.
First Doctor Maycock gives a broad overview of the sample. All had been placed on a wing with a trans-identified male. They have varying length sentences to serve. Some are middle-class and educated others are described as working class with no formal education. They claim varying sexual orientations. Matthew then outlines his own identity as a white, cis, heterosexual male. (Of course he is!)
This is how he badges his findings. Prisoners who toe the prison authority line are labelled ”accepting” and those who raise objections or concerns are labelled ”rejecting”. Quite emotionally loaded terms.
The “accepting” women.
He begins with the ”accepting” women. Notice there are a lot of examples of the women as emotional support humans for the males. They are accepting, supportive, encouraging and recognise the authenticity of the males identifying as women, even the ones with a penis. They are all behaving in a compliant manner.
Lucy is fully on board with the prison agenda. Lucy is a newly minted lesbian who compares her journey to the “daily struggles” of the transgender inmates.
Another prisoner, Isla, is very supportive of the transgender inmates and repeats the narrative of the women nurturing the transgender inmates on their difficult journey. This is a recurrent theme. The author sees this as positive reinforcement for the policy, I see it as women pressed into service as validation aids. The women are providing, free, emotional labour.
In another revealing statement we find that the women are also supporting females who identify as transgender. Why are they not in the male estate living their authentic truth? 🤔
Next up Emily who is fully supportive, even to the trans-identified males who, she coyly observes, have their ”bottom bits” . Emily makes it clear the penis is not dangerous as it has been rendered impotent by the hormones. Apart from the penis ”she was just like a lassie”. Notice the author takes at face value statements like ”She didn’t act like a man. He has observations when some women question transgender males who didn’t ”act like women”. It seems it is perfectly possible to accept sex stereotypes if they align with a proclaimed gender identity but not if you question a man’s authenticity.
Matthew proceeds to talk about the wide acceptance of transgender women and the women who do not see them as a risk. He is particularly keen to hear from women who, despite a history of abuse by violent males, do not see the transgender males as “manly” or feel intimidated by them. Jessica tells him she sees the transgender inmates as women.
There are a couple of women who are heterosexual and claim it is the Lesbians who cause more problems. One of them, Ella, claims she has been exposed to Lesbians having sex. Matthew does not question this anecdotal evidence. Later in the report he does undermine testimony when women allege transgender prisoners have been caught having sex with women. The bias is evident throughout the report. The statements from women who accept Maycock’s agenda are accepted without question. The women who don’t accept men in women’s prisons are referred to as ”prejudiced” and accused of using ”Terf” talking points,
Maycock quotes another prisoner uncomfortable with Lesbians as a result of being straight and returns to Ella who is positively gushing about the opportunity to watch the journey of a transgender woman up close. Seems some of the glitter has rubbed off on Ella.
Here it is not clear what prompted this reply, from Jessica, questioning the work of Murray, Black, Mackenzie. They are another feminist group Maycock criticises. Whatever promoted Jessica’s response It does give the researcher a good quote. Jessica rejects the idea that female prisoners have any specific vulnerabilities. This runs counter to the many reports on the female prison demographic who demonstrate other wise.
Here is a quote from some research done by the Howard League, Scotland.
One of the ”accepting” women, Emily, who earlier waxed lyrical about a particular transgender women, qualifies her acceptance to limit it to the ”genuine” transgender inmates. The issue here is that the prison service is accepting men based on a self-declaration and leaving the untrained women to do their own risk assessments, on a case by case basis. As he does throughout Maycock quickly follows this critical comment with prisoner statements that there are “cis” women who are more of a risk to women than a transgender woman. This is a common tactic of trans activists. The Howard League report, quoted above, found less than 2% of Scottish, female, prisoners were held for violent offences.
Another prisoner, Alison, goes further to prioritise the vulnerability of the transgender inmates who, she feels, are the more vulnerable demographic. Alison is quoted at length stating that there is no evidence of violent trans prisoners. This is followed up by Matthew gushing about the acceptance, empathy and support the women display. He seems to like women who display maternal instincts to his brethren. This is a reflection of the way females are socialised to be accepting and kind. I think this can be a positive attribute so it is quite sickening to see how it is, here, being used against women.
The “rejecting” women
No we turn to the ”rejecting” women and what they have to say. Not all the women followed the script.
50% of a selected sample did not see the transgender women as women and believed they should be housed in accommodation appropriate for their actual sex.
As Rhona Hotchkiss (retired Prison Governor) points out the research showed 80% objected and only 3 had no reservations at all.
For Matthew this makes those women ”prejudiced”. The Curtice report, referenced below, contrasts with other reports which had quite different results when people realised some of those ”women” demanding access to female only facilities retained a penis.
Here Matthew uses a slur (Terf); which is often accompanied by threats of rape and violence. These women’s comments are being delegitimised in the way the preceding statements were not. One of the prisoners even inserts the, thought terminating, cliche ”Trans Women are Women”. Maycock is losing more credibility by the sentence and is hardly helped by referencing Sally Hines. 😳
How on earth can an intelligent man be shocked that females associate the possession of a penis with a man? Notice the women are having these secret conversations between themselves about the men they are forced to live among. Maycock attempts to extract some positives about a 50% rejection rate for the prison policy. He quotes a lot of women, somewhat apologetically, explaining how women who have histories of abuse associate a penis with a man. 🤷♂️
The women are clearly talking privately about their worries because they are being forced to pretend fully intact men are women. This is using a, literally, captured audience and forcing them to participate in this, ideologically driven, social experiment.
Here a prisoner expresses concern that she may be saying the unsayable to a prison employee which indicates she knows her views have become verboten. Clearly some women, with backgrounds of child abuse know a man when they see one. Matthew feels this complicates the issue. It doesn’t though. Taking advantage of female socialisation to encourage compliance with the idea men can become women is cruel. Looking for a loophole because some women are, or profess to be, OK with penis bearing women is unethical.
Ellie and all the other women are being forced to judge authenticity of motivation, to make their own risk assessments. We know that trained prison staff have allowed dangerous males to enter the female estate and the women’s fears are being dismissed /downplayed by this academic. What these women are being forced into by this prison policy is nothing short of a human rights violation.
The gaslighting here. Ella sees a man because he is a man. Yet, the researcher is writing her up as if her perception is problematic. The fact that this man 👇 starts an inappropriate conversation about porn is no surprise. She clearly finds him intimidating and points out that he has a man’s build.
He quotes Ellie at length and I suspect he finds her comments outrageous. I find her plain speaking utterly refreshing. Bravo Ellie!
Maycock, of course, intends to paint a picture which suggests Ellie is a conspiracy theorist. It is, however, naive to believe men are not plotting to escape the fate of being incarcerated with other males. Whether for nefarious motives, to access vulnerable women, or just to have easier jail time. Of course it is happening.
This is simply not true. Sex offenders, who are male, have been allowed into the female estate since at least 2009. I have covered more than one case on this blog.
Why didn’t Matthew produce some actual statement from the Scottish Prison Service that this doesnt happen; rather than using Freya’s faith in the system to undermine Ellie’s account? Why is he putting (wo) in brackets when Ellie is saying ”man”?
I was quite furious whilst reading this document. The version you are reading is significantly reduced in length. My first version included a lot more clips from the women. There is plenty more to be enraged about. Sadly.
Again Freya is used to undermine the testimony of Ellie. Since the staff are implemeting the policy and Matthew is funded by the SPS I am not surprised the prison officers did not corroborate Ellie’s story. Below the framing is also changed so that the fear of a penis bearing male is presented as a cross the trans-identifying male has to bear!
Some of the women then talk about transgender males who they had accepted and supported only to find those same men had re-identified with their birth sex as soon as they were released. Who’d have thunk it? The women talk about zero-effort males who enter the female estate and make no effort to pass as ”transgender” but, in fact behaved like controlling males.
Here a prisoner lists her experiences with men who she feels gamed the system.
Maycock, to his credit, perhaps, includes the statements but then interprets them as the women having stereotypical expectations of how a woman should behave. This is despite the women reporting men who made no effort to cover their genitalia which means the women have been subject to indecent exposure. I mean nothing says ”lady” like getting your dick out!
The prison service should protect vulnerable males. There are vulnerable wings for ex-police officers and paedophiles who are at elevated risk in the male estate. As it stands my trans-identified, and gay, son would be vulnerable on both those counts. He would only be protected for his ”trans-identity”. What the prison service have done is mask their own failures by making the problem a ”woman’s” problem. This is unacceptable.
Matthew’s conclusion is somewhat different to mine. He seems to be of the view that more exposure to transgender people will eradicate these transphobic views. In fact this policy has pitted two protected characteristics against one another. This is a dangerous, rash and insensitive way to treat women. Ironically this sex denying policy is 100% SEXist.
If you want to support my work you can do so here: I am unwaged but only donate if you can afford. I will keep my content free.
I have documented, in an earlier post, a small number of referrals to Gender Identity Clinics who openly admitted their motive for transition was paedophilia. This blog is here: Survey of Referrals to a Gender
This week two more cases of Trans identified males have been convicted of downloading child pornography. Both were afforded female pronouns. I blogged about one yesterday Here: #TheseAreNotOurCrimes
Today we had the outcome for another one. Media coverage here : Woman!
This weeks coverage made me return to this case. As usual, where available, I include the judicial transcript of the case. Here : Transcript
A quote here from the case: “The Claimant, now aged 60, is a transgender woman who seeks a referral for NHS-funded gender reassignment surgery (“GRS”). She is a serving prisoner. In September 2006 she was convicted and sentenced, as a man, for making indecent photographs of children” Bold added for emphasis.
The case was brought because the prisoner wishes to gain access to Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), on the NHS, whilst incarcerated.
The prospective patient is arguing ,the Tavistock are refusing surgery on the basis of a protocol which denies SRS to existing prisoners. (Interestingly the judgement claims SRS is only made available to those with no hope of release!)
The existence of any such protocol is hotly contested. We are then taken through the history of the claimants interactions with Gender identity specialists. In this section we learn the offending history dates back to the 1980’s and the prisoner has a conviction for sexual assault, and grooming, of a young girl age 12. The matter of gender Identity was raised in 2011. 5 years into an indeterminate sentence.
Here the specialist expresses concern the prisoner may be drawn to further offending, even after SRS. The claimant admits this, initially, but then claims he would no longer need to offend, because he would not need to offend to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Below is a dose of common sense from Dr James Barrett. Indeed. Women don’t typically perform our expected gender role by grooming and performing sex acts on 12 year old girls.
” The fact that she had a history of sexual offences was a seriously complicating factor. People with gender dysphoria feel imprisoned in the wrong body, convinced they are a woman living in a man’s body. Women who are living in female bodies do not normally groom children, still less perform oral sexual acts on 12-year-old girls. It is unusual and it made it much harder to accept her history at face value.”
The withholding of SRS seems mostly related to the difficulty of having “Real Life Experience (RLE) “living as a woman”. This is one of the requirements prior to accessing irreversible surgery and there are a few cases which turn on what exactly this means. How does anyone live as a woman? Women are women by virtue of our biology . WE don’t all walk around performing sex stereotypes. Few things irk me more than the idea that a few men can assess another man about how well he is “womanning“. Only a fool would subcontract the definition of women to the opposite sex. There simply is no way to measure how to live as a woman without relying on sex stereotypes. Those same sex stereotypes women have been fleeing from/resisting for centuries.
In the event various clinicians saw the prisoner. They commenced on a low dose of oestrogen and later the dose was increased. Note that the letter below was sent to HMP Whatton, which is a man’s, Category C prison. Note that the prisoner also appears to have embarked on an application for a Gender Recognition Certificate, from within prison. Dr Barrett declined to provide any supporting documentation.
Here Dr Barret and Dr Lorimer both refer to the patients paraphilia, the cross-dressing and the fetishisation of the female experience, though it seems to only concern them when it is targeted at teenage girls.
The first prisoner to obtain a GRC , from within prison, was a pre-operative male as I cover in this blog HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON? This prisoner committed an attempted rape of a woman after being legally re-defined as a woman. There is, to my knowledge, no process for rescinding a Gender Recognition Certificate, and certainly it was not done in the above case.
You can read another case which similarly involved a male paedophile. This one had the idea that the Spice Girls were a template for womanhood. Girl Power: The Spice of Life?
So there you have it. Men re-defining women against our will. Men defining men, as women, based on some projected sex stereotypes. An admission of the co-existence of paraphilias and fetishisation of women. Nobody was willing to outright refuse treatment so this person was given hormones and allowed to go on unsupervised day release, dressed as a woman. I presume the real life experience involved using female facilities.
Male paedophile, dressed as a woman, accessing spaces which could well include teenage girls. Nothing to see here? I now know who is responsible for the Mad Men series of images. Julian Vigo. Genius!
This legal case centres on a prisoner who wished to access, NHS funded, Sexual Reassignment Surgery during a prison sentence. Covered by The Times here: KK appeal for SRS
In anticipation of the general denial on this issue I include, as always, the official, judicial transcript. KK: Legal Challenge for SRS.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly the recurrent appearance of the same clinicians whose advice is sought. There does seem to be quite a small number of specialists in this field. A feature of this case, once again, is the claimant’s complicating history of sexual offences. This is not unusual, in the cases which leave a trail in court paperwork. Another recurrent theme is the vexed notion of what “living as a woman” means. This resists definition and exercises the minds of our specialists, and the judiciary, far too little. Here we are told the claimant is 60 years of age, was sentenced “as a man” and has been given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP). We also discover that the bar for obtaining Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS) is lower for a prisoner who will never be released than for those with the possibility of parole. There is no rationale given here for this policy.
The legal claim is made on a number of grounds. One of these is whether there exists a protocol which discriminates against prisoners wishing to access sexual reassignment surgery. Another aspect of the case is a rarely articulated concern about regret, in post-operative transsexuals. Here it is adduced as a factor in the, efusing the prisoner GRS. The existence of post-surgery regret is not denied. Instead, the argument hinges on the lack of peer reviewed research showing prisoners are at a higher risk of regret. The Trust, for its part, denies there is any such protocol.
Below is a reminder of the criteria to access genital surgery. It can be done from age 17, mental health conditions are no bar they must merely be “controlled”, a patient is allowed to progress even if they are “unwilling” to undertake hormone treatment. Furthermore the prospective patient should not be judged on how they perform their gender. God forbid we assign arbitrary expectations to performative gender, it might make us suspect the entire ideology is underpinned by reductive, sexist stereotypes. The absence of any externally verified way of measuring “Living as a Woman” does, however, beg the question how is this being measured? How can you assess if a male person is really of the female gender? What does living in the female gender role mean?
How can you possibly assess whether this identity is being adopted correctly if you don’t have pre-conceived notions of what “living as a woman” entails? Is it possible that this is a tad sexist?
Another revealing admission is that many of those who claim the status of “woman” in fact have no bodily modification at all. So living as a woman does not require anyone to be divested of that very male of appendages. One could be forgiven for assuming the penis part of the male anatomy which would give rise to dysphoric feelings. Yet it seems not to be the case. A large number retain their male anatomy. At the same time we, second class women, the biological kind, are expected to share our intimate spaces with the new, male-bodied, version of womankind. We hear much of the comfort surgery can bring to sufferers of Gender Dsyphoria. Where is the consideration for the discomfort of ,unbepenised, women forced to share our intimate spaces?
Cue cries of “transphobia” for wishing to be free of all genders of penis when women are in intimate spaces.
The next excerpt from the case provides more information on the sexual offences committed by the prisoner. Here we learn that the defendant begain offending in the 1980’s; when he groomed and abused a young girl, at the age of 12 . The defendant was, at that stage, 32 years of age. The girl endured this for four years. He served just one year. He was still sexually offending in 2006.
The claimant is late to a belief they are really a woman. He remained trapped in a man’s body at age 51. The claimant professes, to the therapist below, that his sexual offending may cease if he is allowed to transition. The therapist offers an alternative view. What if his attraction to the child images is related to him having missed out on 51 years of being a girl (WTF!). He may, in fact, be at a higher risk of offending after gender reassignment. He then proceeds to amend his statement with the outrageous implication that he resorted to offending to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Because nothing screams woman louder than sexually offending against a pubescent, female teen and downloading child porn! Types furiously…
Again there is a lot of evidence that males, who retain a sexual interest in females, and wish to transition, also have co-existing paraphilias. But hey, what could possibly go wrong!
Dr Lorimer is well aware that masochistic fantasies are not unusual. A cursory acquaintance with sections of the community reveal a correlation with interests in BDSM. Indeed here is a Masters Thesis about how sado-masochistic, role play helped one transwoman cement their identity. Naturally they played the submissive role. BDSM & Transgender Identity
Cross-dressing usually has an erotic component but the prisoners states this was not the case for them. Well he would wouldn’t he? Fetishising a female identity is pretty much the essence of the movement but I would say that wouldn’t I?
Fetishising sexual roles, with notions of submission and dominance, seems to be a core feature of how many males experience their female role. Acting female in a male prison is vastly different from women’s material reality, as pointed out below:
Here we find that the prisoner remains in a category C Male prison. Since they have been “in role” for 10 years in a male prison it rather begs the question about lack of safety in the male estate. Dr Barrett makes it clear they are not able to make a referral for a Gender Recognition Certificate. As we found out from earlier cases there is no bar to obtaining a GRC, from within prison, even with convictions for sexual offences against women. There are always other clinicians and a wealth of private providers that the prisoner can approach. Good to know. I was worried for a while.
We soon learn that the prisoner has been moved to an open prison. We are not told if this remains in the male estate. The prisoner has, however, been granted accompanied and unaccompanied visits to the local town. This is to gain that all important “real life experience” of living as a woman, whatever that means! This is a prelude to release. Prisoner also has hormone therapy increased. Below is another revealing statement that acknowledges that most denied of phenomena: “detransition”. When word gets out that Dr Lorimer has used this word will he be cancelled?
The prisoners sexual offences are deemed to “complicate” the picture for our clinicians. Further confirmation is provided below. Here we have a prisoner presenting as female, in the male estate, for 10 years! Again Dr Barrett makes it clear the imprisonment of a patient is no bar to obtaining GRS and, additionally confirms female prisoners are being made to share accommodation with pre-op males.
Yep Dr Barrett you bet the experience of living in the female role is artificial. I agree with you but probably for different reasons. Late transitioners, with a history of sexual offences, are a red flag but you can’t say that can you? We must not undermine the notion of a man trapped in a woman’s body. #AcceptionWithoutException. Though Dr Barrett comes pretty close with this gem of a contribution about Women “living in female bodies!” (spoiler there is no other kind ). Yes! We tend not to groom female children and perform oral sex on them.
So without wishing to labour the point the prisoner is denied. No mention is made of the obvious reasons! You know the late -transitioning, sexual offence history and interest in child porn. No. The real issue that seems to justify the refusal is a failure to demonstrate real lived experience, as a woman, because prison is an artificial environment! Whilst a male cos-playing as a woman is not artificial, in any way!
This policy was revised and updated and published in August 2019. You can read the full policy 👉 Here
This was revised after more than one high profile case of male rapists operating in the female estate. There is no explicit reference to the cases, in the policy, though they do include a warning about staff leaking information to the media.
A new policy is due to be published 31st October 2019 so I will revisit to note the amendments made. I have also emailed the Ministry of Justice to ask if there is a specific policy on the care of female prisoners. I have also asked what protocols are in place for a female prisoner who is moved to the male estate, because they are deemed too dangerous for the women’s facilities.
The policy exposes how far the, legally protected, characteristic of sex has been eroded, by allowing anyone, regardless of biology, to declare they are a woman. The prison system is illustrative of just how far Gender Identity ideology is embedded within our legislature and enshrined in public policy.
Below is a quote 👇 from JamesMorton, of the ScottishTransAlliance, which shows that Female prisoners are the subjects of a dangerous laboratory experiment. James is listed as an author of the Scottish Prisons Policy which deals with Transgender Prisoners. As James is a lobbyist for Trans Rights there is only one group at the forefront of the policy. Spoiler. Its not Women.
‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.
The above quote is illustrative of a complete disregard for the female prison population; one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres and female prisons do seem to figure prominently in the targeted locations. Captive females are being targeted for this new branch of Men’s rights activism.
The new MOJ policy starts out well. At least it recognises the need for balance between the protected characteristic of “sex” and “Gender Reassignment”. Specifically they refer to women’s prisons not, you will notice, men’s prisons. They know any conflict impacts women.
The important legal issue here is that someone who has a Gender Recognition Certificate, is deemed to be “legally” of the opposite sex. Thus a Male to Female Transexual (MTF) or a Female to Male (FTM) is deemed to be legally a woman/man, respectively. (Note: This does NOT mean that only post-operative transsexuals are able to be legally declared as the opposite sex. Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) have already been issued to male-bodied people).
The policy also includes this quote: Unbeknown to, I would guess, 99% of women, the UK legal system has endorsed the idea of #LadyPenis. Not one single women I have told about this, in real life, had any idea the state has declared that a male, complete with penis, can be legally defined as a woman. Once I had overcome their disbelief, they were, to a woman, horrified. This is not a grass roots movement, its top down, elite led, and mandated by a political class who have been lobbied into submission. Crucially those who enact the law, and draft the guidance, will not be on the front line. They will not be tasked with enforcing the policy, in real life, or on the receiving end when, inevitably, it places women and children at risk.
The Prisons policy has to operate on the basis of the law. The interpretation of the law is such that a person who holds a GRC is , legally, woman/man and to be housed according to their “legal gender”. (A lot of the debate uses Gender & Sex interchangeably. This is no accident. It obfuscates. Whenever you are reassured by a policy. Stop. Ask how they are defining gender, sex and woman. )
*A CCB is a Complex Case Board.
Since there are less than 5000 GRCs granted (last time I checked) this, on the surface, restricts the numbers. However later in the policy it appears this is not quite so clear cut:
This begs the question just what evidence is considered sufficient to define “gender” when legal sex cannot be easily determined? Apparently staff can ask the prisoner’s permission to see a Gender Recognition Certificate or evidence that an application has been made. However, the prisoner is not obliged to supply this information and can withhold it. The policy also makes it clear that no search can be conducted to determine the sexual characteristics of the prisoner. This prisoner who does not produce a GRC, or new birth certificate, will not have met the threshold for “full supporting confirmation” of their legal gender”. The prison can, however, accept “strong supporting confirmation”. This turns out to be as follows:
The first and last categories are documents available to anyone on a “self-declared” basis. Again how can one evidence “living as a woman”? Would we accept “living as a black man” or would we immediately see how offensive this is? The middle one “appearance and mannerisms” postulates women as nothing more than mannequins. This is grossly offensive to actual women but capitulates to wannabe women who think make-up maketh the woman.
Another interesting point made in the policy is the record keeping. Any prisoner who is deemed to meet this very superficial set of criteria will be recorded as such.
Are crimes committed by men, who identify as women, recorded as male or female? If so how many self-identified women incarcerated are sex offenders? Do we have any way of tracking the risk these males present to the women inside, and outside, the prison? I have more questions than answers. When we start to have a “puzzlng” increase in “female” sex offenders this will surely distort “evidence” based policy. Risk assessments on the impact of male violence against women need accurate data. Individual women risk assess when in proximity to males. This is a survival strategy. Policy makers should ensure they have the data to do this on a macro scale. Since we know there are significant sex based differentials in offence patterns eradicating records based on sex is a risky strategy.
I would also love to know why transgender status has any bearing on sentencing? See the excerpt below ⇓
Is Transgender status being treated as a mitigating factor? I have seen articles where the judge has allowed an offender to walk free rather than subject them to custodial sentence. Explicitly stating it was deemed to be more onerous for a Trans prisoner. Here is one case in which the Judge does not impose a custodial sentence because the Sexual Offender Treatment Programmes are not geared to the Trans-community (which is true but letting the sex offender walk is no solution) : Transgender Sex Offender walks free
Writing such a policy would be challenging in the legal context even if undertaken by skeptical parties. Some of the framing is downright dishonest when contextualised to female offences against males and vice versa. Here we have exactly the same phraseology for the location of MTF and FTM.
It must require a suspension of disbelief to write the second paragraph knowing full well a female, regardless of identity, is much more likely to be at risk not presenting a risk to male prisoners.
A significant feature of the trans community is the need to be validated in the sex you wish you were born in. Where a MTF demands that validation it can impacts on women’s safety by an obsessive need to be included in female spaces. The more intimate the more validating. For a female, with a male identity, this same need places them at risk. Yet the law dictates this:
I reported on another trans-identifying female earlier in this series who was sectioned in lieu of being imprisoned. Inevitably they were the target of sexual “advances” when incarcerated, at their request, in the male estate. FTM Legal Case
I also quote Frances Crook of the Howard League in the above case: 👇
There are 80,000 male prisoners and 3000 female prisoners. Men imprisoned for sexual offences are at 19% in the male estate. Of the MTFs, held in the female estate, 41% are in for sexual offences. ↓
Either we have a higher pattern of sexual offences within the Trans umbrella or we have a problem of opportunistic men gaming the system. The outcome for the women is the same whichever the motivation.
The above is from an article in the Spectator. (*The 0.04% figure is open to question as 128 out of the total female population is actually 4%. It is not known if this is because there are males , legally counted as female, in these figures).
All of the above confirms, to me, that the Prison service should revert to the original policy of housing female prisoner’s separately, from males, and set up special accommodation for trans prisoners where deemed unsafe in the prison of their birth sex.
I have omitted many aspects of this report. The self-reported “intersex” offenders does not stand up to any scrutiny. Given the low incidence of Disorders of Sexual Development in the wider population it beggars belief that 7 out of 80 say they are “intersex. Once again it is deeply offensive to allow a medical condition to be claimed as an “identity”. Trans-activists have long co-opted this community to serve their own aims and Claire Graham covers this topic here :Intersex & LGBT
I also have not spent a huge amount of time on the how hamstrung the front line staff are. They can’t make a prisoner disclose their sex. They can’t conduct a search with the purpose of identifying the sex of their prisoner. They can’t use blood tests to determine if a prisoner is on a regime of hormones. They can’t tell female prisoners if they have a male incarcerated with them. For MTFs it is rare for non-celebrities to have what is called “passing privilege” so I imagine it is perfectly obvious to the women. Yet the prison officers commit a criminal offence if they share that information. The prisoner has the right to demand to be searched by someone of the same “”gender” so female staff are also being disregarded.
Quite rightly the prison service is concerned that MTF Transgender people are at risk in the male estate. What jars is that this risk is explicitly acknowledged and care taken to protect a “transwomen” in the male estate. By contrast women in the female estate are not even allowed to know a male is housed within their estate.
Once again it is abundantly clear that the authorities have simply not consulted or listened to women. We are here. We are raising our voices. This is NOT ok.
As part of my work looking at legal cases involving Transgender Individuals , with a particular focus on those incarcerated, I came across this case of a female. The claimant is a Transgender Female who identifies as male. The case seems to have been brought because there was a belief that the clinicians were not proceeding to medicalise the Gender Identity at an appropriate speed. Ruth Hunt {Then Stonewall CEO) and Stephen Whittle {Transactivist key player in legislative change} gave statements. Full legal transcript of the case available here:
The prisoner was convicted of the grievous bodily harm of a 12 year old boy and a further offence against a female partner. They also have a plethora of complex mental health needs. As set out below:
The Claimant now identifies as a “Transman” and has a number of “male pattern” offences to her name. All of these things alienate support from women, looking out for females, in the judicial system. As a FTM help from radical feminists, who reject “gender identity” politics, will likely be rejected. As I read this case it shows that, whether they know it or not, they need their sex based rights even if they reject them.
Following their conviction the claimant was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and, in 2010, was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria.
Unusually the claimant has asked to be housed according to their “self-identified” gender. Reading the case this seems to be prior to any treatment for the Gender Identity issues. I assumed that females would always prefer to be housed with other females, or at least not with men. I think this is probably, largely the case, but , at least theoretically, not all FTMs.
Here are a few quotes from a Reddit thread where females, who identify other than their sex, discuss whether they wish to be located in the male estate, in the event of incarceration. Here’s a sample of responses. Some replies are more reality based than others!
Clearly this person committed serious criminal offences and was remanded in a secure mental health placement in recognition of significant co-morbidities. The existence of competing psychological issues is a recurring theme in these legal cases.
Given the significant co-morbidities It does beg the question as to why, with significant mental health issues, the claimant’s request to be housed with male offenders was accepted. Why were they deemed “competent” to make such a decision? Why were they not protected from themself?
Once housed in the male adult service, there was a predictable outcome: Male residents (plural) had made sexual advances to “him”.
I have searched in vain for a clear statement that *any* transman has been incarcerated in the male (prison) estate. Here are a couple of mumsnet discussions on this topic which seems to have reached the same conclusion: like me they have been unable to locate any.
This is important because if you look at policies re Transgender prisoners they seem to have forgotten all we know about which sex commits sexual offences (Males: 98% of the time) and who form the larger part of their victims. (Women). I think the reason this is so difficult to articulate, in policy documents, is that there is a clear conflict between “sex” and “gender identity”. Any talk of women, as a sex class, immediately denies “gender identity” . Invariably the ones who are being centred here in this dialogue are not the females, however they identify, but the men who want to be women.
Females housed with males are at risk. And make no mistake, we are not just talking about post-operative transsexuals here. Gender Recognition certificates have been given to attempted rapists, with their penis intact, as far back as 2006. The GRC does not mean men are required to be surgically disarmed before being allowed to be defined as “legally female” . With or without “transition” we are expected to accept males, as a risk free presence, in women’s spaces. {Though, to be clear, as far as I am concerned, the defining characteristic is “sex” and women should be housed with biological women only}.
Frances Crook of the Howard League (campaigning organisation for Prison Reform) sets out what our politicians are refusing to acknowledge. There is a difference between the sexes, in terms of risk. Unlike our cowardly political elite she dares say out loud, what they surely know:
For more on this topic its well worth reading Richard Garside. Consistently good on the issue of the protecting the rights of female prisoners: Transgender prisoners
So, to return to this case, we have already seen that their need to be affirmed in their “gender identity” has triumphed over their own physical safety. For someone in flight from their female sex I cannot think of anything more “gender dysphoria” triggering than to be sexually assaulted. This decision failed the claimant both as a woman and as a transgender male.
Differential diagnosis/Treatment Pathways.
It seems that the case became some sort of trans cause-celebre which hinged on the complexity of the competing diagnoses and some disagreement about how the Gender Identity issues should be treated. Below is some of the “expert” testimony.
One clinician is clearly wanting to stabilise the claimant before commencing treatment for the gender dysphoria. I assume she is referring to testosterone which seems sensible with such a volatile patient. The violent outbursts did not cease one they were incarcerated:
Again I do wonder if there is enough research on the impact of Testosterone on, particularly already violent, females. This research showed male pattern offending rates remained in transgender MTF (Male to Female) and that FTM approached Male rates of offending. Long term follow up
The clinician also warned that any move to sexual reassignment surgery may trigger violence which seemed to suggest a cautious approach was wise. Seems there was general acceptance of the co-morbid conditions by a number of the clinicians involved in the claimant’s care.
It seems the legal case itself had arisen because of the conflict between the clinicians dealing with the patient, one might argue “holistically”, and the Gender Identity Specialists. Here we have Dr James Barrett; who seems to be the go-to expert in many of these cases. . I do not share his confidence that the psychiatric illness is a mere co-incidence. Yes there is likely a link between the Gender Dysphoria and the mental health, as he states, but I suspect Dr Barrett does not see that link in quite the same way as I do.
Clearly there was a view that the claimant was being let down by not having expedited treatment for their “gender dysphoria”. One group of clinicians seem to be erring on the side of caution whilst other “experts” see the failure to commence treatment as the issue.
Others are clear that Gender Dysphoria, to them , is a simple health problem that needs treatment and not a mental health issue:
The judge in this case seems uncharacteristically resistant to the advocacy of some of the big players in the trans-political sphere. Here she opines on the contributions of some big names. This had to hurt! Stephen Whittle and Ruth Hunt made statements the judge decided were of “no relevance”.
She was also very critical that the case had been brought at all and made specific reference to the considerable costs incurred.
Finally she concluded that she did not think the case was necessary. Reading between the lines she understood this was to “highlight the importance of transgender issues” and likely this was intended to have wider application than in this individual case.
The judge rejected the case for a judicial review of a clinical judgement.
Here we have someone who seems to be a lesbian, from a fractured childhood and periods in state care. All of these things are likely to generate “identity” issues. Add in all the mental health issues and it seems beyond madness to see the “Gender Dysphoria” in isolation from the other conditions.
Female judge. Took someone from twitter (@KirstenYounger) to point out I had used male pronouns, in the first draft, for the Judge. Mea culpa. The maximum kind.
I spent so much time agonising about pronouns for the FTM claimant, to avoid being kicked off WordPress, I missed the important stuff, for women.
Part 3: The Man Who Would Be Queen: Autogynephiles.
Having seen many references to this book I have finally got around to tackling it. The full text is available free here: The Man Who Would Be Queen
Bailey is clearly fascinated with the topic of transsexualism and immerses himself in their subculture to recruit “subjects” for his research. He is not, at least in this book, concerned with the legislative framework to protect transsexuals. He also doesn’t examine how any such laws interact with those enacted to protect the female sex. His exposition of the underlying, erotic, motivations for transition does, however, reinforce the need for women’s, sex based, rights.
Bailey, uses prominent researcher Ray Blanchard’s typology of transsexuals which differentiate between HSTS (homosexual transsexuals) and AGP transsexuals. The wider public, and many commentators, are either ignorant about this typology or reject it. Bailey believes transsexualism could illuminate some fundamental facts about human nature, if, and only if, the topic was treated honestly. It is not treated honestly. The strenuous efforts to shut down debate are, in my view, indicative of how damaging this knowledge is to the demands of transactivists. People don’t know Blanchard’s typology because of, quite simply, deliberate concealment. It is impossible to get someone to admit to something they are unable to admit to themselves.
Maxine Peterson, a gender clinician, is also quoted and points out that “Most gender patients lie”. The tendency to skirt around the equivalent of identity up-skirting has been noted by an early researcher in this field, HarryBenjamin. For transactivists extra effort will be taken to shroud the AGP motivation in secrecy, especially, when trying to get changes to legislation or public policy. 👇
Leading activists have been invited into the heart of government to speak on trans rights. This has exposed the sinister motivations of *some* who campaign for an end to sex segregated spaces. Take the cases of Jess Bradley. Here is a source from within the trans-community. Naturally it makes liberal uses of the misogynist slur “terf” but covers the issue fairly comprehensively. Jess Bradley. For the purposes of women’s rights we need only note that Jess Bradley is publicly thanked, by Baroness Barker, for helpful input to the Gender Identity Forum.
Karen/Mark Jones was invited to discuss how Transgender Prisoners could be better served within the criminal justice system, by Lord Patel. Reading the offences committed by this Transexual it would appear to be the prisoner in the court case I covered in an earlier blog. Transgender prisoner moved to female estate
Note the way the attempted rape is dismissed. Also, if this is the same person in penis news they now appear to identify as a butch lesbian.
Any focus on the erotic motivation for transition would set off alarm bells at the demand women grant access to our, single sex, spaces. The very condition of AGP makes the sufferers demand access. They simply cannot accept any demarcation between their, self-created, female persona and biological women. It is for this reason that I think the clash between the demands of Trans Rights Activists anwomen’s rights was inevitable.
The author is sympathetic to gay and trans rights, but dismisses the idea of “Born in the Wrong Body”. The most he will concede is, for some men, they would “like to be in a female body”. {The book doesn’t cover females who transition or theories of the origins of Lesbianism. He does, briefly, touch on Androphilia (Women who identify as gay men) in the interview which I included in part one}.
To understand the vitriolic attacks on the author , as detailed inpart one, it is necessary to talk about the dark secret at the heart of Trans ideology. Bailey exposes the erotic motivations for transition, via the taboo subject of Autogynephilia. AGP is a male paraphilia which is sexual attraction, to oneself, as a woman. Bailey argues that any consideration of transexuals which ignores the erotic motivation is incomplete and dishonest. Transsexuality simply cannot be seperated from sexuality. For Homosexual transsexuals see Part Two
Men who become the women they love are Autogynophiles (AGP). It is difficult to gauge the level of AGP within the trans-community but a brief look at #GirlsLikeUs and #SheMale (content warning. Lots of “Lady Penis”, even on twitter) exposes its prevalence. Reddit threads show males, addicted to #SheMale porn and confessing to masturbating, into, or whilst wearing, female apparel. This is often followed up with the plaintive cry of “Am I just Trans?” Most of the replies immediately affirm the trans-identity and rarely does anyone raise the issue of AGP. The attempt to cleanse a fetish activity with the idea that you are actually a woman has taken root in this community. It has also been supported by all our (UK) mainstream political parties. What this actually means for women’s sex based rights has been totally overlooked, in a quest to appear “Woke” to sections of the electorate. When a private fetish is given primacy, over sex based rights, and allowed to dicktate (sic) access to women’s rights, and single sex spaces, women have a right to know the truth.
Bailey illustrates his point embodied in two transsexuals of two different types, one homosexual and one autogynephile. The HSTS transsexual Terese is attracted to males and, more specifically, to straight males, who they can only attract as a “woman”. Post sexual re-assignment surgery, Bailey notes, as an aside, Terese’s mother, is pleased to have a feminine daughter rather than a feminine son. There is a streak of homophobia running through this movement which is ignored by, so called, LGBT organisations. More on HSTS transsexuals is in parttwo.
“Terese” has sexual relationships with straight males to whom their transsexual status was not disclosed. (Note: Sex by deception is a criminal offence in the UK and Stonewall is campaigning to have this removed by the statute books. This is a discussion on the topic, although it does not reference the pressure on lesbians to engage in sexual relationship with the opposite sex, known as the #CottonCeiling.Disclosure}
“Cher” is an autogynophilic transsexual who was born “Chuck”. He did not exhibit “feminine” tendencies as a boy. What he did do was dress in his mother’s lingerie and masturbate to climax. His secret life, as a cross-dresser, persisted, though he was riddled with shame and frequently “purged” female apparel to try to rid himself of the habit. Eventually, reconciling to his “secret life” Chuck became Cher and devoted himself to his fetish. He collected pornography, featuring women, but his fantasy was that he was the women who was vaginally penetrated, by a man. He constructed elaborate fantasies and began to wear prosthetics and make his own pornography. Eventually “Cher” was referred to a gender clinic and diagnosed as transsexual.
Chuck is not a woman. He is a male, with a very male paraphilia, (paraphilia’s are not a feature of female sexuality) which covers him in shame. Being diagnosed as transsexual drapes his fetish in a cloak of respectability. With new legislation this locates “Cher” as a legal woman and, as in the UK, any crimes committed or sentence to be served would be, legally, as a woman.
Next we meet a Heterosexual Transvestite. His name is Don but he dresses up, part-time, as Stephanie. His cross-dressing has an erotic component (masturbating whilst dressed in female apparel or into female apparel). He has a successful career, as a man, and is married. Like the transsexual we met earlier, Don has periods of shame and purges his female outfits. Each time he “regresses”. A feature of the interaction with Don is that the shame about his compulsion also leads to denial about the sexual motivation. He claims it is not sexual anymore and Bailey does not believe him. Nor do I.
Under Leeds City Council’s policy Don would be allowed to register a female name and “female gender” even as a part-time cross dresser. This is their criteria:
Let that sink in. Masculine, males with a paraphilia, which fetishizes being a woman, are now legally allowed to be recognised as “women” . Furthermore women are being compelled to accept them in our most intimate spaces. What autogynophiles have in common is a desire to be seen as “women” and , for them, the ultimate expression of being a woman is being penetrated by a man. This enactment of what it means to be a woman is deeply offensive to women. This is a man-made fantasy projected onto women.
The fantasy is not restricted to our, perceived, place in sexual intimacy but also fetishizes more everyday activities which , in the autogynophile’s world are “womens” past-times.
This places the women, who are kindly including the harmless transsexual, in the position of props in a male fantasy. AGP transsexuals will go to great lengths to conceal their interests from the women who include them. However it is nearly impossible for the conversation not to enter territory that betrays their misunderstanding of women’s boundaries and expose their fetishizing of the women in the group. There are many ways to breach women’s boundaries and this is one of the most subtle, and insidiously offensive, ways.
Autogynophiles typically come from hyper-masculine occupations. There are, as many have noted, a lot of ex-military “late transitioners”. There is also an over-representation from those in information technology as many have noted:Many explain their “hyper-masculine” past as evidence they were in flight from their femininity. This is doubtful. As Bailey argues it speaks to the fact that AGP males are not stereotypically feminine but study and work hard to fulfil a very male fantasy of what a woman is. Dr Ann Lawrence’s description, as an AGP transsexual, rings true:
Bailey goes on to discuss nature/nuture and its role in AGP. There is clearly a discussion to be had on this issue but it is not, in my view, relevant for women working to protect same sex spaces. More pertinent is his statement of the co-existence of other paraphilias , in particular sexual sadism, with cross-dressing of all types.
For those lobbying to change laws to accommodate their paraphilia they must, at all costs, disguise the true nature of their condition. 👇 Below is a quote from a prominent figure in this field.
Modern day Trans Activists, especially, it seems, the most prominent ones strive to make sure our politicians avert their gaze to the sexual motivations which underly transition. Yes, there will be shame, some will find it humiliating to admit to the dressing in women’s clothing as a sexual activity. However the most dangerous aspect is the demonstrable fact that this is not a private fetish. It requires female participation to validate the identity; whether we know we are an extra in a Trans Drama or not. This is no longer a private activity but encroaching on women’s boundaries. Here an autogynephile explains: 👇
This is why they cannot bear women to have same sex spaces. Women are erecting a barrier between themselves and “the woman he loves”. This is the reason why removal of the, already scandalously cavalier, safeguarding of women and girls cannot be allowed to succeed. Nor should the provision of Gender Recognition certificates be widened in favour of a self-declaration. This is reckless endangerment of women. As we have seen a male, imprisoned for attempted rape, managed to get a GRC whilst serving a sentence for that crime! This was in 2006, only two years after the passage of the Gender Recognition Act.
There is no such thing as a man trapped in a woman’s body. Hence why I reject the notion that transsexuals become “women” or that they belong in single sex spaces. Women are not an idea in a mans head, we are not fodder for a male fetish, and we have good reason to exclude males from sex specific spaces.
We don’t want males,with or without paraphilias, frock or no frock, parachuted in. They begin to look like an advanced guard for a male colonisation of women.
The prisoner had committed sexual offences against young boys. Their offences started whilst young and continued to adulthood. The prisoner had also been a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Makes for a pretty grim catalogue of offences.
It is hard to read without reflecting on the damage done to young males, by early sexual contact, whether by direct force or grooming. I did wonder how this shapes their attitude to their own bodies, warps their boundaries and perpetuates a cycle of abuse. [Note that many CSA survivors do not go on to become abusers. Female survivors , in particular, quite rightly baulk at the inference and maybe more likely to internalise the consequences in self-harm. Once again we find sex matters.]
Another startling finding is the seemingly higher rates of CSA transitioners. Are they trying to escape the physical shell in which their abuse took place?
For the purposes of this blog, however, my focus is on how the judicial system deals with the needs of these prisoners, primarily the impact on women. Especially when this places males in the female estate. All prisons have policies which require them to at least consider housing males according to their “gender identity”.
The case opens with the kind of statement I am becoming accustomed to:
The prisoner was “born a man” and “remains physically a man”yet the case will use female pronouns, out of respect. The legal system is using shefor a male, child sex offender. Let that sink in! Furthermore, as the case makes clear, this is not someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate. (A GRC confers the “legal fiction” that a male is female). What is apparent is the legal system already extends this “recognition” prior to any assessment by a Gender Recognition Panel. Polite female pronouns for a male sex offender are a dis-courtesy to women across the land but, hey, we are only women. Gillian Flynn had it right when she reflected on the me too movement:
Well worth taking a break, at this point, to read this post about the ubiquitous use of female pronouns, to describe males, and the impact on our cognitive abilities. This was posted on mumsnet and earned the poster a 7 day ban! 👇
Now the law is using this linguistic rohypnol of “preferred pronouns”. Even for male sex offenders who have committed sexual offences against children, do not have a GRC and have not medically “transitioned”. The overwhelming perpetrators of crimes of a sexual and violent nature are males, so in whose interests is this linguistic shift? It is NOT in the interests of the female sex to obscure the sex of the perpetrators of sexual violence.
The offender , in this case, had already been tried and imprisoned for the sexual offences committed. However, what if the preferred pronouns were “she” at the time of the offence? Would the young boys he victimised have been admonished for using “he”? We have already seen that Maria McLachlan was legally compelled to use female pronouns for her attacker. In addition, despite the perpetrator being found guilty, her use of male pronouns was actually used to reduce any compensation that may have been due. In her own words : Maria McLachlan: Trial
Sexual Offender Therapeutic Treatment Programmes.
To return to the case in hand. These are offences that no woman or girl could have physically committed. The number of females imprisoned for sexual offences against children is statistically insignificant.
There are lots of interesting points, in this case, about parole hearings, indeterminate sentencing and whether the prison system is equipped to deal with transgender sex offenders. Those remain issues that require resolution. I remain steadfast on the principal that women are entitled to single sex spaces. However, even were I to set that aside, women’s prisons are not sufficiently experienced, or sufficiently resourced, to deal with male sex offenders. Indeed if you read the case the male prison seems similarly unable to identify the correct risk reduction programme for such a prisoner.
Another salient point is the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate proves no barrier to anyone “self-identifying” as Transgender. This, in turn, allows them to invoke the legally protected characteristic of “Gender Re-assignment”. If , like me, you assumed that a GRC must be obtained, to be covered by this legal protection, the law is not operating in this way. These are some of the legal arguments which make it clear the case was heard on the basis that the prisoner was entitled to be legally protected by the characteristic of “Gender Reassignment”. No mention of even hormone treatment and definitely no surgery, at this point.
No wonder every political party is signing up to getting “Self-Id” specifically enshrined, in law, they know we have already let the Fox in with the hens!
A year ago I may have expressed less concern about Homosexual transgender offenders as a risk to women. However, if you read this earlier case on my blog Male Sex Offender in Female Prison , you will see that this is no guarantee of female safety; not even protection from sexual assault.
The prisoner, who is the subject of this blog, was housed in the male estate. A same sex attracted male would obviously have less incentive to petition to be moved to the female estate. There is only one reference to this preference. Here:👇
HMP Send is a female therapeutic community. The prisoner expressed fear at being in a male sex offender treatment programme (SOTP) and this fear was taken seriously. Nowhere is there any reference to the fears of females at HMP Send, to have a (fully-intact) male in their treatment programme. In the end , despite more than one overture, this request was turned down. In my view this should simply not have been considered. A fear of males is not exclusive to the Transgender community. Cannot quite believe I have to actually state this in 2019. Female prisoners have an over-representation of women who have been abused at the hands of men. The Prison policy should act on the legally protected characteristic of sex. It simply should rule out housing a male, sex offender or not, with women. Neither should there be any compulsion to admit one to a female therapeutic programme.
Note also, in the above clip, the prisoner reports they are three months away from being granted a Gender Recognition Certificate. I have no way of verifying this. However, thus far there are no details of any hormone treatment and certainly no surgery has taken place. So it would seem being imprisoned for child sexual abuse, and handed an indefinite sentence to protect the public, is not an automatic bar to applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Whilst activists are campaigning to relax the requirements for a GRC I ask why the requirements not made even more stringent? Or, indeed, why we have accepted them at all. If the GRC is supposed to reassure women then it is transparently not worth the paper it is written on.
There are safeguarding implications and this study raised a concern. 👇
Predators will always take the path of least resistance. Safeguarding principles tell us to look at where these weak links are because this is where you will find predators.
Its OK if they are homosexual.
A feature of this “debate” , we fought to have, is institutionalised sexism which fails to understand the nature, and extent, of sexual offences against women. In my earlier blog, linked above, I quote the motivation for the attempted rape of a woman. It was a male-attracted offender. His motivation for a sexual attack against a women was rage. Narcissistic rage because she was a woman this was the status the male wished for himself. Narcissistic tendencies are frequently referenced in respect of this prisoner:
References to this prisoner’s narcissism and fragile self-image recur in the psychiatric assessments quoted. What bigger threat to your self-image than to present yourself as “female” and not be accepted, as such, by actual females. So much of the rage directed at women, from trans activists, seems driven by a recognition of this simple fact. The mere existence of natural women triggers a malevolent response. It seems simply being is interpreted as a threat and an act of confrontation. How dare we just exist as women.
There are so many layers to this societal shift that it is difficult to maintain focus on one aspect. In this case we have a relatively young male with a history of sexual offending from their early teens. He has been convicted of grooming and manipulating young males, for his own sexual gratification. The case indicates that this young man had also been sexually abused, prior to becoming a child sex offender himself. They have a history of self-harm, and vengeful behaviour, when their self-image is threatened . A clinician has diagnosed Narcissist Personality disorder. During their time in prison they adopted a female identity which would seem to add another layer of vulnerability to a fragile personality. We have already seen that the prisoner acts out against staff and prisoners when threatened. The Sexual Offender Treatment plans are not deemed suitable for the prisoner and finding a suitable therapeutic approach has been problematic. Treatment has therefore been significantly delayed. This has further rebounded on the prisoner because, without a risk reduction programme, they remain indefinitely detained. There is also a pending police investigation because the prisoner alleges a rape in the male estate. (At the time of this case). All of these things can be true. They are not, however, issues that can, or should, be resolved by handing over the problem to female prisoners and staff.
Placing prisoners with this profile (below) in the female estate forces women to co-habit with a high risk , narcissistic male, with a fragile sense of self and a need to control and dominate the environment in which they are based. If they are doing this in the male estate how much more vulnerable are the women going to be? How is putting a self-identified “woman”, who will not be read as “female”, in with women, going to help their self-image? What form might the “vengeful schemas” take on the women who don’t demonstrate, sufficient, acceptance of that “identity”?
How does a male feel like a woman?
This is a recurrent question to which it is difficult, to impossible, to achieve a coherent answer. This subject is littered with people who speak of “living as a woman” or “adopting a female role” but what does that mean? There is no answer ,I have seen, that doesn’t resort to circular reasoning and sexist stereotypes. This prisoner is no different. Their version of woman hood, and no I am not kidding, is as defined by the Spice Girls. This is a male fantasy about what makes a woman. These males display a unique version of mysogyny
Don’t let a man tell you, you can’t do something because you are a girl!
Not for the first time I quote Miranda Yardley who coined the term “refugees from masculinity”. I agree. Refugees from masculinity exist. It is still not the job of the female sex to run the Refugee camps. Reject the mantle of maleness. De-programme your male socialisation. You have my full support in this. Telling women their biological reality can be colonised and you lost me.
Girl Power was an empty slogan revolving around the mythical empowerment of hyper-sexualised women. This 👇
I don’t accept a man can tell me, a woman, that he, a man, has any right to pontificate on what makes a woman Less #GirlsLikeUs and more #JustWomen.